Tag Archives: junk science

Yawn: yet another new sighting of the Shroud in medieval art (well, a ‘water stain’ anyway)

There’s a  new (?) lady on the block called Pam Moon who has assembled  what I consider a somewhat derivative collection of debating points (CO, bacteria, fungi  bla bla) against the 1988 radiocarbon dating. It’s been showcased today, Ash Wednesday, … Continue reading

Posted in Shroud of Turin | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Stephen Jones BSc. Grad Dip.Ed persists in his mistaken belief that the Shroud image is a photograph. (Where’s the scientific evidence?)

“Note that the Shroud’s image is a type of photographic negative”? Reminder, Mr.Jones: “photo-” is a root that means “light”. On what grounds do you base your assumption that light was involved in capturing that image? If it was light, … Continue reading

Posted in Shroud of Turin | Tagged , , , | 27 Comments

The Turin Shroud: but for the pseudo science it would have been dismissed long ago as a medieval fake

This is the new title for my blog. The previous one (“Casting a critical eye at the Shroud of Turin”) was OK for starters, but with well over 100 postings covering a wide range of aspects – chemical, physiological,  image … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Charring, fluorescence and image-forming mechanisms. Beware Shroudology’s junk science and flawed logic…

Here’s what photographer- turned- self-styled scientist Barrie Schwortz, President of STERA (the so-called Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association  Inc) wrote back in February this year in attempting to dismiss my scorch mechanism:  “Every documented scorch on the Shroud … Continue reading

Posted in Shroud of Turin | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments