Thanks for your input. I pulled up the Shroud of Turin. The main activity, the quiz is essentially a test of reading skills.

• 1. As I remember from casual reading, there have a fair number of tests run over the years, such as Carbon-14 dating of the cloth, chemical analysis of the stained portions that form the image, etc.
  I seem to remember that the results of most of the tests suggest that the shroud is a medieval or renaissance fake, but some scholars siding with its authenticity have raised issues related to the accuracy of the tests (e.g. contamination of the Carbon-14 sample).

• 2. No real investigation is possible on the part of students because of the complexity of the problem. They could take sides on the issue, as the Poll pushes them to do, and some lively classroom discussion could be elicited, but the final positions they take will largely be a reflection of their individual biases and family backgrounds.

• 3. Just because there's a slight possibiltity that Leonardo could have done what Berkman did,
  is certainly not real evidence that he really did it.

• 4. Here's what Sean Heckman said, subsequently, about Berkman's experiment:

  Specifically, I take major issue with the misleading nature of our "camera obscura" experiment. I personally worked with artist Stephen Berkman to design, construct, and test the theory that the Shroud was created by such a process. Stephen and I paid particular attention to building the camera and exposing the image with historical accuracy. We only used simple lenses that would have been available in the 13th century, as well as exposed and fixed the image with chemicals that are known to have existed at the time. Put simply, the experiment failed.

  While it is theoretically possible to expose an image, there are a countless number of variables that make the process nearly impossible, a multitude of which caused our project to fail.

  Namely, in order to make a life-sized image, you would need to position the linen at least 6 or more feet away from the lens. Since light fades away at an inverse square rate, a pinhole or simple lens only allows for an extremely faint amount of light to reach that distance, making it extremely difficult to expose the image.
  In our case, it took 43 days to get a faint image, which completely disappeared once the image was fixed.

  Considering this experiment was based on 200 years of KNOWN photographic technology, I find it difficult that such an image could have been created 600 years ago, particularly an image that we'd still be able to see today.

  Sean Heckman

This is extracted from a website that supports the authenticity of the shroud, but I think Heckman's criticism of Berkman's experiment is valid. My personal opinion is that the shroud is not an authentic relic of the burial of Jesus, and is probably a created fake. What seems to be occurring, over and over, is that skeptics find evidence of fakery, and believers look for and find ways to discount the evidence, sometimes with very good reason (as in this case).

This web site was student-prepared. From that standpoint, your students can only be applauded for what they're doing. It's no surprise that the quiz activity is essentially "read and remember," since almost certainly that's what they've experienced for most of their school years, and moving beyond that into more complex cognitive territory would be extremely difficult.

I have no problem with letting my reaction be posted,
but I worry about discouraging student work that has merit. You know your students best, so it may be posted so long as it won't quash any feelings of achievement, which are absolutely vital.

And keep up the good work...
Howard Brady
Integrated Curricula

---

"If this relic is authentic it is proof of the central event of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ."

NOT true! The shroud of Turin is not a fake, but it is a fraud. The image is not unique, such images on fabric which was in contact with a corps are known. Though the exact chemical process by which they form has not been worked out. Reports in scientific journals have concluded that the shroud came from the right general area (east end of the Mediterranian) and approximately the right time period.

BUT! The image on the shroud of Turin can not possibly be that of Jesus of Nazareth. Check the eye witness account, John 20:7.

You may publish my comments on the shroud of Turin. Your students have done a good job with the site. I understand that their research skills are just developing.
I didn't mean to be too hard on them. I reacted with the mind set of "Modern Myths Taught as Science", which is directed at those who should know better.

What intrigues me is that so many learned, who have read the testimony of the apostle John numerous times, fail to make the connection with the claims of the shroud.

Sincerely,
Kenneth Fuller
Science can be Fun

---

Also read: Gospel of Mark 16.8