Wikipedia is horrible about racial issues and about the Jewish question: true enemy territory. But in neutral articles such as science, engineering, computing and even putting pseudosciences in place, it can be a good resource for consultation. In 2004, the article on the Shroud of Turin became ‘a featured article’ on Wikipedia: the maximum decoration offered to an article in that online encyclopaedia. Over the years, many Christians began to get their hands on it and currently it is not even considered a ‘good article’, the previous step to convert the Wiki article into a featured one by the standards of that encyclopaedia.
Although I cannot recommend the current article as a good introduction to the subject, such an article may still be useful for those who wish to know the latest research that the sindonologists do to the shroud (for example, three days ago they made a modification to the article). In the following posts I will be quoting passages from one of the best books that have been written about the shroud: something much better than even the featured article of the Wiki in 2004.
From the comments of the previous article, I think the concept of ‘falsifiability’ and what pseudosciences really are has not become crystal-clear. Many use the expression ‘it is pseudoscience!’ more as an epithet than to designate a real pseudoscience. For example, a Dr. Morales from Brazil who commented here recently used that word to refer to raciology. Neither Dr. Morales nor many anti-racists seem to have any notion of the litmus tests that distinguish between true and false science: falsifiability and Occam’s razor.
I know them, because before blogging I dedicated myself to question the beliefs of my father, who inculcated in me the Turin shroud thing; and in my struggles against the parental introjects I had to subscribe, for years, to the Skeptical Inquirer; buy dozens of books from Prometheus Books, have correspondence with some sceptics (which I will quote in future instalments of this series) and even attend their conferences. I currently know how to distinguish between true and false science; and I think that WDH visitors could benefit from my knowledge prior to my discovery of white nationalism in 2009.
But let’s go back to the Wikipedia article. Although, as I said, it is no longer a featured article, one of the passages that I would consider good is the lead paragraph with which the article opens:
The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino, Sacra Sindone or Santa Sindone) is a length of linen cloth bearing the negative image of a man who is alleged to be Jesus of Nazareth. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, northern Italy. The cloth itself is believed by some to be the burial shroud that Jesus was wrapped in when he was buried after crucifixion. It is first securely attested in 1390, when a local bishop wrote that the shroud was a forgery and that an unnamed artist had confessed. Radiocarbon dating of a sample of the shroud material is consistent with this date.
(Phase contrast microscopic view of image-bearing fibber from the Shroud of Turin during the Carbon 14 test.)
The Catholic Church has neither formally endorsed nor rejected the shroud, but in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus. Pope John Paul II called the Shroud “a mirror of the Gospel”. Other Christian denominations, such as Anglicans and Methodists, have also shown devotion to the Shroud of Turin.
Diverse arguments have been made in scientific and popular publications claiming to prove that the cloth is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis.
In 1988, three radiocarbon dating tests dated a corner piece of the shroud from the Middle Ages, between the years 1260 and 1390. Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating. However, all of the scientific hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted, including the medieval repair hypothesis , the bio-contamination hypothesis and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.
The image on the shroud is much clearer in black-and-white negative than in its natural sepia color, and this negative image was first observed in 1898 on the reverse photographic plate of amateur photographer Secondo Pia, who was allowed to photograph it while it was being exhibited. A variety of methods have been proposed for the formation of the image, but the actual method used has not yet been conclusively identified. Despite numerous investigations and tests, the status of the Shroud of Turin remains murky, and the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain puzzling.
The shroud continues to be both intensely studied and controversial.
Unlike screaming the ‘pseudoscience!’ wolf as irresponsible anti-racists do when they listen to us, sindonology is a true case of a pseudoscientific field of research. I do not mean the laboratories that did the Carbon 14 tests, obviously: but the Christian sindonologists. In popular publications some of them preach, with apologist fervour, that the Turin relic is the shroud that wrapped ‘the Body of Our Lord’ to use their language. And as we saw in the previous instalment, many wield the mystery of the image—that even the lead paragraph of the Wiki article acknowledges—as proof of the most important article of faith in Christendom: the Resurrection.
I hope that when I finish this series on the shroud of Turin, with this paradigm it will become crystal-clear what a pseudoscience really is.
 Chivers, Tom (20 December 2011). ‘The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it’. Daily Telegraph.
 Christopher Ramsey, ‘The Shroud of Turin’, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, March 2008.
 Radiocarbon Dating, Second Edition: An Archaeological Perspective, By R.E. Taylor, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Routledge 2016; pg. 167-168.
 R.A. Freer-Waters, A.J.T. Jull, ‘Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin’, Radiocarbon, 52, 2010, pp. 1521–1527.
 Schafersman, Steven D. (14 March 2005). ‘A Skeptical Response to Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin by Raymond N. Rogers’ (available online: here).
 The Shroud, by Ian Wilson; Random House, 2010, pgs. 130-131.
 Gove, H. E. (1990). ‘Dating the Turin Shroud: An Assessment’. Radiocarbon. 32 (1): 87–92.
35 replies on “On the Turin Shroud, 2”
The Shroud of Turin is the mythical relic that wraps the body of bullshit around Christian apologist loons
This is very informative, thank you.
outside of falsifiability, i use 2 rules to prove a hypothesis follows natural law: the claim must be both independently and statistically verifiable. the shroud of turin is fantastical spectacle. even if it was proven to be a burial cloth, what makes it belong to jesus and not another person. was it found in joseph of arimathea’s stone sepulcher? and how is the sepulcher traced to him? deeds of law? yea, right. (i have a hard enuf time writing c code and getting simple assert statements right.) what kind of a lawyer would take on proving the shroud belongs to jesus in a court of law? alan dershowitz?
i accept the meaning of evil as being unnecessary suffering. making the case for the turin shroud belonging to jesus is unnecessary expending of energy.
Why Popper urged that verifiability be replaced with falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation can be read: here.
Wikipedia? Wikipedia also informs the rabble that millions of Jews were killed in gas chambers!
Why is it so difficult to believe in something that defies conventional laws of nature? Quantum mechanics defy conventional laws of physics, like the collapse of the wave function when there’s a observer, it’s astonishing and inexplicable. Like the Shroud of Turin.
I had a supernatural experience in May 21st 2011, it would take a lot of time to explain the circumstances, I’d give a lot to understand WHY.
It’s very easy to mock Christianity, to ridicule it, to hate it. If I hadn’t had the experience in 2011 probably I would be mocking it. Now I have some degree of fear.
In the other thread, I told you that you were not listening to me. You still don’t listen: or did you miss my very first words in the above post?
I know your Shroud literature. You don’t know ours. Or are you familiar with, say, what Steve Schafersman has written (I first read him in 1994)? A more recent article by him is linked in the last word of footnote #5 above.
falsifiability is concept i presently am not getting. it’ll take more time and testing and thinking to get it. wrt wiki’s explaining verification as encompassing both meaning and science? a theory/ hypotheses can have meaning if it defines a game and its game rules are consistent. however, that game does not have to obey the laws of nature. e.g., religions are simply games with their own specific game rules. that nature does not obey. so religions, as long as they behave to their defined rules w/o cognitive dissonance have meaning to the gamers? and yet they are not scientific as nature does not obey the religion’s game rules. what’s bad with my logic?
– how does quantum mechanics defy conventional laws? rather, QM is a theory that attempts to explain how nature’s laws operate as one approaches the infinitesimally tiny dimensions. science agrees that conventional laws describing larger dimensions don’t work at the infinitely tiny dimensions.
– i could just as well use the term metanatural to describe your experience that you term supernatural. as an ex-charismatic, i’ve had to endure many believers standing up in the group and stamping their bullshit public utterances with, “and god told me….” god or their own unbalanced/ damaged/ dysfunctional neurbiochemistry? why should i take their personal word of what they declare as a supernatural experience?
– regarding QM as it applies to death. yes, i suppose QM must be considered to describe how the brain powers down at death, since brain activity levels are collapsing into smaller and smaller amplitudes and frequencies of bioenergy waves. what scientists of repute have published that the great white light that a significant sample of dying folks describe in their personal NDE is their seeing the door to heaven as opposed to the powering down of the multiple brain networks that are powered on and in normal operation while we are healthy and engaged in life. how many fmri’s have been performed and processes and summarized by science to understand and describe how the brain powers down at death?
I hope that my latest article is helpful to you. Cheers.
I’ve tried to read the article of “Schafersman”, sounds a Jewish name btw. Half of the article is slander and insults, especially against a guy called Ray Rogers.
I have edited your comment and removed most of it except your first paragraph.
In the first place, Wikipedians always like to say who’s Jew in their articles on living persons and there’s no suggestion he’s Jewish in the Wiki article on him.
The reason I removed most of your post is that I want to focus on the words I did let pass above.
You have a closed mind, Dr Morales. Just compare your mind with mine.
The enormous amount of literature I have read about the Shroud easily comes from about 90 percent of pro-authenticity advocates (or even more), and only 10 percent (or possibly less) from sceptics. But you are unable to read a single piece (let alone a book) authored by the other side!
I have observed this phenomenon in pseudoscientists and sceptics. When I was a believer of the paranormal I was surprised in a November 1989 sceptical conference—the first sceptical conference I had attended in my life—because the sceptics were not the devils as painted by the parapsychological literature I used to read. Quite the contrary: James Randi and another paranormal critic, James Alcock turned out to be very serene debaters. In fact, it was me the only one who lost his cool when discussing with other participants of the conference!
So if you cannot even read a single article that presents the opposite view of your claims on the Shroud, we won’t be able to have a debate.
I read most of the boring article.
The reason you removed most of my comment is because you had no answer.
It costed me more than half an hour of my life to read that infantile article from a fanatic deranged GEOLOGIST and write that basic comment in a language that is not mine, yet you had no answer and chose the obvious and disrespectful path, removing it.
The two pillars of you belief system are in very shake grounds, to say the least.
This world probably is just a computer simulation, we are just pixels, everything is possible. No need to fanatic close minded positions.
Nope Dr Morales: I didn’t even bother to respond to your removed comment: it was obvious that you are still not listening to me.
Doesn’t it occur you, Dr Morales, that if I did in fact read tons of Shroud books and articles, and even corresponded with well-known pro-authenticity sindonologists, everything you write in a mere comment I’ve already read in Shroud journals and newsletters in addition to the books?
You call that Shroud critic, Schafersman, ‘a deranged GEOLOGIST’. Only fanatic Xtians call him such names, as he criticises religious concepts such as intelligent design and creationism. In addition to your Shroud faith, Dr Morales, do you also believe in creationism?
In psychology, not reading the other side lest one’s beliefs be challenged is termed ‘ protective stupidity. ‘ This is an underutilized term within the white-nationalist movement. It explains a great deal.
On the religious debate, I listen to the whole spectrum, from atheists like Carrier and Aron Ra, to Jews like Rabbi Tovia Singer, and Independent fundamental baptists like Stephen Anderson.
It allows me to win a lot of arguments, as I know how the other side of an argument thinks.
Aristotle once said that it is a sign of intelligence to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. Few people possess this ability. This is the opposite, as it were, to protective stupidity.
I just wanted to mention our previous conversation.
You mentioned that the SS basically wanted to replace the Catholic church with sorts of Celtic axiology. You asked “what is wrong with that?”
I replied “what is right with that?”
Personally, I believe that this rhetorical question of mine was immature, something a 5 year old would say.
Instead, what I would like to say to your question is this:
If we are going to slowly substitute the symbols of one religion with a completely different one, why even call it Catholicism?
Pardon my rudeness. I meant to get back to you. I read about the SS and the Order of Marcion attempting to infiltrate the Catholic Church on a Satanic site. ‘Joy of Satan.’
I have given what you said a lot of thought.
The Catholic Church is indestructible. Even if I wanted to destroy it – I do not – I couldn’t.
The Freemasons realised this also. They decided to co-opt it instead.
I would give the term “Catholic” a new etymology: ‘purity’ instead of ‘universalism.’ ‘Catharsis’ in Greek means ‘purification.’ The Catholic Church would promote the “projection of [Aryan] values” in a very pure form. Jung defined ‘religion’ as ‘the projection of values.’
Charles Giuliani had a couple of great shows on Catholicism, there. He demonstrates that Catholicism is mostly Heliophantism, or Egyptian Sun worship, anyway. There is very little biblical christianity in it. What little remains though, is a pure menace, and corrupts the whole thing.
Don’t worry about time, Gaedhal, I am very patient, you’ll find 🙂
Anyway, I am sure you can agree that the fundamentals of Catholicism can be substituted.
It probably cannot be completely substituted peacefully, but in a violent situation, it can. I think that Humans are basically extremely adaptable and sheep like in their societal outlooks. If the churches were destroyed along with their teachings, then it would not take long for people to adjust. You would get outcries of course, but not for very long.
Look at how the churches easily adjusted to Homosexual marriage, along with the public in general.
But, like I said, even if the Catholic church could not be completely changed in a peaceful manner, it can certainly be forced.
What you say about Egyptian sun worship reminds me of the words of a certain Manu Rodriguez. His ideas regarding religion can be found on this site.
If you want to know my ideas about the Gods Aryans should be worshipping and the nature of the temples of these Gods, look to the words of Manu Rodriguez.
Jews have a belief in “Sheol” the underworld. According to their Talmud, their “god” reserved a special place in “hell” for Jesus. Muslim and Christians maintain firm belief in heaven, hell, paradise, for the afterlife, concluding these are places where the soul dwells eternally after life.
For the believer, life is a one-shot deal. If one does the wrong things against the wishes of their priests/god, they are consigned to eternal damnation. If they do the right things they are granted entry into “heaven” or “paradise.” These are simplistic beliefs fit for children, not men.
Yes: I’ve heard about the “sheol” thing many times, but my point, or rather the rabbi’s point is that it’s a sort of nebulous concept: such as “god” was nebulous for non-jew deists.
I’ve never entered a synagogue, but I guess you won’t find pictures of the damned in hell (bas-reliefs of the damned I can see even at the exterior of the Xtian cathedral in the town I’m living).
Dr. Morales, you say: “This world probably is just a computer simulation, we are just pixels, everything is possible. No need to fanatic close minded positions.”
Since you say that, you might want to look at my book on the subject of our reality being computed, titled “A Soliton and its owned Bions (Awareness and Mind)” at: https://solitoncentral.com
That book also covers many things that some think of as being supernatural, including ESP, out-of-body experiences, and the afterlife.
Aside from that, what are you a Doctor of? Are you a medical doctor or just a PhD in some subject? (I have a PhD myself in computer science).
It was I who gave Chechar the Emile Zola quote: “Mankind will not attain to a state of liberty till the last stone of the last church kills the last priest.” This is not my position. Can I understand – in an Aristotelian sense – this position? Of course. I don’t know if you were aware of the Tuam scandal? Nuns were starving infants to death and dumping them in a sewer. Healthy babies they were selling to America. This kind of thing went on in Spain. An ex-Jesuit priest spoke out about it. I think there is a Jack Chick tract concerning it.
Abraham Lincoln – who privately despised Christianity – was very worried about Jesuitical infiltration. The Jesuits’ secret motto is “Iustum Necare Reges Impios.” It is just to kill non-Catholic heads of State. Lincoln was perhaps murdered by them despite his vigilance.
The shroud is an all too typical religious attempt to prove the unprovable. Religion results from one man’s attempt to control another using beautiful, lofty concepts that remain beyond his understanding. One must simply believe.
Other men, using circular logic, attempt to prove the unprovable cannot exist because it cannot be proven, always discounting that which they cannot comprehend by insisting anything that cannot be perceived and validated by the physical senses, surely cannot exist. Essentially, insisting if something cannot be proven by man’s proven methods, to man’s own satisfaction, then it cannot, and therefore, does not exist.
One side argues over how many angels dance on the head of a pin as the other strives to prove that, while it can be proven pins exist, angels do not – because it cannot be proven. Yet, neither side realizes, it is not pins, angels or shrouds at issue.
The issue is what is one doing here? Does life have a purpose, or is life just meaningless accident with no useful outcome? If life does have a purpose, what might it be? Throughout the ages, learned men have asked, is man’s existence merely to help himself to the material desires and illusions of this world, or might his existence have another purpose? Could it really be a simple matter of heaven or hell?
The Judaic religions insist the only choice one has is either heaven or hell. For the traditional Christian, life is the soul’s only chance to atone for its sin so it may then move on to a place where “streets” yet exist, paved with things the material man perceives as “precious.” This future can only be accomplished by following principals established by a “higher” class of men called priests with claimed direct connection to something they call “god.” God chooses some men over others? Might this “god” choose certain field mice over others?
In contrast, the atheist insists life is an accidental collusion of material matter, so one may as well get over any idea of soul or purpose and just grab all the enjoyment possible for today, for there is no soul and therefore no tomorrow. Neither have answers, neither strive to move beyond their hidebound beliefs. Instead, both charge bullheaded towards the abyss, convinced in the belief they have answers that satisfy their discomfort at not knowing.
Ironically, as long as such beliefs are maintained there is no possibility of anything beyond the endless existence of life as presently perceived, a possibility neither side cares to confront, never asking what if . . .
To my Atheist Father, with Love
Once, I fed milk
to a wild bunny
and I spent the day with him,
and in the night I sheltered him
in a box with rags
and I protected him from the greedy eyes
I spent a second day,
and a third day with him.
and so I spent my childish
love until one day,
when he died.
My father brought him to me,
he found him under a bush.
Another time, he brought me
a deer cub,
and I stuck my soul on her,
and we spent days and days together
although I knew she would die.
And she died.
As a child I was fascinated
by wild animals,
so, many times,
I went to look for them
on the hills and in the woods.
I happened to see them.
Once, I remember,
my father came home
and told he saw a stag
with huge antlers.
Of course, I trusted him,
although I demanded no proof.
Later, he also told me there is no God
and I trusted him.
I wandered all my life
walking among humans
as if they were trees,
thinking only of rare animals,
as the former child,
although this time I did not know exactly
what I was looking for.
It was then I saw You,
oh, my stag of fire
who trod me with your hoofs!
Since then I descend
each evening from my wood
as a wounded soldier
and I look for my father
to tell him about You.
Maybe I could say:
“God is like the stag you told me you had seen
when I was a child
and, although you did not bring him
to me, I trusted you”.
But my village is now
like a bird that changes it’s nest
from one hill to another
carrying everyone farther
and farther away.
– Savatie Bashtovoi
As far as I know kikes, to quote from one of their rabbis, don’t ‘believe in anything that did not come to us from tradition. Very little is said in regard to the afterlife’.
You have a poor understanding of Atheism.
Please enlighten me as to the facts of atheism.
An Atheist is somebody who does not believe in a divine creator (one God or multiple).
How does that divert from what I have written? I have never met an atheist (and I have met many) who doesn’t believe life is an accidental process with no meaningful purpose, therefore the only object is to gain as much of the materiel world as possible. This is summed up by the bumper sticker, “He who has the most toys when they die, wins.” This is the foundation of the atheist world view.
Jews are atheists by nature, believing only in a materiel world that can be stolen from others. This is why Jews win technical arguments with their god. This is why their Torah has stories stories about winning wrestling matches with a fallible god and why they have no problem embracing godless political philosophies like communism.
I am not talking about Jews.
I am referring to the lack of a belief in a Divine Creator. Just because somebody does not believe in God does not automatically make them a materialist and a hedonist.
When you say ” life is an accidental process” you are jumping upon what is known as equivocation. Atheists only believe this by a simple definition, however, they don’t actually think that just because there is not God that all of existence is “accidental”. They believe things are subject to cosmic evolution and that all things subsequently evolve from the Big Bang.
The Atheists you are most likely thinking of are Liberal “Atheists”. These people are pseudo apostates as they adhere to Christian axiology. Communists are the same: They believe, like the Christians, that all are equal.
However, it makes no matter. People seem to think that Atheism must always be attached to a particular philosophy when it is only a vague and broad definition. Somebody who believes in no God can believe whatever on the side. An Atheist does not even have to believe in evolution. They can believe that the Universe is 2 minutes old, but that no Being invented it. That is Atheism.
Jews are not the way they are due to Atheism. They are Atheists due to the way they are. However, like how proper Atheists should think, they understand that they are subject to the same laws that animals are: The laws of the jungle (or the desert, rather). This is why they win.
Supposedly, many of the SS were Atheists (not too sure).
So to what do atheists attribute life’s existence? The big bang? And what is that but a chance explosion into existence? What you seem to be alluding to are more inline with agnostic views.Those who say they just don’t know and are unwilling to make judgement as to whether or not there is a god.
As for the SS, I’m on Social Security and I’m not an atheist, I just don’t believe in the Judaic version of “god”. ‘Course I don’t believe in Akhenaten’s monotheistic “sun god” either.
No, I was not alluding to agnosticism at all. the Nature of the Universe around us is basically what you call “God”. It is not some sentient being. Human Beings are not around by “chance”. We are here due to the atomic processes that takes place in the Universe.
And even so, being an Atheist does not automatically make one a Hedonist. It just does not wok that way, even if they believe we are “here by chance”.
Have you heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?
There is strong or gnostic atheism: I know and disbelieve that God does not exist. Aron Ra is an example. There is weak or agnostic atheism: i do not know that God does not exist however I lack belief in a god, therefore i am an atheist. Bart Ehrman is an example of this type of atheist.
I understand there are shades of gray, but my strong Jewish programming invariably sets my mind to black and white. It’s like that old Bible story where ALL the people of Sodom are evil, that is why they ALL of them had to be destroyed. Or the golden, benevolent Negros whom ALL seem to be brilliant rocket surgeons working diligently to save mankind from his hideous white fate, or the evil whities whom are ALL stupid and bad so even the best of them must be killed, or the precious Jews that are ALL innocent, brilliant, beautiful, kind, gentle victims of oppression. Of course even in these examples, one might find exception, but this should not be discussed.That is the world we live in, a place where shades of gray are not recognized.
“box456,” I’m “doctor” in nothing, it’s just an avatar name, “morales” also means nothing.
Your book must be quite interesting, but I have little spare time to read long books. I did read the part about your out-of-body experiences, you seem very knowledgeable about metaphysics or “spiritual” issues.
By far the biggest question I have in life is about animals. I’m convinced that humans, at least myself and some others, have “souls”, I really woud like to read your opinion regarding animals
>I’m “doctor” in nothing, it’s just an avatar name, “morales” also means nothing.
>By far the biggest question I have in life is about animals. I’m convinced that humans, at least myself and some others, have “souls”, I really would like to read your opinion regarding animals.
In my book, some animal types have a soliton/mind (for example, humans, cats, dogs, horses, rabbits). And other animal types (for example, all insects) only have a mind.
The soliton particle has an associated awareness, and the bion particle (an animal’s mind is composed of bions) has no associated awareness. Those animals that have a soliton/mind are conscious, and those animals that have only a mind are unconscious.
In my book, item 3 in subsection “3.8.1Identifier Blocks”, introduces the soliton and its owned bions.
See also section “6.1 The Soliton”, where I discuss different animals and the question of which animal types have an awareness.
Also relevant to what you ask about animals, see the discussion regarding non-human animals that have a soliton/mind in footnote 154.
Also, for more regarding the soliton, you can download the PDF of the book and look at the entries in the “Subject Index” for “soliton”, and you can also search for the word “animal” in the “Subject Index”.
Many thanks, I’ll take a look. To me animal suffering is, by far, the thing in life most troublesome.
All the best