Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 8

Most studied artefact??
I have a concern about the last line of the Introduction, which currently states that "The shroud is one of the most studied artefacts in human history ... ". This is factually incorrect, as well as blatantly contradicted by the text of the article. Due to the Church’s policy of not allowing it to be studied, very few people have been close enough to do anything like a study. Compare this to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and thousands of other artefacts (Christian and otherwise) that are readily accessible to scientists. This source does not appear to be reliable at all. I think the sentence should be corrected to read: “The shroud is one of the most debated and controversial of the many Christian religious artefacts.” Wdford (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ironically, the Shroud is studied so much because there is no access to it, else 50 experts would have descended on it, studied it for a year and that would be it. Now, given that there is no access there are thousands of hypotheses.


 * And I would have thought that all the debates on this page alone would have shown that it is controevrsial... kidding. I have not counted how many studies were done on the Dead Sea Scrolls vs the Shroud, and even if we all go out and count them, that would not mean anything in Wikipedia, we would need a WP:Secondary source. There was a long discussion last month on WP:V to reinforce the statement that "Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability". So our own method of "determining truth" can not be used. We need to use WP:RS sources.


 * There are two statements there: "one of the most controversial artifacts in history" which comes from Meacham's survey paper, and is certainly a WP:RS source and not even subject to doubt, given that it says "one of the most" and is by an expert in the field. And intuitively, how many other controversial historical artifacts are there? The Holy Mantle of Muhammad? How many papers are there on that? So that statement is a solid WP:RS statement.


 * There is a second statement "one of the most studied artifacts in history". Thucyd added that I recall, so let us see what he says. But it is sourced to the Journal of National Institute of Standards and Technology, in a paper by Lloyd Currie who is a scholar, but a chemist. So the source is WP:RS, and I checked that the page numbers etc. are correct. But Thucyd also added that the statement was "considered as widely accepted" I do not know where that came from. It does not say "one of the most studied" so it is not claiming the top spot, yet that "widely accepted" qualification needs to be substantiated.


 * So of the two statements, the "one of the most controversial" is certainly valid as a WP:RS statement, but the "wide acceptance" of it as one of the most studied (in the footnote) has no source. So let us wait for Thucyd's comment about that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I do know that the shroud has been removed from its resting place a total of 18 times. But anyway, if anything, you can say that "the shroud is one of the most studied controversial artifacts in human history ..." or that "the shroud is one of the most controversial studied artifacts in human history ..."--if that would not come off too much as original research. Either way its not that sentence is not that big of a deal... but if it makes you feel better go ahead and do work to try to get rid of it; whatever floats your boat. COice6 (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two statements there, neither is WP:OR - they are both sourced to WP:RS sources. It is the question of the footnote, as I said. Let us wait a day or two for Thucyd. History2007 (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here am I :). In fact, the "widely accepted statement" is a direct quote from Currie's article, same page (200), you can read it if you follow the link. In my opinion, I think Currie and other shroudies are right: the Turin Shroud is the most studied artifact in human history. If you want to introduce a comparison with the Dead Sea Scrolls for example, the battery of scientific tests is less important (no blood tests, no forensic studies, no palynology(?), no dust samples(!), no interrogation about the image formation, etc. and the scientific research on the TS started at least 50 years before the discovery of the DSS). Another comparison, with Mona Lisa : no direct access to scientists, maybe the number of chemical tests is the same but I am not sure and to my knowledge it was never radiodated... Thucyd (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If that is a "direct quote from Currie" it is from a WP:RS source and usable. But it should probably be explained as such because when I first read it I thought it was a user comment not from the article. And the link goes to the journal, not the article. I had to fish around the site and in the end only found a summary of the article. If you have the exact link that would help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.Thucyd (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added a link to the NIST page, for I did not know what it was before this. History2007 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted a bit
I just removed the following information from the article:

''Four sets of holes arranged in four L-shaped patterns appear on the Lier shroud copy in 1516. ''

This may be all very true, but if you look to see where I took it from, you will observe that, up to this point in time, no shroud copy has been mentioned. So throwing in a sentence about how the shroud copy has little L-shaped marks on it is totally incomprehensible to your reader. You need to find the right place to put in, and then make a statement such as "These marks may be linked to the presence of patches on the Shroud of Turin" or some such.

I also turn around three factual statements that make much more sense when put in the order of Date, event, place, damage, repair than in the order of repair, event, date, place, damage.

Amandajm (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And the articles on the history of the Shroud and specially the article on the Edessa image are in need of help. I don't time to fix those now, but now that you are on this topic, if you want to donate time there, it will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How the Image was Formed
I thought this would add to the discussion. John Jackson, was a leader of the American delegation for STURP, has had FACE TIME on the Shroud, has reviewed the multiple natural theories about the Shroud and discarded them because none of them matched the unique characteristics of the Shroud. The following is interesting, in that he describes some of the unique characteristics that the Shroud has contained, after years of study. This demonstrates how difficult this subject area is.

Shroud Of Turin - John Jackson PhD. Talks About Image Formation http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=9B1EFJNU JimfromGTA (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A few interesting factoids: (1) all natural theories have been exhausted based on his research  and that of others, and (2) he is now looking towards more extreme causes of formation. John Jackson states that (3) the image appears to have been "baked on". He also states that it would appear that at the time of the "intense energy" the cloth appears to (4) fall through the man in the cloth. Intense energy formation is witnessed in the Bible with the transfiguration event of Jesus and his two disciples wherein Jesus is transfigured and becomes a radiant being of light. The burning bush of Moses is another event wherein radiant energy occurs when associated with a radiant being of light (Yahweh). Multiple stories of angels also tell us of radiant beings of light.

Interesting video: to listen to a STURP scientist as he explains the rationelle and evidence in his own words after decades of review of the evidence.

The Resurrection is an obvious conclusion of the current evidence.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am struggling to download the reference supplied about the conclusions of John Jackson, who has had FACE TIME on the Shroud, so I ask for clarity on a few points please:
 * When Jackson claims that “all natural theories have been exhausted”, did he include research on the use of a sheet of painted glass as well, or not?
 * He did not specify. He stated that he had reviewed all known natural cause theories done by himself and others.  All natural cause theories failed to meet the STURP criteria involving dynamic processes and chemical reactions.
 * When John Jackson states that “the image appears to have been baked on", did he consider that the sun shining on the fabric through a sheet of painted glass might achieve exactly that same effect?
 * Again, study the Shroud criteria. For instance, the shroud was wrapped around a body. The image was internal to the cloth, not external.  Jackson has studied the Shroud for decades.  He was a member of the original STURP research team.  He has access to ALL the evidence. He understands the 100 plus characteristics better than anyone.
 * When John Jackson states that "intense energy" was present at the formation of the image, did he consider that the sun is a ball of “intense energy”, which emits radiation in a range of spectra?
 * Again, the image is on an internal cloth surface beside a wrapped body. You need to get a better understanding of the Shroud evidence.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wdford (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it does not matter what Jackson says, given that the general scholarly agreement is that the Resurrection is a Christian belief, and no one has seen a non-Christian historical documents relating to it. As a side note (Muslims believe Jesus "will return from Heaven" but do not believe in his resurrection, so the Resurrection is very much a Christian belief. But in any case, religious beliefs aside, the statement "Resurrection is an obvious conclusion" can not be supported in general on historical grounds, and there is no scholarly agreement on it about the Shroud as well. That is a moot point really, not subject to scientific discussion, given that it is a purely religious issue. History2007 (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

History2007: John Jackson is an expert who has face time on the cloth, and has studied the Shroud in detail for decades. He is a professional researcher. He is a published scholar. John Jackson gives us a logical analysis of the evidence that has been found and is asserting that the Resurrection occurred because it "meets" the criteria. That is why I found him interesting.

Your response would be ok if it argued the Science evidence, or alternative hypothesis, consistent with evidence. Rather it argues "generalities" with a bias against a religious belief (that is founded in historical events, historical writings, archeology, physical evidence, and spiritual evidence). Further, the Scholarly input that you rest your case on ignores a class of documents by witnesses of the era (Christian writings), and I am sure does not consider John Jackson's input. I can arrive at any conclusion I want if I exclude important evidence. So again your bias shows.

Given that the preponderance of evidence indicates the Shroud is indeed Jesus' burial cloth, it comes at no surprise that the cloth contains evidence of the Resurrection. John Jackson, a published scholar and STURP researcher concludes the evidence is there that the Resurrection occurred and is recorded in the cloth. That's all.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)15:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Look: Shroud research is a ping pong game. For every scholar who believes X, there is one that believes "not X". The game continues, and the publishers and authors are the winners so far. I wonder how much Nickle and Wilson have made each.... History2007 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Shroud science has been a process of elimination. That's why the back and forth.  Jackson has an indepth perspective.  So he is now going past the "natural causes" that others are still trying to establish and failing because they must meet benchmarking evidentiary criteria (example the paint and glass theory above).
 * Please tell me the natural cause that meets the evidential criteria. And let Jackson know that he overlooked something. Look, I am amazed scientists have gotten this far.  Decades and still no natural cause explanation.  Years upon years of research by scholars, PhD's.  No natural cause answer.  Why?  Because there are roughly 100 characteristics that must be accounted for. Jackson concludes the obvious, given the 100 characteristics.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, Wikipedia does not work that way. What I think matters not. What you think matters not.... Remember the Edessa discussion above? Jackson is one voice, not the scholarly consensus and can not be asserted as the ultimate truth in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Concensus View: There is no natural cause of the image on the Shroud. Resurrection Theory Considered
More than Jackson agree that the Shroud's image can not be replicated by natural causes. According to Kevin Moran and Guili Fanti, who published a paper in April 2002, they summarize this fact with the following statements: "We know of no mechanism by which a human body could bring about at distance on the fibrils the chemical change that constitutes the TS (Turin Shroud) image" per Gonella. (page 7 of paper attached). "From a science point of view the body image is inexplicable". (page 7 of paper attached). Reference: http://avalonra.altervista.org/sections/03_Downloads/Medium_Support/La_Sacra_Sindone/Kevin%20Moran%20-%20Does%20the%20Shroud%20body%20image%20show%20any%20physical%20evidence%20of%20Resurrection.pdf

Note: History2007:  According to Moran, Fanti, Gonella, Jackson, Malantrucco, etc. this is the concensus view: No natural cause of the Image of the Shroud. Cause is inexplicable.

Therefore Resurrection theory is seriously considered by scholars. Scholarship Paper explains why.

For Wdford: included in this paper are various unique characteristics of the Shroud that any theory must pass. I thought you may be interested in the paper as it goes through various methods of reproduction that have been tried but failed. See pages 2 to 6. http://avalonra.altervista.org/sections/03_Downloads/Medium_Support/La_Sacra_Sindone/Kevin%20Moran%20-%20Does%20the%20Shroud%20body%20image%20show%20any%20physical%20evidence%20of%20Resurrection.pdf.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Jim, what Moran, Fanti, Gonella, Jackson, Malantrucco, etc. say is "we know of no mechanism" i.e. they can see a hole in every proposed forgery theory. That is well known: everyone and his brother has a theory about the image and every theory has been criticized and a hole therein suggested. That is the basis of the "most controversial" statement. Moran, Fanti, Gonella, Jackson, Malantrucco, etc. did not say "most scientists think the Shroud is based on Resurrection". Did they?


 * The leap from we know of no cause to it was resurrection is a huge leap. There was a time when people knew of no cause for phenomena exhibited by electromagnetic forces. Claiming at that time that all electromagnetic activity is the work of ghosts and spirits, however, would be a leap. There have been no explanations for many physical phenomena - and the whole basis of miracle declaration is that. There are people who recover from ailments all of a sudden, and the physicians say: "we know of no cause" for the recovery. But the physicians do not declare miracles, the Vatican does. And even they have witheld that judgement in this case. So the leap to a resurrection miracle is not a consensus among scientists. Do you have a WP:RS source that says: "most scientists think the Shroud image is based on a miracle"? If so, please present that. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * History2007: I said the concensus was that there were NO NATURAL CAUSES that they could determine.  The exact quote: "No natural cause of the Image of the Shroud." "Cause is inexplicable."


 * The paper presented concludes that there is NO information inconsistent with the image on the Shroud that would prevent the Resurrection being excluded from being considered. That means the Resurrection theory is "on the table".  Why?  Because the evidence surrounding the Shroud confirms the Biblical accounts both within the image (wounding details) and surrounding the image (type of cloth, pollen, flower images, etc.).  In fact, to date, the what, when, where, why, and who are all in agreeance with the Biblical accounts "in detail".  Given the consistency with Biblical account, a logical extension of this is to explore the "how" as described in the Bible, which is under examination.  Not a "leap of faith" but rather a continuity, given the evidence and documentation already found.JimfromGTA (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We should note that in the lede, the article quotes the editor of Nature: "the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling". So it already says that there is no scientific conclusion to image formation. And I agree that Resurrection is not excluded, but neither is any other supernatural phenomenon, be it a miracle by the spirit of John the Baptist, or any other. But that does not "prove" Resurrection as an answer, just as it does not prove the spirit of John the Baptist as the miracle originator, after the fact. Long and short of it: no explanation either way, i.e. a controversial artifact. And their "cause is inexplicable" statement means "cause is inexplicable at this point in time", obviously. Unless they have knowledge of the future of course. That would probably make money as a book, if you want to suggest that to Ian Wilson or someone: "The Shroud, looking 50 years ahead"... History2007 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * History2007, you are correct. New future evidence can always change perspective.  But actually, I am more interested in understanding the current open theories that meet the Shroud criteria.  I find discussing future, yet to be determined theories, a bit frustrating, personally.


 * Perhaps you would have a list of open theories under study that meet the Shroud criteria. That would be more helpful in aiding the discussion.


 * (1) Radiation Theory from Intense Light or Energy from within the body.
 * (2) Resurrection Theory: Impulse of Intense energy / light at time of body transforming (Jackson).
 * (3) Corona Discharge
 * (4) ?
 * What else is outstanding? JimfromGTA (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is already s pretty logical structure, which I think Thucyd developed:


 * There is a section: Hypotheses on image origin. It has a subsection "energy source" which discusses Corona, etc. so all the energy related theories, whatever they may be should go there.


 * The Resurrection theory, should go into the Miraculous image section.


 * There was new text added today about Da Vinci, which should most probably move under the Painting subsection, once it has scholarly sources added. There are scholarly sources for that beyond the TV.


 * So the structure is there already. As for what is missing, I am not aware of a major scientific topic that is missing. And again, they are all "saying this, saying that" with no final agreement among scholars, so no earth shaking difference to the final conclusion of the article: "everyone has a theory, but there is no winner. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

McCrone's analysis
Hey guys, I think there’s some information that is missing in the article, we should put, the results of Mark Anderson, he worked for McCrone when he was in the examination of the samples of STURP. He also disagree with McCrone. He said that McCrone was wrong and the material he found, was organic look here:

http://www.shroudstory.com/slides/slide70.html

and here

http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=p-n84sc4ayYC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Mark+Anderson,+McCrone&source=bl&ots=ae6II3PT6I&sig=qupJZAtUMH1Oco5LKHKdboMi7SM&hl=es&ei=7SzgToWwO8jUgQePpOziCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mark%20Anderson%2C%20McCrone&f=false

Also here in page 5:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3Y1g3WEvW3cJ:shroud.typepad.com/Shroud.pdf+Mark+Anderson,+McCrone&hl=es&gl=cr&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj7ZdJS00XFZx1QZkzw19BdUblFJe7AO-Y7R0N1DVVShwBH-DP4GjMrzQnLrxaLfG_T3q4rrFoiczrAazXe4p1jyyv-hyZXZteF-nNR9kmUSUziK_sGot4cG24Cw5D1cVkYrf3-&sig=AHIEtbTOFZzQg26vaWQA7y7W1Qq_QS_C7w

--Lupo supo (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So what is the sentence you are suggesting and what is the exact WP:RS reference for it?


 * Well in the part of Blood stains, we could put something like: Mark Anderson, who worked for Walter McCrone, also examined the samples. He used Ramon Laser Spectrometry in order to do it, unlike McCrone, he declared that the material had acted like an organic phase not like a pigment.
 * And you ask for the WP : RS, man, I am giving you 3, one of them is the book of Raymond Rogers, who was a STURP member.--Lupo supo (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I also saw that there is this phrase in the part of “Flowers and pollen”, it says:


 * “Skeptics also argue that Max Frei had previously been duped in his examination of the Hitler Diaries and that he may have also been duped in this case, or may have introduced the pollens himself.”


 * If we are going to put the mistakes that Max Frei have committed, then why don’t we also put the mistakes of Walter McCrone.
 * Read this: http://articles.latimes.com/1997/dec/06/news/mn-61112 Also this : http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/access/18373418.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Oct+15%2C+1997&author=Tom+Mashberg&pub=Boston+Herald&edition=&startpage=004&desc=Art+expert+says+paint+chips+are+Rembrandt%27s+-+Analysis+could+aid+return+of+Gardner+paintings


 * McCrone had also committed mistakes, he said :"100 percent unadulterated Rembrandt." and it was actually a fake, so I think that if we are going to be neutral here, we should also put the mistakes that McCrone has done.--Lupo supo (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, given the controversial nature of the topic, these need to be added with proper references "man". Please see that I found 3 separate sources, and added it with those, in a way that can not be objected to - e.g. I established Anderson's qualifications by his paper on the topic, in the page on Ramon spectroscopy (which was not mentioned before), if you click below. The fact that Anderson worked on the Shroud is now established without Rogers, or Porter's statements. I also built a page for the journal that related to the general article Anderson wrote on the topic, so it is clear where it was. These things take work, if they are to last in Wikipedia without undue objection. In any case, thanks for your suggestion. Your point was valid, so please do watch the page and make suggestions. History2007 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And what about the mistakes of Walter McCrone???, we should add that too. Since there is written that Max Frei had committed a mistake with the Hitler’s Diaries, then why don’t we put that McCrone also committed a mistake with the paint of Rembrant in the museum??. Greetings--Lupo supo (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source that "ties" McCrone's mistakes to his Shroud analysis. In the case of Frei people like Joe Nickle have related the two. If it is just added that McCrone made a mistake elsewhere, some source needs to say that with the word "Shroud" in it as a disqualification of McCrone, else it begins to open the door to WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well Joe Nickell is an English teacher, not a scientific, he has never been in Turin, he has never examined the samples of the shroud and he writes his statements in “skeptical inquirer”, a magazine of opinions, not a scientific magazine, so what he says, has pretty much the same relevance of what I say, so I don’t see your point. And by the way, I saw the edition you did, and I think you should put “Mark Anderson who was working for McCrone analyzed the Shroud samples in 1980…” instead of: “Mark Anderson who was working with McCrone analyzed the Shroud samples in 1980…”, because he actually was working for him not with him. Greetings.--Lupo supo (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Anderson was working "for" McCrone, as confirmed here. As for Joe Nickell, please see further above in the talk archives here. Nickell has no formal education regarding the Shroud at all, but is a well selling book author, as is Mark Antonocci. So given his readership, he can be quoted in Wikipedia, as a non-expert. If Mark Antonocci or Ian Wilson write a book next week that says "McCrone was incompetent because he made errors elsewhere" then that can be included. By the way, regardless of his lack of qualifications Nickell went to Turin and had his picture taken next to the closed container of the Shroud. Not that it proves anything, but FYI. History2007 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I accept what you say, I’m going to try to see if there’s any famous person who has told the mistakes of McCrone. By the other side, I would like to ask you, how I can use the thing, in which you find papers. I mean I saw you put this reference : Materials evaluation, Volume 40, Issues 1-5, 1980, Page 630 (as a reference for Anderson), so how can I look for it or any other material, how does it work, because I have been trying to search some other papers of some other people but  I don't know how to look for them. I hope you can help me.Greetings --Lupo supo (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just used Google search, and I also used Google books, which I saw you also used. The issue is using the right terms, and that just takes practice. By the way, the year was 1982 for the Volume 40, so I fixed that now. It is all out there, it is a question of searching the right terms. History2007 (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But, what did you put on google, cause I wrote : "Materials evaluation, Volume 40, Issues 1-5, 1982, Page 630" on google and I didn't found the article. Greetings--Lupo supo (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not remember the exact terms, maybe something like this: "Mark Anderson of McCrone Research Institute gave a presentation on the controversial Holy Shroud of Turin. He elaborated on some of the microscopic and microanalytical techniques used to examine the Shroud." History2007 (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooh I see, but could you read the article?? or you didn’t .Greetings --Lupo supo (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you click on the link you get a small window on the article. There are ways to by pass that, but not to be discussed in public. However, that article did not say anything about what Anderson said, and the reference was brief and was used here only to doublecheck the fact that he was working at McCrone's company and was working on the Shroud microscopy as Rogers stated. That was all. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, well too shame, I wanted to read the article. I saw a documentary some years ago, and they said that Anderson tried to publish his analyses in the microscope, but McCrone tried to hide his results, so I haven’t found his studies yet. But anyway, thank you so much for your help. Greetings --Lupo supo (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, but please do watch this page and make further comments as time goes on. Your initial comment provided new info that was not in the article. History2007 (talk)

You want me to tell you more?? Well I also think we should talk more about Benford-Marino and Raymond Rogers’s analysis (I think you already know, what I am talking about) and we can add some other information like:

''“In 2008, Christopher Ramsey, director of the Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Department of the University of Oxford, conducted a study to determine the date of re-creation of the Shroud of Turin. The results gave no clear answer, because the analysis of some samples indicated in the Middle Ages, and the other at the time of the first century BC to first century AD (which may indicate contamination of the fabric that comes from the century first of the subsequent repair of the fabric)”''

You can read about it here: http://www.express.bydgoski.pl/look/article.tpl?IdLanguage=17&IdPublication=2&NrArticle=134394&NrIssue=1180&NrSection=80&IdTag=831 It is in polish, but you can used Google translator.

We should also add about Mr Hall and Mr. South, they both determine in 1988, that the sample used for the C-14 was contaminated. You can read this http://www.sindone.info/TEXTILE.PDF

And I saw in the part of “Recent developments”, and it says:

''“In December 2010 Professor Timothy Jull, editor of Radiocarbon, coauthored an article with a textile expert in this peer-reviewed journal.They analyzed an unknown sample of 1988 and concluded that they found no evidence of a repair. However this article was strongly criticized, even by traditional skeptics.”'' We should also add the review of Mark Oxley, look here: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/oxley.pdf

And I’ll see what else I think is important. Greetings.--Lupo supo (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

List of image formation theories
Perhaps you would have a list of open theories under study that meet the Shroud criteria. That would be more helpful in aiding the discussion.


 * (1) Radiation Theory from Intense Light or Energy from within the body.
 * (2) Resurrection Theory: Impulse of Intense energy / light at time of body transforming (Jackson).
 * (3) Corona Discharge
 * (4) ?

What else is outstanding? JimfromGTA (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is already s pretty logical structure, which I think Thucyd developed:


 * There is a section: Hypotheses on image origin. It has a subsection "energy source" which discusses Corona, etc. so all the energy related theories, whatever they may be should go there.


 * The Resurrection theory, should go into the Miraculous image section.


 * There was new text added today about Da Vinci, which should most probably move under the Painting subsection, once it has scholarly sources added. There are scholarly sources for that beyond the TV.


 * So the structure is there already. As for what is missing, I am not aware of a major scientific topic that is missing. And again, they are all "saying this, saying that" with no final agreement among scholars, so no earth shaking difference to the final conclusion of the article: "everyone has a theory, but there is no winner. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I copied that from above. I think some of the material from what is/was "recent developments" from 2009 which are no longer recent should merge into that structure. The 2010 item is probably still recent, but the 2009 not any more.


 * And now that many angles on Antonocci's theory have been discussed by Jim, how about adding a paragraph about that theory in the religious views section, under Miraculous image formation. But I do not see how that can go into the scientific section.


 * That way the recent section does not look dated. History2007 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I can suggest a few more possible image formation theories, of roughly equal standing to the above:
 * 4. created by a bored alien from a visiting UFO, while waiting for a connecting flight;
 * 5. malicious prank by the Easter Bunny, who was upset because the Romans were usurping her long-standing pagan fertility festival for their own political ends;
 * 6. practice exercise by Gandalf the Great, while still a junior student at wizard academy.
 * Apart from Easter Bunny and Gandalf The Great, whom both were always considered fictional characters, the Alien Intervention (AI) theory should be treated seriously if supernatural miracle is to be. After all, probability of existence of other civilizations in so large Universe is quite high and was never discarded by the scientists (even more, serious scientific institutions run some programs like SETI which are meant to intercept some evidence of Alien existence). The best proof of existence of sentient beings in the Universe is our own existence. So, if resurrection is to be taken seriously, why not take into account an idea that it really happened, as a kind of Alien experiment (eg. with inter-breeding of two species: their own and ours and/or with immortality). Furthermore, this would provide some credibility for events like ascension; why in the Universe would a Supernatural Being ascend "upwards into heaven"? On the other hand, such a course would be quite obvious for an alien (or, be it, human from the future) ship taking off the Earth. The same with virgin birth (an in-vitro experiment done with the use of nanobots or other media unobservable in the Biblical times), angelic revelation for Mary (holographic projection with voice from a space ship),alleged radiation from the Holy Grail, Spear of Destiny or the place in Jerusalem where the fire is told to self-ignite once a year, etc. Or hey, maybe there were no aliens in person, but the whole experiment with resurrection was administered and managed with the use of some remotely-controlled nanobots? At least existence of nanobots is not only probable and possible, it is a question of few incoming decades we humans will be constructing our own.
 * Also, if we are to take resurrection into account as a viable explanation of The Shroud mystery, we should also not deny the place for Erich von Daeniken's theories as an explanation for some archeological puzzles, eg. of construction and destination of Inca, Maya and Egyptian pyramids, shapes of some ritual figurines (which seem to wear helmets with pipes, stand or sit at some kind of pulpit), etc. Critto (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critto (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All of these have equal scientific validity with the three options already on the list. My money is on option 5 above. Wdford (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wdford. Nice try.  It's obvious you didn't read the paper I attached in the previous section about Shroud evidence and criteria. I was trying to get a focus on outstanding theories.  Would have preferred an serious update from the skeptical part of the house.  I guess skeptics have no constructive suggestions to add at this time. JimfromGTA (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Jim, the Shroud discussions at all these conferences are at times surrogate debates about the existence of God. So you must accept that and know that the Resurrection theory (and all miracle based theories) assume a belief in God - and that is not a universal belief. So one must accept that and not expect an immediate agreement on all sides. History2007 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have long ago discovered the inconsistencies of the policies and the politics used in composition of this article. You stated before, scholarly consensus was important. Now you include disproven painting theory and artwork theory.    According to researchers, a body with initial signs of rigor mortis existed.  Painting and artwork theories are incorrect. So it's obvious, Wikipedia helps to perpetuate inaccuracies.

Recommend you include Wdford's Easter Bunny and Gandalf theories below. They are entertaining and add color. After all, according to Wikipedia's approach, no need to discipline oneself to database of 30 years of evidence or meet evidentiary criteria. JimfromGTA (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

History2007: Back to the list. Many of the theories (such as painting) have been logically excluded from the list based on known evidence (see my 2002 scholars paper above). I was trying to get a focus on "open items" that meet the Shroud evidentiary criteria. I listed three that are under scholarly discussion. Are there any others?JimfromGTA (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually some people think painting is rejected, but not everyone. There are those who argue it is a painting, and write papers about it. Not mentioning those views would be against Wiki-policy. They are all arguing with each other, as you know and that should be mentioned. History2007 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Jim, I thought that you had included the Moran article reference as an attempt at levity.
 * This Moran moron has postulated that the image was caused by energy particles travelling faster than light speed, and travelling through linen fibres as though they were fibre-optic strands – both of which are currently considered by the vast --Lupo supo (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)majority of serious scientists to be physically impossible. Compared to those two suggestions, my Easter Bunny theory is looking very plausible indeed. Moran was debunked by Rogers himself, as I believe I have pointed out previously.
 * Moran does not attempt to debunk the mechanism of sunlight shining onto a cloth soaked in vinegar, through a long sheet of glass onto which the image had been painted or dyed. Perhaps his "omission" is telling us something about that particular "mechanism"? However, it is interesting that, towards the end of page 5, Moran notes that light containing UV, such as sunlight, will indeed cause the “oxidation and dehydration” reaction which he believes produced the image. He also notes that the reaction is accelerated by “wetting” the cloth in an aloe solution, although he does not admit that any mild acid (such as a common vinegar solution) would achieve exactly the same effect. (PS: How much FACE TIME did Moran have with the Shroud?)
 * The list of possible “mechanisms” thusfar looks as follows:
 * Radiation Theory from Intense Light or Energy from within the body. [No science exists to show that corpses ever emit intense light, or that such lights are capable of creating images on cloth.]
 * Resurrection Theory: Impulse of Intense energy / light at time of body transforming. [No science exists to show that corpses can resurrect, or that such resurrections generate impulses of intense energies or lights, or that such energies/lights are capable of creating images on cloth.]
 * Corona Discharge. [No science exists to show that corpses ever emit corona discharges, or that corona discharges are capable of creating images on cloth.]
 * Created by an alien. [Any being with the technology to cross inter-stellar space could easily create an image on a cloth, and all sentient beings engage in practical jokes.]
 * Created by the Easter Bunny. [Had the motive and opportunity - religious turf wars have inspired some terrible atrocities over the millennia. Also had the method - any creature with the magical ability to lay chocolate eggs could whip up a forged religious relic in no time.]
 * Created by Gandalf the Great. [There are more copies of manuscripts in existence which mention Gandalf than there are manuscripts which mention Jesus, so Gandalf is undoubtedly a real historical figure. Undoubtedly he also possessed the technical capability. However no evidence exists of travel between New Zealand and the Mediterranean up to the 1300’s].
 * Created by a medieval forger, using the mechanism of sunlight shining onto a cloth soaked in vinegar, through a long sheet of glass onto which the image had been painted or dyed. [This is technically possible, it’s cheaply and easily done, and the mechanism is easily discoverable by chance. The motive was greed – relics were very big business in them days. A wealthy senior crusader would have the means and the opportunity as well. Being soaked in vinegar would strip off the carbohydrate layer, and the presence of Jerusalem dust and pollens (assuming they really were present) could be easily explained by a pious subsequent owner taking the Shroud along on an Easter Pilgrimage to Jerusalem.]
 * Does anybody have more "theories" to add to the list? Wdford (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, Rogers was involved in the research for 30 years.  But after 30 years, he failed to deliver.  All he had to do was demonstrate one cause. So his criticism is a little "hollow", don't you think? Where's his demonstrated "cause" on the list. I would love to add it on.

Your list is entertaining. LOL. Unaware of evidence that would support your alien, Easter Bunny, or Gandair theory. You seem to like to repeat the painting through the glass theory a lot, even though the Shroud criteria doesn't support. So nay to that one as well. At least you did your best.JimfromGTA (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually the painting and acid pigmetation are two different theories Jim. They both claim forgery, but are advocated by different people, based on different techniques. This is not a two sided debate, it is a many sided debate. Even those who claim authenticity argue among themselves and those who claim forgery argue among themselves. It is the reverse of Everyone Says I Love You. This script is called Everyone says I disagree with you. History2007 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

History2007: The question is not "theory" but rather how does the theory pass or fail against the "known" evidence. At least I tried to get to a debate about consistency to theory and evidential criteria. And tried to get an underlying list of theories that are at least consistent to the criteria.

Just add to the list and support with a statement as to how it passes the evidence criteria (ie. accounts for a body, etc.). Then discuss based on meeting evidential criteria. Your painting theory fails. Acid pigmentation, if it accounts for a body, and produces the image effects, without distorting the chemistry, should be added to the list. It's a simple exercise really.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Painting theory and Acid pigmentation are not "mine". I did not publish them. They are published by various people out there, and hence need to be included per Wiki-policy as long as they come from WP:RS sources. What I think matters not. What you think matters not.. etc. History2007 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The resurrection theory also fails, at the very first hurdle, namely "Is this method even possible in terms of the accepted laws of science?" If you need to “assume” a Divine Miracle, then we might just so easily “assume” an Alien Prankster or a Vengeful Easter Bunny. Here's an idea to actually improve the article - create a table listing the "100 characteristics" - with WP:RS references on each characteristic, obviously. Create a column for each "theory" - the natural corpse imprint, the forgery using paint, the forgery using rubbing, the forgery using a photo-image, the resurrection theory and the alien prankster, etc. We can always add more columns later. Then we populate the table by noting whether and how each theory meets each criterion. The reader will be able to run their eye down the columns, and obtain a summary of each theory at a glance. This will be useful, yes? Wdford (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, every theory fails in the eyes of some beholder. But I think we have all said that 1,000 times now: "everyone and his brother has a theory" and "everyone else thinks it has holes and fails". The Resurrection theory can not go in the science section and should go in the religion section. Regarding the table, that would most probably give rise to WP:OR objections (and perhaps rightly so), and given the unending discussion we have here, adding that will open WP:OR discussions that will make us all get to be 95 years old by the time the debates end, or we all die of old age. History2007 (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you read any of the papers I presented above. Many serious researchers have tried the natural theories and failed. What was observed has been that the image is baked on. This suggests an intense energy was involved. Further, there is no putrification. This means the body was present under the shroud for less than 40 hours. Thus, the conclusion, from a strickly logic and evidence point of view is some sort of intense energy caused the "baking" while any longer term theories involving extensive exposure such as sun light can be eliminated because of the short duration. Radiation, Resurrection (like Transfiguration), and Corona Discharge all would cause a "baked on" effect.

Are these explanations rationalle and within the realm of human experience: (1) Radiation occurs in nature constantly. (2) people have observed "intense light" during spiritual events, so intense light during a Resurrection event similar to the Transfiguration is believable. I have talked with people having "bright intense light" experience. These experiences, while rare, occur in many people's lives. eg. http://www.spiritual-experiences.com/real-spiritual-story.php?story=993
 * this is really interesting and privately, I don't think this can't be real. I agree the Universe may be more complicated than we think, eg. what is considered an "astral" world may actually reside in extra dimensions and belong to the superstring phenomena. The problem is, we have absolutely NO WAY of proving this, or even to pen down a reliable theory, as can be done in the case of Superstrings (eg. M-Theory), Grand Unification Theory, etc. Therefore it doesn't belong to the realm of Science, which tries - for better or worse - to explain ALL phenomena using naturalistic models. Therefore, being not totally prejudiced towards the Supernatural, and still willing to stay loyal to the Science and Scientific Method, I can't account such explanations among encyclopedic theories. Well, this doesn't mean resurrection shouldn't be mentioned here, as many people believe it happened and that it is the best explanation for the Shroud image formation. However, it shouldn't be counted among scientific explanations, only as a religious voice in the debate; the fact it should be reported as occuring in the debate doesn't mean it should be given any credibility. On the other hand, Wikipedia is NOT a site to disprove religious dogma or beliefs. It is an Encyclopedia, not a "militant atheist" group. Therefore, religious views should be respected here, be it Christian, neo-Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim ones. What should not be done, is mixing of religious beliefs and science. And while Resurrection does NOT belong to the scientific worldview, it perfectly belongs to the religious one (not only Christian, to mind). Remembering about this, we can have an article which respects both reliability of Science and religious freedom.

(3) Electrical discharge across electrical wires (corona discharge) is observed with practically every thunder storm.
 * corona discharge/uv blink is not the same as miraculous image formation, so please don't blend these two things. There are, or can be, valid naturalistic explanations for each of these sources, even if they are unknown to contemporary scholars. For example, corona discharge could have been caused by radon emission from the rocks (especially that some kind of earthquake is reported in the New Testament during the Crucifixion, and it is known radon is being released in such casses) or lightning that hit a sepulchre (and caused a havoc of static electricity inside). At least one paper about CD theory does mention such an explanation, though its author (Fanti?) seem to lean towards supernatural source. Also, the "alien experiment" I mentioned as an idea could possibly account for some energy source, though it probably hasn't been debated by scholars, who seem to be divided into the camps of "naturalists" and "supernaturalists".

Besides, I don't understand why so many religious people pay so much attention at the miracles. Man, God, Spirit, Alien or anybody else, Jesus was a wonderful person, who brought the ideas held previously by some mystics and philosophers to the common man: freedom, respect for each other, brotherly love of another man or woman regardless of the class divisions (which was considered immoral by the Pharisees, who wanted to maintain a strict social hierarchy), inclination to forgive rather than to avenge; he gave a spark of dignity to the people who were loathed and scorned in his times, as slaves, poorest free servants, craftsmen and farmers, etc. Why not stick to these values, which form a good basis for a religion, instead of institing on the supernatural events?

Critto (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So, what was that about science?

Now, the theories I presented are scholar based. They are represented by researchers with decades of experience. You have references above. My selection of open theories was based on these notions and are consistent with the evidence.

Forget the debate for a moment. And your own personal hang ups about religion.

Just answer the simple question: What are your items to add to a  list of theories that are currently open that meet the criteria of the Shroud evidence? If you have none, state none. Else, add to the list. Simple question. I'm looking for a simple answer.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me put it this way. In Wikipedia, what I think matters not, what you think maters not. We can only summarize WP:RS sources. And the final situation here is: "no general agreement among scholars" on image formation. But give me a day and I will try to come up with the list of theories, out there subject to WP:RS criteria. History2007 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * History2007: It is a useless exercise to repeat "discarded" theories that fail to meet the evidence criteria gathered over 30 years.  Just the short list where researchers are exploring "open questions" that are based on actual evidence hypothesis. Thanks.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We can not be the judges who decide what has been discredited, unless there are WP:RS sources that say "there is general scholarly agreement" about that. There are scholars who think painting is discredited, but there are also scholars who still maintain it is a painting. Both need to be mentioned per WP:NPOV. History2007 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rogers in his paper rubbished the idea that "intense" radiation was involved, or that coronas were involved, on the basis of the "100 characteristics". So, a proper scientist who had FACE TIME made a detailed study of the intense radiation theory and said that, from a strictly logic and evidence point of view, it is definitely NOT how the Shroud image was made. The "intense radiation theory" is thus now also a "discarded theory", because it fails to meet the "100 characteristics". Is that simple enough for you?


 * John Jackson, American leader of STURP with facetime, Phd, and 30 years of experience disagrees.  Video link supporting his position is above.  Why don't you watch the video.  Stated the baked on effect.  Therefore two experts with different logical opinions and perspectives.  Its not black and white. Please provide reference to detail.  JimfromGTA (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: Rogers believes the image was caused by a chemical reaction, common in cooking, called a Maillard reaction. This is a browning effect which happens where carbohydrates and amino acids mix and are then "baked" by external heat. Apparently this hypothesis meets all the "characteristics". He is confident the carbs came from the starch used in production of the fabric, that the amino acids may well have come from human sweat, and that the heat came from the decomposition of the body. However he can't explain the fact that the Maillard gases seemingly rose and sank vertically and without any sideways distortion onto the cloth.


 * Again, please provide reference. Looks like Rogers hasn't answered the natural cause question either.  I would love to hear the debate between Rogers and Jackson.  Would be interesting.  Add Maillard to the list of outstanding theories.JimfromGTA (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * PPS: Perhaps the forger sprayed the cloth with milk instead of vinegar, and the sun baking through a painted sheet of glass heated the mixture unevenly (due to the shadowing of the paint) and thus caused the Maillard reactions to progress at different speeds on different areas of the cloth. Once the cloth was thoroughly washed (the stench of sour milk will drive away the most ardent pilgrim) the reaction stops, thereby fixing the image onto the cloth. This process is also easily discovered by chance - one might spill milk on a table-cloth as easily as one might spill vinegar. I think we are definitely closing in on the forger’s technique. Wdford (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nah. Not yet re: forgery.  You forgot the "body" again.  30 year veteran researchers, Rogers and Jackson, recognize a body but you don't.  I think the researchers are convinced there was a body.  So you need to add to your theory a cruxified corpse that is in the initial stages of rigormotis to your theory.  And remained under the cloth for less than 40 hours. So the reaction has a time limit. And other stuff.JimfromGTA (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wdford: Finally, a debate based on recognizing consistency to evidence.  Appreciated the input.  Please provide references re: Rogers.  ThanksJimfromGTA (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim. The Rogers reference is from a paper you have cited before yourself, at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf. See pages 10 and 11 for the gist of his comments on intense radiation - also elsewhere. I can't seem to access that godtube video, if that is the one you refer to here re Jackson - do you not have a reference to a document perhaps? Will respond further later. Wdford (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wdford: I tried a Google search but http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=9B1EFJNU is the only location for "How the Image was Formed".  A must view.  You might want to access same on another computer.

You might also find the following link interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmYuI1qJMRU. This video shows you why a body existed under the cloth. Called: "How the Shroud wrapped the body". Jackson demonstrates with a copy of the cloth on a 3D body.JimfromGTA (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume your comment is meant for Jim. But I think you guys should not get worked up on this. This issue is controversial enough that it is not going to be decided here or any of the conferences any time soon. People will just write more papers. But if you and Jim get together you could probably publish a book together based on this public domain talk page (Title: The Shroud debate). Do send me 10% of the royalties, please. History2007 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

@History2007 I wrote a message in McCrone's analysis and I think you haven't seen it.--Lupo supo (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will respond there. In fact the Ramsey item used to be in the page, but somehow went to Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin. So please look at that page too. Then we have to look into those others. Let us do these over the next few days. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So far the outstanding list I have for image formation is:

(a) Intense energy: (1) Radiation (Jackson and others) (2) Resurrection (see Jackson, and others) (3) Corona discharge (see Article)

(b) chemical (1) Malliard chemical reaction (Rogers paper) (2) ????

Please add your items with appropriate reference to theory that is consistent with Shroud criteria. JimfromGTA (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But which are missing from the article now? Mailard is there, Corona is there, etc. refs 126 to 131, painting is there, etc. There is need for another Jackson reference, but then which others are missing? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So in your mind, the only open theories that are consistent with Shroud evidence criteria are: a)1,2,3, and b)1 above.  Painting has been disqualified numerous times by professional researchers. Good for the history books, but not an open theory unless the STURP crew were fraudulent (dozens of scientists). JimfromGTA (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me say it this way: it is not "my mind" or "your mind" that matters but WP:RS references. There are people in the 21st century who still say it is a painting, and that the STURP people were mistaken. Neither you nor myself can judge and select what is "true". I suggest a reading of WP:V please. Wikipedia is not about truth as that page says. History2007 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Flat earth society still exists, too. I'm getting to understand Wikipedia's approach: Doesn't matter what 30 years of evidence gathering and science says, just as long as someone believes it.

So the short list of open theories relative to Shroud evidence criteria remains:

(a) Intense energy: (1) Radiation (Jackson and others) (2) Resurrection (see Jackson, and others) (3) Corona discharge (see Article)

(b) chemical (1) Malliard chemical reaction (Rogers paper)

Any more? JimfromGTA (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What does "open" mean? And of course painting and acid pigmentation are in the running., as is the case of a natural body. But your statement about Wikipedi's approach must also include WP:Fringe that excludes theories such as those Vinnie posted a few times. WP:V and WP:Fringe balance each other. History2007 (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Open means, no one has proven it wrong and therefore open. "baked on effect" described in Jackson video is why intense energy (ie. energy flash / pulsation) is included. Chemical included because "baked on" effect can arise from chemical reaction as well.  These do not contradict existing characteristics of the Shroud and therefore consistent with Shroud evidence criteria.


 * Pigment has been discounted many many times because 14 tests say blood exists, lack of physical "penetration" by brush stroke painting, etc., visual imspection determines "real body anatomy", and precision and that the image that the shroud is made up of is NOT a painting.


 * Acid should be included, if you can provide reference. To be included, the image must match and can not change the nature of the surface chemistry. Further, image must be complete within 40 hours of application. Thought "acid" came from Rogers and Malliard theory was an overlap. But you didn't add to the list and I am unfamiliar.

So any more?JimfromGTA (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the "no one has proven it wrong" assumes that scholarly consensus is bypassed. Many people think they have proven X wrong, only for someone else to argue in favor of X. So unless there is a WP:RS review article then "no one" can not be used, for we would in effect act as a review source, contrary to WP:OR. Those are the Wiki-rules, not mine. History2007 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, Rogers has conclusively declared that "intense radiation"/corona discharges are DEFINITELY NOT consistent with the evidence, because such an energy burst would have damaged the fibres in a way which is clearly not apparent in the evidence. Therefore, anything to do with “intense” radiation of any kind must be treated as the painting theory is treated – i.e. its contrary to the evidence, it does not meet the “100 characteristics” and its therefore conclusively disproven. Either we take intense radiation and corona discharge off the list, or we add painting on – we need to be consistent here.
 * I would be interested in hearing Jackson's response to Roger's criticism. Seems that degrees of radiation intensity is involved, as well as positioning of source.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting though, the theory of the image being caused by sunlight shining through a plate of glass is still on the table, as it requires the “slow radiation” of sunlight, which both Rogers and Moran agree is consistent with the evidence. Wdford (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind there is a 40 hour limit and a body exists.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless there are "review articles" that say most scholars dismiss painting and radiation neither can be excluded from Wikipedia. Our own reading of Rogers can not be used to determine the veracity of the findings. And from a practical point of view unless both of these are mentioned, there will even be longer debates in 6 months when someone thinks the article is incomplete. History2007 (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree we should include both. However we should also mention that "Scientist A" says painting is not consistent with the evidence, and that "Scientist B" says that intense radiation events are not consistent with the evidence either. “Scientist B” is Rogers, whose work was considered to be credible enough that his “peer-reviewed article” is used to undermine the C14 dating, so presumably we should include him here with equal weight. Furthermore, I have yet to see any work from a credible scientist that says the intense radiation theory IS consistent with the evidence. The only proponent I have seen so far is Moran, who thinks light can travel faster than light-speed and that light can travel up fibres, which puts him in the same category as Nickel (although Nickel at least sticks to the laws of physics).
 * PS: Rogers does not “prove” that the C14 is wrong, he merely points out that it “might” be wrong. He bases this on some fibres that were taken from “near” the C14 sample, even though the provenance of those fibres is not at all assured to begin with, and he offers a photo that he claims indicates the sampled area is a different thickness to the rest of the shroud – although again inconclusively. Based on this, the C14 is still on the table too.


 * 3 sets of people did the research. Not just Rogers.  C14 is NOT on the table.  You have to go into the detail to understand.  You are still "jumping" at the conclusion without seeing all the detail.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * PPS: I have now been able to watch the Jackson video on youtube, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmYuI1qJMRU . As expected, he does not offer any "evidence" that a body was actually needed to make the image - he merely points out that the image is anatomically accurate, and that the bloodstains are correctly positioned. Since any decent forger would have gone to some trouble to ensure that the image was anatomically consistent, this doesn't add anything to the debate. Wdford (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wdford: Nah to the forgery. What Jackson presented was the fact that the image was formed around a body.  He used a model to demonstrate this. There is other evidence that supports the body conclusion, that you have not looked at.  Researchers who actually worked with the Shroud believe that there was a body.  However, you now twist Jackson's evidence to arrive back at your forgery theory.  Your forgery theory is just another "imaginative" hypothetical.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We do not need to invent our own rules about the inclusion criteria, they are already Wikipolicies. If what "Scientist A" says or "Scientist B" says are in WP:RS sources they should go in per WP:NPOV, else can not come in. The policies are already there. History2007 (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyway, there was a big unsourced da Vinci item and I found a source for it and merged it into the camera obscura section. And the acid pigmentation is there now by just a simple reshuffle from the "not so new ay more" development section. Apart from Resurrection and another Jackson reference is anything else missing? Mailard is there, corona is there, etc. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Wdford's Roger's comment just shortlisted the Shroud consistent criteria theories down to:


 * Energy: 1) Resurrection
 * Chemical: 2) Maillard.

Note: There is no record of "spiritual" bright light, which is intense, damaging it's environment. Radiation has, depending on intensity. Corona discharge does. Jackson supports Resurrection. Rogers, chemical. 30 years of expert researcher experience, in a nutshell. Fascinating.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, but Maillard is already in the article. And so is the energy source. So which theory is missing a mention? But Jim does Antonocci also have a "purely miraculous" theory that does not involve physics and just says it was a miracle of some type? History2007 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Moran's article on Resurrection is missing. He provides a good summary of criteria analysis based on evidence gathered to date. And provides some of the linkage of a Resurrection theory to the criteria. So his article is rather informative because it is a good summary.

Jackson supports Resurrection in part because of the energy residue theory and the cloth collapse theory of image formation, in part based on Dr. Lavoie's work. The cloth collaspe theory accounts for blood spots on hair area as well as other minute criteria. Antonocci talks of the "Historical Consistent" theory based on Historical documents (Bible) that support Resurrection and logic / evidence is in existance that supports logic of this theory.

You call it a miracle. I call it a spiritual manifestation event. (eg. people see ghosts, which is another type of spiritual manifestation event). If you were to talk with people who experienced spiritual "intense light", you would describe it as such, except of course those that have a vision. They describe it as a vision.

Beyond physics. Doubtful. Just another level of the universe we live in that many have not experienced. (can't see electricity, heat, nor atomic structure either. They are all "deduced" through experience.) For instance, I experience the spiritual presence of God via a presence of "peace" on numerous occasions. (this sense of "peace" is a common Christian experience). In the past I have experienced the presence of the dead (ghosts) via a presence of "coldness" like death (twice). Both death situations were confirmed independantly by 3rd parties. Both types of events are spiritual manifestations. Not talked about especially by skeptics because they deliberately block spiritual manifestation.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Think of the spiritual as energy with personality. Spirits can manefest themselves or appear invisible. Energy manefests itself or appears invisible. The presence of energy can be sensed. The presence of spiritual can be sensed. All are subject to laws of physics that are more to do with energy than physical objects which involve primarily matter. Hope this explanation helps. JimfromGTA (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Two points:


 * So Moran is the only missing reference? Jackson is there. Right? What is the exact citation for Moran, the article title and possible link? I am beginning to lose track of this talk page now... approaching infinity...


 * Regarding "Think of the spiritual as energy ", sorry, this is Wikipedia: Thinking is not allowed. We can only summarize references. In time, you will see that there are 3 universes: the real world, the supernatural and the Wikiuniverse, somewhere between the two... kidding.


 * Anyway the Moran reference will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Moran reference: (from above) More than Jackson agree that the Shroud's image can not be replicated by natural causes. According to Kevin Moran and Guili Fanti, who published a paper in April 2002, they summarize this fact with the following statements: "We know of no mechanism by which a human body could bring about at distance on the fibrils the chemical change that constitutes the TS (Turin Shroud) image" per Gonella. (page 7 of paper attached). "From a science point of view the body image is inexplicable". (page 7 of paper attached). Reference: Moran and Fanti 2002

Note: History2007: According to Moran, Fanti, Gonella, Jackson, Malantrucco, etc. this is the concensus view: No natural cause of the Image of the Shroud. Cause is inexplicable.

What you should realize, through deduction, the only theory left standing in this long section was Resurrection, based on Wdford eliminating corona discharge, radiation, and the fact that Maillard was a "failed experiement" according to Rogers and Wdford's recitation.

Interesting. Jackson scholarship appears to be the dominant explanation. Many people who see the evidence would agree with him, as well. The fact the "Resurrection" has not been eliminated after 30 years of research is most fascinating. JimfromGTA (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Two separate points:


 * The Moran and Fanti 2002 reference is usable as a WP:RS source given that it was at that symposium. So it can certainly be used in Wikipedia. The main point from that paper is the "Resurrection-radiation" hypothesis. Right? That hypothesis should go in, given that it is a WP:RS source.


 * Moran and Fanti do present a review of the literature, and it can be said that according to them "..." but in the very same paper they also present their own theory. So it certainly has a lot less reliability than the statement by the likes of Ball, Meacham and Currie who are by and large by standers. So there are already 3 separate sources that say no scholarly consensus exists about how the image came about. A 4th, in a paper that proposes yet another theory, will make only a marginal difference at best.


 * I am not sure if this weaker reference will even help your cause Jim. It will probably dilute your "assertion of inexplicabiliity" because in the same paper Moran proposes the Resurrection theory which will be viewed (like it or not) as a "way out" science fiction theory by a number of readers. You must remember that a large percentage of readers (I have no exact numbers) probably disbelieve anything supernatural.


 * So what if we add his hypothesis, but avoid the review aspect which s already in the lede three-fold? In that case, what is a good paragraph about his theory that can get added to the energy source section? The energy source section already has 3 paragraphs, but the "Resurrection-radiation" hypothesis is not clearly spelled out. Could you please provide a paragraph for that so we can play with it so it has a :flat tone" and add it with the 'Moran and Fanti 2002' reference? That way the paper will be accessible anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Infinity and then some.
 * Actually, I have not seen any evidence at all that a body had to be included in the process. Jackson in the cited video merely points out that the various limbs and features are in the "correct" places, but there are other ways to achieve that without involving a body. Jackson does NOT explain why the image rose vertically up and vertically down, but not sideways - I have seen no such explanation ANYWHERE. Nickell makes that very criticism, as do other sceptics.
 * Rogers's explanation of the Maillard reactions seems like the most viable means of fixing the image to the cloth, and as Rogers was a chemist I am happy to go with that explanation until a better idea presents itself. However Rogers wants to believe that the process was entirely natural and co-incidental, and so he assumes a sweaty corpse as the source of the amino acid component of the chemical reaction. These aminos could also have been introduced deliberately by a forger, using any protein-rich liquid (milk or meat juice etc).
 * There is thus no need for a body to have been present – neither re the “shape” of the image nor to catalyse the Maillard reaction. The 40 hour limit deduces itself from the presence of a not-yet-rotting body, so if no body then no time limit. QED.
 * Rogers assumes that a "protein-rich gas" rose up off the corpse and caused the Maillard reaction on the cloth, but he also does not address why this gas rose vertically up and vertically down, but not sideways. Also, if sweaty flesh was the source of the gas the dorsal image would have had that moisture pressed into it by the weight of the corpse, and so the Maillard reaction would not have affected only the tips of the fibres as per the "100 characteristics". Maillard reactions are a good bet here, but they were not caused by gas floating up or down.
 * Re the C14, I have read the detail, and its not convincing. Rogers did not have enough evidence to support his conclusion, as he was working with material other than the actual C14 sample, and merely deduced the relationship between his samples and the C14 samples. As the C14 team specifically mentioned in their report: the C14 sample was taken “from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.” . This fact (from the boffins who had FACE TIME, no less) should perhaps be given a bit more prominence in the article.
 * As for the vanillin loss, Rogers himself points out that this process can be accelerated by heating and moisture, and therefore the temperature etc under which it was stored need to be carefully estimated (hence his “spread” of a few thousand years). Baking in a melted silver box, and being washed vigorously thereafter who knows how many times, would certainly account for that factor without any trouble. The vanillin issue is not a scientific dating method to begin with, and the known history of the Shroud can easily account for this apparent variation. (Never mind that the forger probably used an oldish cloth to begin with, as per the textile weaving pattern.)
 * Lastly, re Moran, his “theory” is anti-scientific, and should be incorporated under the “religious miracle” section.
 * Wdford (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Two separae issues:


 * Wikipedia editors cannot determine what is "likely" or "true" per WP:V. So, again what we think regarding the "most likely" hypothesis matters not per WP:V.


 * As I said further above, any "Resurrection miracle" should go into the religious section. That was why I asked Jim if he had a purely religious resurrection account. But the Moran item is such a strange mixture of religion and technical (I hesitate to say scientific) claims that it will seem strange in either section.


 * My suggestion is that you and Jim discuss this and we will see which section the Resurrection energy hypothesis should go into. I do not care really - in either case someone will be unhappy, as it should be to maintain WP:NPOV. Usually, when no one is entirely happy, NPOV is met. Given the length of these discussions Moran will probably end in one of the sections by around 2015 or later. History2007 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me summarise: Wdford:  You are starting to get it. The Shroud is so complex that meeting criteria (100 or so) is extremely difficult, and leads to the conclusion that (1) criteria must be met to arrive at a conclusion and (2) no natural cause, including forgery has been discovered after 30 years of discussion. ( making discussion long winded. )

History2007: Science is about the discovery of our world, forming hypothesis and then gathering evidence that demonstrate how the world works. The Resurrection theory is science because the image exists, history tells us it occurred, evidence has not arrived at an alternative solution, and "real world" evidence exists to support the hypothesis. So the Resurrection remains a "current" science theory that has a strong scientific following and is an open discussion item. Further, the preponderance of the evidence (image minuia, physical cloth, biology, documentation detail) demonstrates its reality.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Jim, we have a fundamental difference of opinion on the "definition of science". The Wiki-page on Falsifiability needs help, but as Karl Popper showed decades and decades ago, for a theory to be "scientific", it must have a demarcation criterion, i.e.


 * it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment.


 * So in a practical sense the "Resurrection energy theory" is not falsifiable, because one can not "perform an experiment" to refute it, not just because the Shroud is under lock and key, but because humans can not arrange miracles. That is distinct from the painting theory that can be easily falsified or proven if total access is granted to the Shroud. History2007 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So where does the "big bang" theory of the universe's creation fit in. It is not falsifiable, as it occurred at the beginning of time. (Good luck repeating the experiment. ? Where did the "original" energy source come from in the "big bang" theory) But one can observe the residual effects, form hypotheses, and even "model" it.  Also subatomic physics.  They are exploring for the "God particle", now.  Never seen it, don't know if it even exists. But it exists in physics as a theory.  Both astomoners and physics researchers are considered scientists and the subject matter science.  So your science definition is too limiting for the "real world".


 * Jackson and Rogers consider themselves scientists, in pursuit of a causal theory about the Shroud. Their hypotheses and experiments are scientific explorations.  And as we have seen from Jackson, he has been using modelling.  The Resurrection theory is one of many hypotheses.


 * Falsification of the Resurrection theory would be a "high probability" "natural cause" causal effect. And as a result, the Resurrection theory would be discounted. But alas, "high probability" natural causes have not been found after 30 years of trying.  If it weren't for the "baked on" image effect of the Shroud requiring an energy source, the Resurrection theory, wouldn't have a basis in science.  But alas, it does.  So for the purposes of science, the Resurrection theory exists as a valid scientific theory.  And scientists are pursuing this.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Curiosity: After all the work done by STURP and other researchers based on microscopic review of the Shroud, why do you think painting is still a valid theory?JimfromGTA (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Big Bang type theory can be dicredited by observation, if measurements are made to show that the universe "behaves in a different way". In fact, there were times when Big Bang was no "done deal" and there were still people arguing in favor of continuous creation as "an alternative". As the continuous creation article correctly states, specific observations allowed continuous creation to be mostly rejected. So in those cases the existence of continued radiation makes the theories disprovable. And you must remember that many aspects of the Resurrection theory require the "suspension of the laws of physics" during the Resurrection, if the energy source is internal to the physical body.


 * It does not matter what I think (or you think) about the painting theory as valid/invalid. In any case the article says that painting "was declared to be unsound as the X-ray fluorescence examination, as well as infrared thermography, did not point out any pigment". So painting is there, but has a status similar to continuous creation. History2007 (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No natural technique has thusfar been identified
The argument that “no natural technique has yet been conclusively identified, so the image must be supernatural”, is bunk. Thusfar no “technique” has been identified whereby Stone Age people could have transported massive stones hundreds of kilometres to build Stonehenge. However clearly they managed to do it, so a technique must exist, even if so far modern scholars have been unable to reproduce it. Thusfar no “technique” has been identified whereby Stone Age people could have transported and lifted super massive stones (many hundreds of tons) to build the foundations at Baalbek. However clearly they managed to do it, so a technique must exist, even if so far modern scholars have been unable to reproduce it. Thusfar no “technique” has been identified whereby Stone Age people with stone tools could have polished fine detail into granite and diorite to build the many statues of the Ancient Egyptian pharaohs. However clearly they managed to do it, so a technique must exist, even if so far modern scholars have been unable to reproduce it. In each of the above examples (and many others besides), the argument is between “a thusfar unidentified natural technique” versus “aliens helped them”. In no other case does any scholar assume Divine Intervention. Why then can people not accept, re the Shroud image, that clearly somebody managed to do it, so a technique must exist, even if so far modern scholars have been unable to reproduce it?Wdford (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the lack of a natural theory does not imply supernatural intervention in this, or any other case. Just a short while ago in human history no "natural explanation" existed for thunderstorms and various cultures assumed them to be supernatural acts. Then came a fellow called Benjamin... History2007 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your statements try to eliminate the supernatural. After 30 years of research, no one has demonstrated a natural cause. Thus supernatural causes are next in line. Logical progression. Since there is a record of the supernatural occurring in this case (the Resurrection), it is a candidate for examination. Since the cloth events of wounding and cruxifition matches the Biblical account "in detail", it is logical that the full account is explored. Jackson's Collapsing Cloth theory (originated by Dr. Lavoie) wherein there is evidence of the cloth collapsing is evidence related to this research. And the baked on effect requires an energy. This would be satisfied by a supernatural intense energy effect as is recorded on many occassions in the Bible and also in modern times. JimfromGTA (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your logic is seriously flawed, when we do not know the cause of something we do not suddenly leap to a conclusion that it must be "supernatural" or "magic" That would be ridiculous and might have been the case hundreds of years ago but science does NOT work like that. Clearly the cloth events match the biblical account because the maker read the bible and was keen to get all the detail correct in order to persuade gullible people it was the real thing.Theroadislong (talk)

If there is evidence of something happening, it makes sense to explore it. My logic is NOT flawed. The Resurrection is a science theory because evidence is found within the cloth that leads in that direction. A number of researchers are pursuing this theory.JimfromGTA (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And can you provide any references for the resurrection being a "science theory"Theroadislong (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This was provided earlier. Jackson and others are pursuing it.JimfromGTA (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually all the energy source papers in scientific sources are careful not to say "supernatural", else their papers will not get published. The supernatural would require "the suspension of scientific phenomena" for a period of time, and hence will not be accepted in scientific settings. And again, thunderstorms were considered supernatural, in the absence of a natural explanations. I think this is actually a straightforward case of logic. One can not assume Predicate P if one is unable to prove not(P). I am sorry Jim, but the lack of an explanation does not prove a competing predicate. This is straightforward logic. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strange, but previously I provided a scholar paper on the Resurrection theory. Don't get your logic.JimfromGTA (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Which journal was that published in? And is that a single reference? The situation is simple actually, consider the Four color theorem. When I was a young student, there was no proof and no explanation. It was anyone's guess if the theorem was actually true. That did not mean that the theorem (or hypothesis) was "supernatural". It meant: "we just do not know". The failure to prove the theorem neither validated it nor rendered it invalid. Sometimes the scientific conclusion is: "we do not know". And all the most recent scientific papers say the same thing, e.g. December 2011: ""none of them can completely explain the mysterious image" as the article states. All we know is that we do not know. Pretty much like the four color theorem a few decades ago. History2007 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Resurrection as a science theory is still open for discussion. Jackson has published stuff regarding this. Did you see his video on how the image was made? Moran, if I recall properly, presented a paper exploring this proposition at a Symposium.

According to Jackson (30 year researcher), in his video "How the image was made" (reference in prior section), he states that the image was "baked on". Thus any ending proof must accomplish a "baked on" effect. Energy must occur on a surface that was exposed to a body from inside. Jackson has suggested radiant energy and a collapsing cloth (resurrection). Rogers (30 year researcher) disagrees. I have not heard Jackson's response to Roger's criticism. Rogers thinks it's chemical energy but has been unable to support with a "chemical reaction cause".

You are correct that cause is not conclusively established. Resurrection is a theory Jackson is pursuing. Therefore, an open theory.JimfromGTA (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it makes no difference whether there is 30 years or 300 years of research. There is no agreement among scholars as to how the image came about. Who knows, maybe Rogers has a new theory, will start typing here (kidding) and settle the issues, now that he knows the real story. That would bring about a rapid resolution. History2007 (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Research of 30 years tells us a lot. Moran goes into this analysis in his paper presented earlier. Research tells us what the characteristics of the image are and that known "natural causes" DID NOT create the shroud.  Jackson (30 year researcher) tells us that in his video. But all the "bright minds" studying this are still baffled.


 * The Shroud of Jesus Christ is a conundrum. A wonder. By now, researchers SHOULD HAVE proven it false, but they can't.  This makes Jesus Christ a conundrum, especially to skeptics.


 * The physical evidence, not just the image evidence, demonstrates that the Bible events occurred because they are recorded in the shroud. And the Bible demonstrates its authenticity because it records detail found within the microscopic detail of the physical evidence.  The who, what, where, and why of the evidence supports its authenticity.   Only the how, according to science, remains a baffling mystery.  And Resurrection is an "open theory" after 30 years of research.  No wonder most people familiar with its background and all the evidence, believe the shroud to be authentic.  No wonder Roman Catholics still revere it.


 * So 30 years of research is progress.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the 30 years of research efforts have clarified some issues. But they have not clarified all issues. Some hypotheses such as painting are generally discarded now in view of the pigment tests, but still, there is no scholarly consensus as the latest 2011 papers state. The topic remains controversial. That is all that is certain. History2007 (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, if the shroud is indeed a miracle, it does not show that the Bible events occurred, it shows that the Bible is wrong! The Bible says a separate cloth covered Jesus's face. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rick Norwood: There are over 100 characteristics found in the shroud.  Wounding evidence consistent with the Passion week Biblical description are to be found.  This includes the scouraging, the spear wound, the crown of thorns, etc.  Shoulder wounds from carrying a cross. (recorded in the Bible)  Knee wound from a stumble (recorded in the Bible).  Pollen and flower image evidence establishes springtime timing and location (in the Jerusalem area).  Limestone evidence traces it back to historically identified sites in Jerusalem.


 * Watch the movie, the Passion of the Christ, and then compare that treatment to the details of the image of the Shroud of Turin.  Horrific, but you'll understand the man in the cloth and the consistency of evidence.


 * The Gospel of John states Jesus was buried according to Jewish tradition. We know that according to Jewish tradition, a shroud is used.  We also know there was a head cloth according to John and the Sudarium is the traditional candidate, having similar wounding, blood type and pollen as the shroud. So we need to have an understanding of how the headcloth is used.  (1) Perhaps, the people preparing the body for burial could not look at the man they loved, in the face after what happended to him. But rather they covered his face during preparation. (2) Perhaps, the head was so bloody, a headcloth was applied over the shroud to contain the blood.  (3) Because of the extensive blood from head wounds, and potential for disease, perhaps the headcloth was used to wrap the head when they were carrying the body to its burial site. Multiple combinations of usage.  John does not give us enough information.  This one is for the researchers to explain the combination.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The blood-stains
I have some issues with the blood stains on the Shroud. Human blood coagulates within minutes of being exposed to air, and dries out especially quickly in dry desert air. Dead bodies don’t bleed, and seepage from wounds after death is minimal unless the body is really hacked open. The blood trails on the forehead and along the arms etc would be long dry by the time the dead body was removed from the cross, and little new blood would leak out by that time. Jesus was not taken down immediately after he died, and once the heart stopped beating gravity would cause all blood in the arms and head to settle into the torso, leaving the hands and head “drained” of viscous liquid. Also, the process of moving the body to the “wrapping” place would not have been instantaneous, giving yet more time for the blood to dry. It is thus very unusual that the blood on the body was liquid enough to soak into the wrapping in the first place. One would assume that the Jewish custom would be to clean the body before wrapping it, thus removing whatever blood would easily come away, and the dried blood which refused to be easily wiped off, would by definition not be liquid enough to soak into the Shroud. Since “experts” claim that the blood-stains show classic evidence of the separation of plasma and serum etc etc, as happens when fresh blood diffuses into fabric, we can only conclude that the blood was fresh and whole when it was applied to the Shroud – not something that could happen through contact with dried blood on a dead body. This further supports the forgery theory, does it not?


 * Lot of work done on blood and body by researchers.  My understanding that the detail done by the mainstream researchers did NOT support a forgery theory in this respect.  Before we get into skeptical inventiveness, what does FACETIME research say about this aspect. JimfromGTA (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Maurice Lamm (The Jewish Way of Death and Mourning by Maurice Lamm) blood flows after death. It appears your evidential assumptions are flawed.JimfromGTA (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Second to this, the gospel of John (John 20) seems to indicate that the head was wrapped in a separate cloth. This may of course have been a fraudulent insertion by medieval scribes, anxious to provide scriptural support for a fraudulent relic of their own. However, assuming the gospel is reliable, I question how the dried facial blood soaked through the head cloth onto the main shroud at all? One can go further, and ask how the image itself was transferred through the head-cloth and onto the main shroud at all?

Third, the gospel of John (John 20) seems to indicate that “strips” of linen were used to wrap the body, rather than a single large sheet. The gospels all seem to use the term "wrapped", rather than "loosely draped" as per the Jackson theory. Again, assuming the gospels are reliable (which is not to be lightly assumed), should we assume that Jesus was wrapped in a single long sheet such as the Turin Shroud, or does the scriptual evidence clearly indicate that we should be looking for "strips" of linen?


 * The actual quote is: “Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.” You must first understand Jewish Burial Customs, before beginning a critique.  Your analysis is inconsistent with these customs.JimfromGTA (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Should these issues not be included in the article somewhere in a Bible-related section? Does anybody perhaps know if Jackson (or anybody else with FACE TIME) addresses these issues anywhere? Wdford (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding John 20, the article is "loud and clear" on that and quotes Calvin saying: either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit". That is already there in the religious section, and John Calvin is as religious as they come.


 * Regarding the scientific discussion, there are several referenced quotes in the blood analysis section. So what other sources "beyond our own reasoning" are missing? History2007 (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This was answered earlier with references. (see archives) The Jewish tradition buries the body in a shroud like Turin. Strips would be used to bind the body and also to "clean up" the blood in the chamber.  All the strips would be left in the burial site to prevent disease.  Linguistically, refering to the shroud would encompass the burial cloth according to tradition.  For instance you would refer to a car as a car not 13,000 parts.  So both the 3 Gospels that refer to "the burial shroud" and John are correct usage.  Just different perspectives from a linguistic point of view.JimfromGTA (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference for that consistency argument Jim? History2007 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wilson and Antonocci analyze this. You can find it there.JimfromGTA (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC).  Here is a general description of the Jewish burial customs according to The Jewish Way of Death and Mourning by Maurice Lamm (1969) http://shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-JewishBurial.html.  It should be noted that Maurice Lamm talks of blood flowing after death, contrary to Wdford's supposition. JimfromGTA (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "supposition" and scientific fact, although I accept that the laws of science are not appreciated unanimously at this particular article. "Blood shed after death" in this context, means the blood that seeped out of the wounds in the moments after death, while the blood was still liquid in the veins. Lamm is not implying that the body continues bleeding for days. Blood that is already outside the body coagulates within minutes, the broken capillaries will quickly clot and block further seepage, and the blood that is still inside the body coagulates within a few hours, depending on weather conditions etc. Even in the immediate aftermath of death, Jesus’ attendants would need to have manipulated the limbs vigorously to get any seepage at all, and since the arms and head would have drained due to gravity as soon as the blood pressure ceased, its very unlikely that any further blood ran out and smeared the arms and forehead with sufficient liquidity to form the stains on the Shroud. Such blood on the head that may have been capable of staining a cloth, would have soaked into the head-cloth that the gospels mention, and so would be gone by the time the head came into contact with the burial shroud. Sources often quoted in the article claim that rigor mortis had set in by the time the corpse was shrouded, and claim this as an explanation of why the posture in the image is so unnatural, so any blood already on the outside would have long ago dried. Are either of Wilson and Antonocci doctors or coroners? Wdford (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Jesus died on the cross. Rigor mortis would have set in at that time.  The shroud could have been applied at any time after that.  Any movement of the body would have cause the blood pools to shift from the "upright" position and be absorbed on the cloth.  The point of Lam was to state that people engaged in burial see blood sepage after death.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For all we know, Wilson and Antonocci have the same amount of medical training: zero. And Joe Nickell seems to have had has exactly the same amount. They are all just pundits, not experts. I made that point before regarding Averil Cameron who is an expert, not just a pundit like these people. Since the 1950s, there have been several publications by physicians on the topic, going back to Pierre Barbet who had medical training. The person with the most qualifications is Zugibe, given that he was a coroner and experimented for many years. He probably performed more than anyone else. But in the end he has "theories and no proof". But his opposition has exactly the same thing: "theories and no proof". Neither side has any proof: they just present hypotheses. That is very straightforward.


 * Wilson and Antonocci are reporters of information. For instance Antonocci references more than 300 research studies and papers and includes exhibits.  Just like a good encyclopedia, only in more detail.  Their role is to provide an expert level detail of the research that has been done, including the 25 years of STURP research.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, again, this is not a two way debate. Those who argue for authenticity do not agree among themselves, and those who argue for forgery do not agree among themselves. The debate on the origin of the image is a many sided confusion. That is also very straightforward to see. History2007 (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody has ever produced any evidence that blood stains exist on the Shroud. Sure there are believers. That's a different subject matter. Lung salad (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is even worse than that. Even if there is blood, it is not clear if it appeared at the same time as other image elements, or afterwards. In any case, the article states that there are reddish stains on the shroud suggesting blood, but it is uncertain whether these stains were produced at the same time as the image, and that there is debate between the different camps and that the blood could be that of a person handling it, etc. Again, the only certainty here is uncertainty. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 14 tests done by STURP established the existence of blood. DNA tests have established it was ancient blood.  Microscopic analysis established tha blood flowed from the antonomically correct positions on the body.  Papers by researchers of 30 years establish the blood.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The microscopic review established that the blood flowed from antonomically correct positions on the body. Therefore it was not random placement.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As usual, there are those who accept those arguments, and there are those who reject them. History2007 (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * However, per the article the State University of New York said it was "almost" certain that the material was blood - they were not even prepared to state that it was indeed blood, and they said that the DNA was so fragmented that nothing could be learned from it. (It may even have been animal blood, since no medieval pilgrim could tell the difference.) If SUNY says nothing can be learned from the DNA, then other tests that claim to identify the blood type are automatically suspect. Secondly, blood could not have "flowed" from the wounds, as the body had been dead for hours, the wounds would have clotted and the blood still inside the body would have congealed. The "evidence" thus leaves us with "blood from some sort of mammal" that has been smeared onto the cloth, in anatomically correct positions, but which could not have come from a stiffening corpse. Therefore, unless Jesus was buried alive (as some theories do indeed suggest) then the evidence excludes blood "flowing" from the wounds. Wdford (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you just stated Zugibe's opinion. Zugibe thinks the body was cleaned up and was not bleeding, etc. But not all physicians agree with Zugibe. I do not recall what Bollone wrote in exact terms, but e does not agree with Zugibe and probably thinks there was blood - but I do not recall exactly what he said. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wdford: All this is supposition. For instance, if the blood was a blood and watery mix, it would not coagolate as quickly as you propose.  Please demonstrate research evidence of your hypothesis. I have never seen any like what you propose. Also provide reference to the New York paper.  Did they have access to the actual blood sample or was this a photographic review?  Did they talk about the STURP work and the 14 tests done by them for blood? Did they discuss the DNA testing that was done by a Texas university expert (if I recall properly)?JimfromGTA (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See below from Dougweller re the SUNY findings. Re the ability of a stiff corpse to still bleed - I am informed by an experienced paramedic that a body stops bleeding shortly after death, and won't bleed at all once the blood has coagulated, which takes an hour or three (faster in the extremities, slower in the core, due to temperature loss). The blood will start to settle immediately after death, so if the wound is "underneath" then gravity will cause on-going seepage for a while, however the bleeding will still cease quite quickly after death, as above, unless a major artery was ruptured by the wound. Hence, if Jesus died while crucified upright, the feet would still bleed for an hour or two, but the head and hands would stop bleeding immediately. However, that is merely the input of a trained paramedic who deals with dead bodies every day, not from a "peer-reviewed" article by a rabbi. PS: there is no "watery mix" in the veins and arteries, the effect is apparently caused by the separation (once the heart stops churning the blood) of the red blood cells and the plasma. The clotting agents are present in all blood, so coagulation would proceed as normal throughout. Wdford (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * But the Bible talks of blood and water flowing from the spear wound. So water was present. On the Shroud, the blood is pronounced at this area described in the Bible.  Further because of water from profuse sweating due to crucifiction trama, blood would be mixed with sweat (water). This would impact coagolation Your supposition is still hypothetical.  Please provide actual research that backs your hypothesis.JimfromGTA (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The gospel was written from third-hand anecdotal evidence (assuming it wasn’t just faked from the get-go), the witness (if there was actually a witness) was not given a close-up view of the stabbing process, and such a witness would not have been able to tell water from clear plasma fluid to begin with. If you want to hypothesise that witnesses at the crucifixion were capable of distinguishing water from clear plasma fluids at a distance in failing light, then please first provide actual research that backs your hypothesis. Human bodies do not contain water as described, so if you want to hypothesise that water flowed from the wound, please first provide actual research that backs your hypothesis. Assuming clear fluid was indeed present in the stab-wound, there is no basis to assume that such clear fluid was also present in the other wounds. If you want to hypothesise that water was present in the blood that flowed from the other wounds, please first provide actual research that backs your hypothesis. Re sweat, any sweat that was present on the skin would have quickly dried – that is after all the purpose of sweat. Sweating stops after death, and the Jerusalem spring air is quite warm, so moisture present on the skin would long since have dried by the time the body was taken down. If you want to hypothesise that sweat was still present on the skin hours after death in sufficient quantity to liquefy dried blood, please first provide actual research that backs your hypothesis. Wdford (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wdford. We are starting into an analysis for which I am NOT a qualified medical expert. Nor are you.  Based on actual research, done by real medical experts (STURP) in their review of blood transference, they did NOT find what you imply. In fact they stated that the shroud was not a forgery.  Medical experts stated that the image was of a crucified man.  They also stated that blood was found on the cloth in anotomically correct positions. (I reviewed that work with you before when you were in denial about there being a body that research experts said existed). Research has shown that the cloth was similar to Jewish burial cloth of the 1st century.  So these are the facts.  You specialize in skeptical supposition.  I get that.  But you don't seem to provide "real world" evidence.  Please provide documented research that supports your suppositions. Otherwise, I don't get the arguing with medical experts.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, the details of the gospel accounts (true or false is beside the point) can have no impact on any scientific analysis of the artifact given that they are theological, not historical documents, as stated in numerous encyclopedic references, e.g. see "Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0860120066 pages 730-731" which states that the gospels were written as primarily theological, not historical items. Thus the above arguments can have no impact on the scientific analysis, as stated before on this talk page, and can not impact the article. This is just talk. It is very straightforward. History2007 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you telling me that Karl Rahner reviewed the details of the Shroud and gave an objective opinion about Biblical evidence and the Shroud? The Bible in some places gives historical details, some is theological, some is retelling of personal events of people at that time. Bible retells the events of Jesus' crucifiction.  Details in the Bible can be found in the Shroud and visa versa.  That's the evidence.  All you need to do is read the Bible and compare it to the shroud.  Your point is not specific to the evidence. JimfromGTA (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Rahner made a general blanket statement about all 4 gospel accounts, namely that their authors were not concerned with historical details, but were primarily providing a theological perspective. And he is not alone, in "Interpreting Gospel Narratives pages 75-78" Timothy Wiarda echoes the same sentiment and of course scholars such as Paula Fredriksen are at the other end of the extreme - they consider the gospels as mostly inaccurate. Scholars such as Raymond Brown are somewhere in between. But the general "scholarly agreement" is that the gospels provide some general information but their authors were not even aiming to present historical details nor did the transcriptions and so on manage to preserve "all details". So it is pretty certain that Jesus died within a 5 year time frame, say 30-35 AD but no agreement exists about the details as historical events. So all discussion of how the tomb was discovered (or even if it was discovered at all) is theological and based on belief, not historical in the scholarly sense. That is the scholarly agreement, for sure. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Again you talk generalities. My point is not to get into a debate over the Bible. Just the specifics related to the Shroud. Bibles are widely accessable except in some Mulsim areas. Unless you are a Muslim, why don't you just review the Bible vs. Shroud yourself.  It's easy. The details are there in the Passion week sequences.  So this is about evidence, not opinion.  Let me know what you think?JimfromGTA (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well scholarly consensus is not based on the "wide accessibility" of a document. Shakespear's works are also widely accessible but are not considered historical records. What I think matters not in Wikipedia. What matters is scholarly opinion. Scholarly opinion is that the only historical events in the adult life of Jesus are the fact that he was Baptised by John (around the time of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias, perhaps 27-31AD and well before the conflicts with Aretas IV in 36AD) and that he was crucified by Pilate before the year 36 AD. Those are solid historical facts even accepted by atheist scholars. Whether the apostles found the tomb or not is subject to debate among scholars and is not considered historical. So the details of the tomb discovery are not considered historical by scholars. What I think matters not. What you think matters not. It is what the scholars publish in WP:RS sources. History2007 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be addressing the comparison of the Bible DETAIL vs the Shroud DETAIL. For instance, researchers have counted roughly 200 anotomically correct scourage wounds on the Shroud's body that would result from Roman type whips.  According to the Bible, Jesus was scouraged with Roman whips, during his Passion Week. There are many other characteristics found on the Shroud and in the Bible which match.  Various Shroud authors have expounded on this, complete with references.  This is NOT new evidence.  It's been known for decades.   The Shroud is likely the burial cloth of Christ because the detail of the Gospels, 4 different witnesses, MATCHES the multiple and specific details of the Shroud.  And it demonstrates that Biblical authenticity, because physical evidence of the Shroud confirms the 4 witnesses stories.JimfromGTA (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly so. The comparison of the Bible and the Shroud is not a "historical comparison". What is accepted by most scholars as historically valid is that Pilate crucified Jesus before 36AD. Scholars assume that was using the same methods the Romans used at the time - hence the match in characteristics. But the details of the biblical accounts are not assumed as historical, according to most scholars. Not my call, not yous. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh? Again you talk in generalities and sidestep the specifics. Details of the physical torture and other physically related events of the Bible are found in the image of the Shroud. Multiple events and specifics of the Bible, matching multiple characteristics of the Shroud.   I don't need an scholar to be able to "see the image" then read about the event that caused it in print. Have you ever reviewed this evidence in detail? (you'll find documented by various authors).JimfromGTA (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly so. I will not debate personal interpretations of the evidence, whatever it may be or not be. That would be WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia the opinion of a paramedic, the Surgeon General of the United States, the Surgeon-General (United Kingdom) or a 3 year old child have exactly the same value (namely zero) unless they are published in a WP:RS source. They would all be WP:OR. Neither your argument nor Jim's personal reasonings are Wiki-admissible at all, since they are based on deductions from first principles and fail WP:V. I think we have mentioned WP:V a few times now. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the article. " Subsequently, STURP sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York (SUNY). Dr. Andrew Merriwether at SUNY stated that no blood typing could be confirmed, and the DNA was badly fragmented. He stated that it is almost certain that the blood spots are blood, but no definitive statements can be made about its nature or provenience, i.e., whether it is male and from the Near East."" I can't believe no one is talking about the alleged supernatural ultraviolet blast! Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I recall it, the Texas University stated that the blood sample that they had was consistent with ancient DNA.JimfromGTA (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I think in their own report the scientists never used the term "supernatural" but said they thought it "could be" a radiation. They could not get published if they use the term supernatural. The popular media use that term. The Di Lazzaro report is already in the article in the recent developments section. And as usual, in 9 months there will be counter arguments. That one is a nickle to a doughnut bet. History2007 (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim. Let’s correct a few of your suppositions here.

STURP did NOT state that “the shroud was not a forgery”. They merely concluded that “it is not the work of an artist”, and that “the mystery remains unsolved”. Various members of STURP have since expressed personal views, but the upshot is that they couldn’t (in 1981) identify how such a forgery may have been performed. That is all, and that’s a fact.


 * According to Wikipedia, "They (STURP) found no reliable evidence of forgery".

Everyone agrees that “the image was of a crucified man”, and that the bloodstains are located “in anatomically correct positions”. That however doesn’t exclude a forgery, and it is not necessary for a “body to have existed” for this accuracy to be achieved. Furthermore, as sceptics have pointed out, the “flat projection” of the image actually makes it unlikely that it was wrapped around a body. Jackson’s video proves nothing conclusive on this point, as he admits.


 * Jackson's video demonstrated there was an object in the shape of a body that existed under the shroud when the image was formed. Anotomically correct position of microscopic detail on a 3D body shape together with anotomically correct body detail tells me there's a body.  You haven't provided one example of a advanced form of 3d body shape forgery that is in existance at the time of the Shroud creation that supports your theory.  So your hypothesis is not proven.  It supposition.

You state that “the cloth was similar to Jewish burial cloth of the 1st century”. Rubbish. Only one 1st Century Jewish burial shroud has ever been recovered, and it was radically different to the Turin Shroud. The Turin Shroud is deemed by experts to be of Syrian manufacture, and the only relationship between the Masada fragment and the Shroud is the seam-stitching, not the weave itself. This aspect actually motivates strongly AGAINST the Turin Shroud being a Jewish burial cloth.


 * Similar cloth has been found at Massada, dating to the 1st Century. You are incorrect.  For example:  "Methchild Flury-Lemberg, a leading authority on historic textiles and the former curator of Switzerland’s Abegg Foundation Textile Museum, has reported strong similarities between the Shroud’s fabric and fragments of cloth produced in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago. According to Flury-Lemberg, the cloth’s finishing, its selvage, and a very distinctive joining seam, all closely resemble unique ancient textiles found in tombs of the Jewish palace-fortress Masada. The Masada fabrics have been reliably dated to between 40 BCE and 73 CE. Flury-Lemberg’s detailed analysis of the Shroud’s fabric – an exceptionally fine quality, z-twist, 3-over-1-herringbone patterned linen cloth – is evidence that it was manufactured in the Middle East on a Roman-period Egyptian or Syrian loom."  http://www.historicaljesusquest.com/linen-cloth.htm.  Rogers also identifies the manufacture from an earlier time.

Finally, you claim that “The Shroud is likely the burial cloth of Christ because the detail of the Gospels, 4 different witnesses, MATCHES the multiple and specific details of the Shroud.” However, as has been pointed out many times, the forger had access to the Bible stories as well, and he specifically prepared his image to match those details specifically so that gullible pilgrims would notice the correlation, and “believe” – exactly as you seem to be doing right now. The Shroud does not “demonstrate Biblical authenticity”, it merely demonstrates that the forger could read.


 * Supposing you had proven your forgery theory is correct, you would be correct. On the other hand the preponderance of evidence points to authencity.  I have 300 exhibits and references to research, together with 100 characteristics demonstrating that the Shroud is authentic.  And you have not provided one example of "known forgery"?  So the existance of physical and documentary (Bible) evidence is complementary because it is another exhibit of authenticity.  Your forgery comment is suppostional, not evidential.  As in:  "suppose it's a forgery, forgers can read".  First you must demonstrate "real world" evidence.  Like the existance of forgery work that demonstrates your theory.  Given that scientists at the Phd level,  can't demonstrate "the how" of the image formation after 30 years of trying, I don't know how one would do that.JimfromGTA (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wdford (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I propose that this gargantuan thread is closed, the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, it is not a forum.Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll hat it tomorrow morning probably, too tired to do it now. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is time to stop. This debate is not suitable for a talk page given that it discusses the personal interpretation of evidence. A blog, a forum r a bar is the place for this discussion, not Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan.JimfromGTA (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)