|Journal of Theoretics
Dec. 2000/Jan. 2001 Editorial
Science Explains the Image
on the Shroud of Turin
Sue Benfordís excellent article Empirical
Evidence Supporting Macro-Scale Quantum Holography in Non-Local Effects,
not only offers up a plausible scientific explanation for a very unusual
phenomena but taking it one step further, this concept of holographic
biophysical radiation offers a plausible scientific explanation for the
presence of the image on the Shroud of Turin.
The Shroud of Turin has been quite a mystery as no one
has been able to give a plausible explanation as to how it was created.
It is too complex and accurate (even by todayís standards) to have
been artistically made. We know that it is from Jerusalem because the fibers contain
the pollen of plants found only in Jerusalem.
We know that the carbon-dating done was not valid due to sample error
(they took a sample which contained part of an area that was repaired during
medieval times) as well as biologic mass contamination (fungus/mold), so all
we can say is that it definitely dates prior to the 14th century.
Characteristics of the image though historically date it to the first
century based on the techniques of crucifixion and religious traditions that
are evident on the shroud and its image.
The fact that the image on the shroud's image is enhanced
by various optical techniques such as VP-8 analyses and 3-D software reveal
aspects of the Shroud that could not be seen by the human eye, supports the theory that the image was created by some
type of biological holographic radiation.
At the very least because there are aspects previously unknown and unable to
be seen that are historically accurate to the first century, it tells us
that the Shroud could not have been "made."
The Shroud's image can not be explained by some mechanism of bodily contact,
as that would have yielded a distorted image (much wider appearing).
I have always thought that the only plausible explanation is one of a
form of radiation emanating in a directional manner.
If the body just emanated radiation then we would again have a
distorted image. No, the
radiation had to have some direction (upward) in order to create the image
that is present. This concept
of holographic biophysical radiation would explain how a non-distorted image
could have been imprinted onto the shroud.
Though I applaud the work of Ms. Bedford, I do wish
that she would have delineated out the applicability of her research to the
Shroud of Turin in her paper. I
do realize that there are many closed minds out there who will reject out of
hand any scientific evaluation which may have any religious implication, and
her reluctance for not making this obvious implication. In fact, it may have been better for those of us outside her
realm of research to see such ramification of her work, thereby giving
outside legitimacy to it. It is
sad though that one those who do research outside the halls of academia or
whose research may have some religious or non-conventional ramifications,
must tread carefully in order for their research to even get a hearing.
The Wall Street Journal recently published a letter of
mine on the bias against scientists who do their research in the private
sector (outside the hallowed halls of academia).
It was about the snub that Robert Noyce
(the inventor of the microprocessor) got from the Nobel committee.
From the Wall Street Journal 10/23/00
to the Editor
Get a Cold Shoulder
from the Nobel Committee
I wish to thank Michael Malone for his Oct. 17 editorial-page essay
Missing Nobelist" about the snub that Robert Noyce and other
non-academic (private sector) researchers have gotten and will continue to
get from the Swedish Academy's Nobel Prize committee. What greater discovery
has there been over the past 50 years other than the microprocessor that Mr.
Noyce helped to develop?
Probably the greatest inventor of the past century is the likewise
academically ignored Nikola Tesla, who invented the AC electric motor, the
radio (not Marconi, as most believe), the electric turbine, and numerous
other inventions that we would be lost without. He fought Thomas Edison over
making AC the electrical standard, as Edison wanted the inefficient DC,
which would have kept us from having the technological revolution we had
this past century.
Not only are most Americans unaware of the contributions of such men, but
so are most engineering students, who are not being taught about these great
men and their discoveries. I and other "non-academic" researchers
will continue to work in the private sector with the full realization that
our contributions to science will likely be ignored. But we do so in the
hope of advancing scientific knowledge and being able to practically
implement our discoveries for the benefit of mankind.
Dr. James P. Siepmann
Journal of Theoretics
of R&D, LightTime
Journal Home Page
© Journal of Theoretics, Inc. 2000
all submissions become the property of the Journal)