Two Popes and a Priest: Someone let the Holy Spirit Out.

I have never been deep into the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since I was taught as a child that nobody including St. Augustine could understand it, I really haven't tried. But some times, I get this feeling like this morning that someone has set him loose. Bill O'Reilly claims he was moved by the Holy Spirit to write his new book "Killing Jesus" which I understand pictures Jesus among other things leading a tax revolt against the Romans. That's not quite the way I read scripture. It was the money changers in the Temple (a veritable free market) that most caught Christ's ire. O'Reilly stands to make millions from his book. Perhaps he's mixed-up about what kind of spirit actually motivates him.

Every morning when I arise whether it's at 5:00AM, yesterday (after 4.5 hours sleep) or at 5:45AM today after 6.45 hours sleep (Can't stand Bill Maher much and Alex Baldwin (who I met once) is not my cup of tea) and check my E-Mail. Among other things I am on an E-Mail alert from the NY Times for articles on the Catholic Church. Today, was a humdinger. One of the articles I can not help but comment (Church to poll Catholics on attitudes on social Issues such as contraception, abortion and gay rights) and the other matter suggested by that is an immodest proposal: Sainthood for two deserving clerics: (And a little thanksgiving for a third soon to be canonized) .

I know to non-Catholics and  ex-Catholics, the whole  sainthood thing is a bit too much and, particularly when it comes to the recent trend of clerical canonizations (i.e. Pope John Paul II).a bit overdone. I guess I who is belligerently remaining in the Church would agree. In fact I just wrote it (supra).

The late Father Robert Poveromo who passed away last year was close to our family, particularly my late son Michael. In fact in one of our last conversation, Mike told me that Father Poveromo had agreed to be is personal confessor. I remarked to “Father Bob” that I felt that the greatest of saints since the time of the Apostles was St. Francis and he responded “Some of us think he was the only saint.

It was with some satisfaction that I noted the intent of POPE Francis to join the canonization of Pope John XXIII with that of John Paul II, his half namesake, half in name only, Now maybe, it’s time to get into the game for I propose the beatification of two clerics: Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti (Pope Pius XI) and Fr. Peter Rinaldi, either of which could rightfully (if not jointly) be called “Patron Saint of the Holy Shroud.

This is not a place to begin a long conversation about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. I believe the evidence is convincing to the  near beyond reasonable doubt plateau. I say that as a lawyer who has just won a substantial jury verdict for a client where I had to grapple with issues like circumstantial evidence. Peter, Achille and  John and John pray for my client (and me) that survives an appeal. If it is the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, it is the most important object on the face of the earth.

Pius XI, the Shroud of Turin and the Jews

There are two outstanding accomplishments of Pius XI that argue for his sagacity, if not his sanctity. Let’s take the Shroud first. As a young man, Achille had climbed the Alps with  with another young adventurer, Paul Vignon. Vignon suffered a physical and nervous breakdown. While recuperating who took of painting and later worked as a assistant to the famous French biologist Yves Delage. Delage asked Vignon to investigate the authenticity of  the Pia photographs and the rest is history (covered in my manuscript in Chapters Five (Maelstrom) and Six (Resurrection of the Shroud).

It was as Pius XI, that he requested the 1933 exposition of the Shroud and it was at that exhibition a young Turinese seminarian, Peter Rinaldi encountered both Paul Vignon and future giant of Shroud studies Pierre Barbet.

Perhaps Pius XI most acclaimed act occurred during his dying days in 1938 when working with an American Jesuit priest he prepared an encyclical denouncing the Nazi’s for the their incipient Jewish pogrom and the neo-paganism which they represented. His secretary of state of Cardinal Pacelli who became Pius XII was not pleased. He has been also proposed for sainthood by Vatican clerics but since I can not say anything good about him, I’ll remain silent.

Peter Rinaldi after graduating from the seminary came to America. He publicized the Shroud in an article  published in US Sign Magazine while he was  still in seminary. His article created a firestorm of interest in the United States and led directly to the formation of the Hold Shroud Guild in the US. I will simply state that without Rinaldi’s tireless leadership and encouragement there might not have been a film Silent Witness and there certainly would not have been a STURP scientific investigation of the Shroud in 1978. It was his unique position as a priest in the US with connections in Turin that was instrumental but most instrumental perhaps was his gift for finding funds to finance both the STURP and Silent Witness.

I don’t think that I need add anything about John XXIII, he’s going to be canonized.

While your about if you are so inclined say a prayer for Rev. Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman charged with explaining Pope Francis while  he stays on the same page as Pope Francis. That’s a tough job. Compared his charge, the toughest jobs in the US (President and Mayor of NYC) are a walk in the [Central] park.

His most recent exercise was explaining that the Francis’ call for a poll on the attitudes towards controversial social issues wasn’t a big deal. Lombardi tried to downplay its importance. He didn’t do too well.

Examining and Preserving the Shroud of Turin

My problem with a petition that demands new scientific examinations of the Shroud is that it has the process backwards. The horse (the scientific team and procedures) is behind the cart (permission to proceed). Much has to be done before any permission from Turin  or the Vatican can be obtained.

For effect of a petition, I would note  that appended to  the comments on the "restoration" pages of the shroud.com was a petition to Pope John Paul II. I wonder how far that got? https://www.shroud.com/restored.htm Not very apparently.

The pattern or template for any testing might be wise to follow the original STURP example.

While there were preliminary approaches to Turin, an great deal happened before permission was actually granted.

Briefly, they are these and I welcome any addition or correction:

1955: King Umberto tells Fr. Rinaldi that he would support scientific examination of the Shroud "as long as the Church authorities approve it and he is kept informed."

1974. A near fatal balloon accident gets John Jackson's attention. His interest in the Shroud which began when he was 14 years old, is again piqued. Intrigued by a proposal from Ian Wilson, David Rolfe begins the process which led to Silent Witness

The  March 1977  conference  of interested Shroud students in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Two items:  the conference was partially paid for by an unexpected interview fee from David Rolfe to Jumper and Jackson. Second, the conference was an international affair with attendees from both GB and Italy.

September 1977: Jackson, Jumper, Otterbein and Rinaldi attended the London symposium at which the BSTS was founded. It was an intermediate stop for them because they were in transit to meet with the leadership of the International Center of Sindology in Turin. They presented their ideas in the form of a written proposal and two published volumes of the proceedings of the Albuquerque Conference.

March 1978: The release of Silent Witness in London. Broadcast in Italy within 10 days, dubbed into Italian.

April 26, Fr. Rinaldi informed Jackson and Jumper it was a go and they should be prepare for tests that would be conducted after the scheduled September - October 1978 exposition.

June 1977: Final planning meeting for tests.

There exists an extensive proposal from STURP (STURP II) which might be a guide after updating for new advanced procedures. It ought to be note that even as planning was commenced, production of Silent Witness progressed. IMVHO (in my [not] very humble opinion), some STURP participants downplay, or do not understand, the impact of Silent Witness on the process in general and the Vatican and Turin in particular.

I might add a  comment about the non-invasive– minimally invasive problem of further scientific examination of the Shroud. I have an analogy: Central Park in New York City

From time to time many well meaning proposals have been advanced for projects believed to have immense public value for Central Park in NYC. It has been estimated, as I recall, that if everyone of them had been approved, Central Park would have been cemented over 5 times. The biggest of such projects that was built is  the Metropolitan Museum of Art which is one of the great treasures of the United States . However, it does display incipient ant hill tendencies to push the boundaries of its site.

I would suspect, that if every well-intentioned person who desired just a tiny piece or more of the Shroud had received their desire, the Shroud would have disappeared long ago, probably before Secondo Pia was even born.

Preservation of the Shroud is not just the Church’s annoying demand  - It is a demand of all humanity (whether some realize yet or not). Whether the controversial 2002 restoration was appropriate or not, the desire of the Church and Turin to first and foremost preserve  the Shroud is absolutely correct. Therefore, what I would call the non-invasive as opposed to minimally invasive standard must be recognized. Perhaps a tiny exception for a truly minimally invasive procedure might be made, and perhaps a definition of invasive m must be formulated.

Some skeptical advocates of testing envision procedures that are truly “off-the-wall.” Whatever the challenge, the  possession of the Shroud is in the Church. The concept that it should pass to a secular guardian such as the British Museum or the even the Smithsonian is simply unacceptable.

Whatever the follies of the Vatican throughout the past two millenia and the elitist social policies of the House of Savoy, the fact is that without the commitment of the Vatican and the determination of the House of Savoy, the Shroud will have vanished into an Islamist, Reformation, Bolshevik or French Revolution bonfire long ago. Bonfire might have been the least repugnant means of destruction. Before the siege of Vienna the Turkish sultan boasted he would turn Saint Peters into a stable for his horses. One shutters to think of the fate of the Shroud in  his hands(or Calvin's or Robespierre's or Stalin's.).

 Its survival in the final analysis may be an example of providence, not provenance. It has been spared so that the advance of science can bring to us its Revelation. Now it has.

The Shroud is here and now, and so is He.

OFFICIAL 1977 ALBUQUERQUE CONFERENCE PHOTOGRAPH

Left to Right: Harry John, Msgr. Giulio Ricci, Dr. Mary Elizabeth Patrizi, Alan Mark (forehead only),

Erica John, Charles Webb, Mary Gambescia, Roger Morris, Rev. Peter Rinaldi, Capt. Joseph

Accetta, Elizabeth Watkins, Rt. Rev. Dr. John Robinson, Rev. H. David Sox, Bill Mottern, Thomas

Humber, Patricia Lynn, Rev. Adam Otterbein, Donald Lynn, Dr. Robert Bucklin, Marge Jumper, Dr.

Eric Jumper, Donald Devan, David Rolfe, Thomas Patterson, Cadet Thomas McCown, Christina Maria,

Kay Jackson, Dr. John Jackson, Dr. Joseph Gambescia, Tom Dolle, Maria Gallagher, Dr. Donald

Gallagher, Ian Wilson, Dr. Idella Gallagher

Not Shown: Maj. Rudolph Dichtl, Rev. Robert Dinegar, Rev.Francis Filas, 
Donald Janney, Dr. Walter McCrone, Dr. Ray Rogers

Photograph courtesy of David Rolfe

Copyright, 2013, John C. Klotz, New York, NY

The Catholic Revolition: A Deacon as acting Bishop

There is reported today that  Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst, profligate Bishop of Limburg has been suspended and that his duties His "duties will be assumed by a deacon, Wolfgang Rösch, who was scheduled to become the diocese’s chief administrator at the end of the year."

This is big,  Deacon's unlike priests are allowed to marry. I do not know Deacon Rosch's marital status but I wonder how much precedent there is for a deacon to assume such a role.
Another question: Can women become deacons? I know in many parishes in the United States nuns and law women are assuming administrative responsibilities. In my own parish we have a male deacon whose wife is principal of the school (which has so far survived.)

But beyond those questions it is obvious that the winds of reform originally unleashed by Vatican II are blowing again and not as a gentle zephyr but as a hurricane. Behold the Holy Spirit.

Pope John Paul II and the Carbon Testing Protocols

The sad truth is that responsibility for the flawed carbon dating rests as much as JPII shoulders as anyone. It was his personal decision to dramatically reduce the flawed protocols which called for more samples from other areas of the Shroud (still limiting  the amount taken to acceptable level).

He also  yielded to pressure from the radio carbon labs who claimed that further testing by the Shroud of Turin Research Project ( STURP) would be more intrusive than the radio carbon tests. In addition, as the result of previous lobbying by the carbon labs, STURP was excluded from the process of selecting the site(s) from which the   samples were selected. The results were that the samples site was selected without any reference to the STURP research would have demonstrated that the sample area was anomalous – it contained material of different composition from the rest of Shroud.

In fact the Oxford lab which was late in its report had received a report from a sub-contractor that there was ancient cotton in the sample that appeared to be part of a reweave  or had been interwoven when the linen.

There was a reason for JP II to short circuit everything that is  understandable: the shroud wasn't the only thing on his plate. At the time he was planning and executing  a ground breaking trip to Latin America where he cut Church ties to two dictatorships - Pinochet in Chile and Baby Doc Duvalier in Haiti.  

His faith in the authenticity of the Shroud led him, I believe, to make scientifically invalid judgment on the protocols.

But make no mistake about it, it was his determination. The final decisions were transmitted to the Archbishop of Turin in May 1987 in a secret letter of which the radio carbon labs were informed by their sources in the Vatican. As a matter of fact, the prime opponent of STURP (Rochester’s  Harry Gove), who was elated at the exclusion of STURP from the process, complained to the head of the British Museum that the resulting protocol was a “shoddy process.”

He was right about that but not to later crow that the results had proven the Shroud to be a fake. Although the Archbishop of Turin initially stated that the Church accepted the results he later recanted, and JPII referred to the Shroud in words that affirmed his belief inauthenticity..

JPII  can not escape responsibility for the protocols though. Better that it not have been done than that it was done by a scientifically shoddy process.

John C. Klotz

The Shroud, the Nazis and Freidrich Nietzsche

On Shroudstory.com, Dan Porter has posted a reflection on the discovery of the diaries of Alfred Rosenberg, a Nazi fanatic who scoured the conquered lands during WWII for treasures including religious relics of interest to Hitler. One of those was the Shroud of Turin which had been hidden in a Benedictine Monastery and nearly discovered. The Nazi’s were thwarted because the monks claimed to be in prayer in the Chapel.  They were kneeling around the altar.  The Nazis’ didn’t have the patience to wait out the monks prayers and left. The prize they were searching for had been hidden in the altar. See http://shroudstory.com/2013/06/14/will-the-alfred-rosenberg-diaries-tell-us-anything/

At times, feel sorry for those who are so dedicated to disbelief in either the concept of a deity or the authenticity of the Shroud so as to either ignore or disregard the evidence before us. I believe the main issue of the Shroud is not provenance but providence.

The Shroud's near misses with oblivion including at least three times  barely escaping consumption by fire may not be "miraculous" but is certainly "providential." Now we have the Nazis and the monks.

But the most important sign of  providence is that it waited for science to catch up with it. Pia's photographs were only a relatively  crude overture to the depth of the quantum examinations of STURP. Now even more vastly improved measurement devices functioning at the quantum level are available.

And we are being hit with circumstances apparently unrelated that are focusing attention on the Shroud. Certainly any reference to the Shroud in Rosenberg's diary will be a big, big story. Yet, it will only be a part of an inexorable tide of interest that is sweeping across the world.

In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche celebrated the death of God. It had  happened in the extreme end of the Universe but the news was traveling to the world. Nietzsche wrote in the Nineteenth Century. The news arrived  not with a bang, but many bangs in the Twentieth Century.

I realize that an agnostic or super physicist who reads this blog may be upset by this statement: God is being reborn in this time and place through the instrumentality of the Shroud. The news has arrived.

The Shroud, the Internet and the Margins

Dan Porter's Shroudstory blog as an interesting posting about an Australian science writer who lumps the Shroud of Turin in with such myths as the  "tooth fairy." 

"Do you hold any really odd beliefs—in ghosts, UFOs, tooth fairies, the sanctity of the Turin Shroud? While science often acts as a bulls**t filter, the internet rarely does." http://shroudstory.com/2013/06/13/argumentum-ad-populum-of-the-day/

There is a serious problem here. The issue is "marginalization." How the proponents of established "truth" use their establishment position to push dissent to the margins and unacceptability. More than once in history, proponents of seemingly fanciful scientific ideas are marginalized by established authority scientific, or otherwise. Remember, Galileo came with an inch of the stake - until he recanted the truth.

Einstein's relativity was mocked until it was proven. But some ideas simply evade traditional standards of proof. By the skeptics standard the Resurrection will always be wrong because it can't be repeated - at least by scientific methods.

When it comes to the Shroud, by   dismissively pushing adherents of its authenticity to the margins, the issue of the Resurrection is avoided. It was something that was noted about the Shroud in the initial debate after the Pia's photographs unlocked its mysteries. Were it the Shroud of Caesar or Aristotle it would have been universally hailed. But it was the Shroud of that annoying man, Jesus Christ and an authentic Shroud of JC, just isn't de rigueur.

And by the way, Lee Harvey Oswald, all around goof-off (who just happened to speak and write  fluent Russian) wasn’t a lone gunman. But that’s another debate. See http://www.johnklotz.com/new-jfk.htm

The Shroud, Dr. Pangloss and Sammy Glick.

 Norman Mailer first came to the attention of the publishing world when as a young author he wrote a piece called “Advertisements for Myself.” I am no Norman Mailer (only one wife and I never attended a cocktail party sans pants) but I started a comment on a piece published today on Dan Porter’s blog that went too far astray from the Dan's specific topic but says some things that have bothering me for awhile, maybe  four  decades or so. For the Dan's  "pig" posting see: http://shroudstory.com/2013/05/21/the-pig-experiment-was-not-barries-experiment/

There is a controversy brewing about a Smithsonian Channel documentary about the Shroud of Turin. It sounds like another attempt by the Main Stream Scientific Community (the “MSSC”) to debunk the Shroud. The most interesting thing about this controversy seems to be the FACT that the militant atheists can't escape the Shroud and so must destroy its authenticity. They can not accept a world (or existence) in which the Shroud of Turin proves not only that Christ existed, but that in three days his body parted company with his burial cloth. 

I come to this controversy as a lawyer who has had a life long interest in science and, alas, politics. I have ridden too many horses going-off in too many different directions. I also write and did win an honorable mention award from New York Press Association for –In-Depth Reporting. That piece was about corruption in the appointment of mortgage foreclosure receivers and was a least one cause of reform in the appointment of receivers in the New York State. I also remember someone remarking that one of my briefs read like a novel (it was meant as a compliment – I think.).

The late New York Supreme Justice Theodore Roosevelt Kuperfman described one article I wrote as “the best piece of political reporting I have ever read.” When I once wrote in another piece as an aside that white politicians supported corrupt minority politicians in the inner-city much as the United States beginning with Theordore Roosevelt supported tin-pot dictators in Latin America, I received a critical message from Justice Kupperfman objecting that Teddy Roosevelt never supported “tin-pot dictators. It was signed T.R. Kupferman with the T.R. underscored.

Years ago before the Internet, there was a radio advertisement in New York for Vantage Press which published books for writers who couldn’t find a publishers. It began with a stentorian voice asking the question: “Are you an unpublished author?” I thought that was a hoot, a contradiction in terms (a classical oxymoron). I longed for the opportunity to use it at a cocktail party when asked: “What do you do?” “I am an unpublished author.” And wait for the reply: “What did you unpublish?”

Of course I was published but not as a trade book or novel. I was for awhile a contributing editor to the now defunct East Side Express thus the N.Y. Press award. Sometimes my Op-Ed pieces were noticed. In 1993, one of them on the 30^th anniversary of the JFK assassination  caught the eye of the “Oswald was not a lone gunman crowd.” It was published in Newsday and was two pages with an artistic rendition commissioned by the publisher.  (It was Kennedy in the limousine with a bull's eye superimposed that was the CBS logo). It was referred to by one of the senior members of that crowd as the best summary of their position he/she  had ever seen. You find it here: http://www.johnklotz.com/new-jfk.htm The piece wound up on the then Washington Post/ LA Times news wire although it didn’t make it to the Washington Post proper. (Today it might have might have made a blog or two and received much wider circulation.)

I have always been struck by a rough analogy between the way the Sarah Palin’s dreaded Main Stream Media (MSM) treats the Kennedy assassination and how the MSSC treats the  Shroud. There are established truths (Oswald was a lone nut and the Shroud of Turin is a forgery) that when you challenge them you get  pushed aside: “One those nuts.” I was surprised to discover that one of the leading Shroud authenticity advocates (not Barrie Schwartz nor Dan Porter) turned out to be strongly interested in the Kennedy Assassination.

Incidentally, as a Republican Member of Congress from Manhattan’s silk stocking district, Kupperfman was a sponsor of the Freedom of Information Act, inspired by his dissatisfaction with the Warren report and friendship with Mark Lane.

The analogy is not perfect. The Kennedy Assassination remains for many a forbidden topic and those who challenge the convention wisdom are savagely marginalized even though a majority of the American population do not accept Oswald’s lone guilt. There are more MSSCs open to the possibility of the authenticity of the Shroud. But the militant atheists and their agnostic fellow travelers can not tolerate it because they know that lurking behind the issue of authenticity of the Shroud is the issue of the Resurrection. The implications of that are far too devastating for those who can not deal with the reality of Jesus Christ.

I once published an only slightly tongue in cheek piece on my blog (it’s expanded to Chapter One of  my manuscript in prgress) called  “The Shroud of Turin, the Resurrection and Joe Kennedy.” http://johnklotz.blogspot.com/2011/06/shroud-of-turin-resurrection-and-joe.html The working title of the chapter is “Rules of the Game.” I will make a dreaded lawyer-like statement (which has also been stated by others):  By the standards of proof we use in both civil and criminal courts in the United States, the authenticity of the Shroud is a proven fact. In a civil case, it would be a directed verdict, perhaps.

I am up to Chapter 10 of my manuscript titled “The Carbon Dating Fiasco.”  It opens with a quote from Thomas de Wesellow:

"The carbon dating of the Shroud will probably go down in history as one of the greatest fiascos in the history of science. It would make an excellent case study for any sociologist interested in exploring the ways in which science is affected by professional biases, prejudices and ambitions, not to mention religious (and irreligious) beliefs."

Right now I am dealing with whom I regard as the two principal villains in the fiasco: Harry Gove and the Rev. H. David Sox. Harry Gove is long deceased. If H. David wants to contact me, I will give him a chance to comment when I finish the Chapter. In my opinion, his position is either that of Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire’s “Candide” or Sammy Glick in Budd Schulberg’s “What Makes Sammy Run?”

I have been involved in preparing for a trial in a case which has been pending for seven years. In the meantime I have two of Sox’s books on the Shroud and was able to order a used copy of his first: “The File on the Shroud” from Timbuktu or somewhere which is being delivered by a piggy back express  or something. Just think, for under fifteen dollars, I will have collected the complete published works by H. David Sox on the Shroud including a 1998 article in The Tablet. Gove's memoir I received via Amazon Kindle.

The Internet continues to amaze. Two days ago I ordered a copy of an autobiographical memoir by someone one who is definitely not a villain: the late Sue Benford. It’s been mailed to me by Priority Mail. Sue is worth it.

Still plugging away.

Behold the signs of the times.

How wondrous are the mysterious ways of God!

Maybe there was a reason for the flawed carbon dating that calls to mind something I have already written: The issue is not provenance but providence. Could it be that the erroneous carbon dating was a way of pushing the ball down the court to give science a time to catch-up with the “sign” of the Shroud and insure the controversy which would allow it to be again a center of attention?

And who should emerge as the preeminent spokesman for the Shroud but Barrie Schwortz, a man who in 1978 was a gangly young photographer and in the interim has now aged, and created the number one Shroud source on the web:  shroud.com And when it comes to providence, how is it that Barrie was first to register that name?

I kidded Barrie that his April sojourn  was like a missionary trek of St. Paul. But the astounding coverage given his interview with the Catholic New Service and other media outlets on his missionary journey has raised interest in the Shroud. Certainly his perspective, as one raised in a Jewish family who was reluctant to get involved, provides power to his message.

And now America, the Jesuit Magazine that Fr. Peter Rinaldi avoided in 1934 because of the sway of Shroud critic Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.,  reports on his views.  http://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/mystery-shroud

Behold the signs of the time! He is coming, but He  is coming not on a cloud but through science and the Internet.

Alleluia!

The Shroud of Turin: Henrietta Lacks and ASM carbon dating

It may seem stretch but there is a connection between the saga of Henrietta Lacks and ASM carbon testing. It’s simply this: greed. 

I had a conversation with someone well versed in the Shroud from way back. I spoke with him about trying to get the three labs to open up on their samples to see if they have a relationship to Ray Rogers findings. He said it would never happen because ASM carbon testing is now a billion dollar industry and the labs could never admit they were wrong because the financial repercussions would be horrendous. I immediately thought of Henrietta Lacks.

Here’s why.

Henrietta Lacks was a poor black woman from Baltimore who died of cancer several decades ago. The Hospital preserved some of her stem cells and they were replicated and became the source of a billions of dollars industry. Her stem cells have built sky scrappers.

What did the estate of Henrietta Lacks get out of this: na da, nothing.

The C-14 testing of the Shroud was an entirely different procedure and industry. However, we are being naive (as I was) in thinking the labs would ever take any steps to jeopardize the validity of their most famous case – the Shroud of Turin. There is too much money at stake.

I am reminded in the story in the Gospel where Christ cured a women of possession but that the demons then went out an possessed a heard of swine which became enraged and stampeded over a cliff. The pig herders then drove Christ away. Salvation could wait, the money mattered more.

I think that enormous progress has been made but the C-14 tests have not yet made it to the dust bin of history. You can not serve God and Mammon. The scientists who stand-by the C-14 testing knowing it was flawed, have made a choice. So did the scientists who exploited Henrietta Lacks’ stem cells and never paid her heirs a dime.

Decomposing Alan Adler's Image Description

In 1999, the late Alan Adler, Ph.D. published a piece entitled "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin." The first part concerned the purported blood stains that he had studied with Dr. John Heller. The second part dealt with the details of the mystery, so-far inexplicable, image of a  crucified man. It was not a painting. See https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf

He did in one passage use of big words, not previously known to me, that I had to look-up. Here's the passage beginning at the bottom of page 3:

"However, the most interesting characteristic of the images is revealed by computer imaging analysis, particularly that done by a VP-8 image analyzer (3,5,11,28,42). The body image contains realistic 3-dimensional information relating image density at any particular pixel point to [4] the distance between the cloth and the body at that point. Further, this projective information transfer can be shown to be collimated and anisotropic, neither necessarily orthogonal to the receiving or sending surface."

Here's a brief glossary:

Collimated light is light whose rays are parallel, and therefore will spread slowly as it propagates. The word is related to "collinear" and implies light that does not disperse with distance (ideally), or that will disperse minimally (in reality). A perfectly collimated beam with no divergence cannot be created due to diffraction, but light can be approximately collimated by a number of processes, for instance by means of a collimator. Collimated light is sometimes said to be focused at infinity. Thus as the distance from a point source increases, the spherical wavefronts become flatter and closer to plane waves, which are perfectly collimated.

 Anisotropy (pron.: /ˌænaɪˈsɒtrəpi/) is the property of being directionally dependent, as opposed to isotropy, which implies identical properties in all directions. It can be defined as a difference, when measured along different axes, in a material's physical or mechanical properties (absorbance, refractive index, conductivity, tensile strength, etc.) An example of anisotropy is the light coming through a polarizer. An example of an anisotropic material is wood, which is easier to split along its grain than against it.

 Orthogonal: Perpendicular.

My Interpretation

I interpret this to mean two things: the image formation process (which seem to be waves of some sort) are parallel and directed in one direction (similar to a laser light beam). However it does not mean that they necessarily hit the medium at right angles.

My inexpert analogy would be a laser sight projecting a circular spot, being pointed at a target. Normally the target is at right angles to the line of sight so that the laser would intersect it at a right angles. (orthogonal). The image on the target would be circular (orthogonal). However if the target were tilted back 45 degrees, the spot would not be circular but an elongated oval (non-orthogonal)

Why these big words matter
Why this may be important is that to the extent the formation process operated non-orthogonally, the image on the Shroud would show some distortions. This may be  one reason why there is such a variance in claimed measurements. The simple version of  the process would be the image projected through a taut and therefore perpendicular Shroud. To  the extent the Shroud was not perfectly flat, the image would be distorted. It  is likely that Shroud image contained both orthogonal and non-orthogonal properties and that is what Adler is writing.

Now my question is this. Can we determine what part of the image is orthogonal (transmitted at a 90 degree angle to the Shroud) and what was non-orthogonal: (striking the Shroud at an oblique angle)? And, can we determine that angle and correct the image?

By the way, I am not saying that image was created by a laser. I am saying that the image formation process acted similar to a laser.