Email to Bruno Barbaris about the St. Louis Conference on Shroud of Turin, May 7, 2014
Dear Prof. Barbaris,
I submitted an abstract promoting the theory that Gnostics created the Holy Shroud (http://www.holyshroud.info) in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim and methods that have been lost to history. The administrators have rejected my offer without giving any explanation.

I asked another speaker, Bishop Michael Sheridan of the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, to boycott the conference. I think you have a moral duty to do the same because the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith is considering my request that they correct Cardinal Dolan of New York for suppressing my slideshow/lecture about this sacred artifact. My correspondence with the Pontifical Council on the New Evangelization and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is at
http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-.truth-.about-.the-.shroud-.of-.turin/

In my letter to Cardinal Mueller, I referred to two books written by atheists that assumed the Holy Shroud was authentic in order to give an historical explanation for the Resurrection. You should not preach the gospel by misrepresenting our salvation history.
Very truly yours, David Roemer

Letter of rejection of paper I submitted to the Proceedings of IEEE 2014 Workshop on Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation

Letter to Gianluca Setti, University of Ferrara, July 21, 2014

Dear Dr. Setti,
I drafted an affidavit against the Italy Section for unethical conduct that I will submit to the Ethics and Members Conduct Committee of the IEEE if this conflict about the paper I submitted to the 2014 IEEE Workshop on Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation is not resolved.

The affidavit consists of the two emails I sent you and the accusation that the conference was organized to generate peer-reviewed science articles that support the theory that a prominent Jewish citizen of Jerusalem provided a tomb for Jesus and that the Shroud of Turin actually covered the corpse of Jesus in the tomb. My paper argues that this theory is irrational, and this is why the conference rejected it. This implies that all the papers submitted will be judged on this basis. In my opinion, this makes the entire conference an exercise in pseudoscience.
Very truly yours, David Roemer

Letter to Ethics and Members Conduct Committee of the IEEE, July 29, 2014
Dear Mr. Kalasky,
My allegation against Gianluca Setti, Bruno Barberis, Francesco Lattarulo, Amir Sandler, Ermanno Cardelli, and Dario Petrie is that they are using the IEEE conference in Bari to promote the absurd idea that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. The enclosed article (“The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach”) is in favor of this pseudoscience and reveals the motives and reasoning behind it.

The article is based on a book titled, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” and I have enclosed a copy of my review of this poor exercise in Christian apologetics (http://www.newevangelization.info/licona.html).

I have also enclosed an article I wrote that was published in Spero News on January 18, 2008. This article explains why the Shroud is not authentic. I wrote it before I found out about the book I referred to in my IEEE submission which argues that Gnostics made the unusually shaped piece of linen to tell the story of the crucifixion of Jesus (http://www.newevangelization.info/shroud.html ).
Very truly yours,David Roemer
mailed with a certificate of mailing and emailed

Letter to Joseph A. Kalasky, August 1, 2014

Subject: Ethics Complaint Against Barberis and Lattarulo
Dear Mr. Kalasky:
I read Bylaw I-110 and Policy 7.10 and understand it to mean that the preliminary investigation should only involve determining whether there is a cause of action and whether the complaint can be proven.

The cause of action is that Bruno Barberis and Francesco Lattarulo are selecting papers submitted to an IEEE conference, not on their scientific merit, but on whether the paper supports the Biblical stories saying Jesus was buried in a separate tomb (not in a common grave for criminals) on Friday, his body was covered with a linen cloth, and the body was not in the tomb on Sunday morning.

I feel my affidavit and the documents I mailed on July 29, 2014, proves that this allegation can be proven and in fact proves it. I think your report of the preliminary investigation should be given to the president of the IEEE before the conference is over and the damage to the IEEE is done.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
mailed with a certificate of mailing

Letter to Joseph A. Kalasky, August 4, 2014
Dear Mr. Kalasky,
I think it might help to if I spelled out the relevance of “The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach” by Tristan Casabianca (Heythrop Journal LIV (2013), pp. 414–423) which follows the reasoning in the book, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” by Michael Licona.

The Resurrection of Jesus is both an historical event and an object of faith. As an object of faith, it means believing Jesus is alive in a new life with God and if you follow Jesus the same good thing can happen to you. As an historical event, it refers to the renewed fellowship of the disciples of Jesus after the crucifixion. This historical event is sometimes referred to as the Easter experience. These two works spell out the way many Christians relate to the Resurrection of Jesus.

Licona and Casabianca both understand that all historians agree that the Easter experience occurred within a few years of the crucifixion. Their response to this event is to ask what caused the Easter experience and to offer hypotheses. The explanation these apologists think is supported by the most evidence is what they call the "bodily resurrection of Jesus." By this they mean that a video camera could have recorded the corpse of Jesus disappearing without humans relocating the body. They assign a high probability to this explanation and call the total certitude that Jesus is alive a "leap of faith." Similar reasoning leads people to believe it is highly probable that the Shroud is authentic, and those who think it is a work of craftsmen or artists are being unscientific. This is why the reviewer of my submission was driven to refer to the Resurrection of Jesus and the doctrine called the Incarnation.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
mailed with a certificate of mailing and emailed

Letter to Joseph A. Kalasky, August 6, 2014
Dear Mr. Kalasky,
What follows is a link to an article written in Italy about the upcoming IEEE conference in Bari, Italy:
http://shroudstory.com/2014/08/06/scientific-conference-on-the-shroud-of-turin/

I think the article proves that the conference organizers are tricking the IEEE into publishing peer-reviewed articles that proselytize in favor of Christianity and against other religions.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
mailed with a certificate of mailing and emailed

Email exchange with Gordon MacPhearson, August 7, 2014 and August 11, 2014
Subject: Quality of Scientific Papers About the Shroud of Turin
Dear Gordon,
I’v read the article “Is the Shroud of Turin in relation to the Old Jerusalem historical earthquake.” My opinion is that the editor of the article had a responsibility to make changes that the peer-­reviewers and authors may have inadvertently overlooked. This is the same mistake Richard Sternberg made, as I mentioned in my affidavit sent to the EMCC (see “Sternberg peer-­review controversy” in Wikipedia).

These are excerpts from the first and third paragraphs:

After the first photographs of the Shroud, taken by Mr. Secondo Pia during the Exposition of 1898 in Turin [1], a widespread interest has been generated among scientists and curious to explain the image formation and to evaluate its dating.



Starting from the first photographs of the Shroud, which highlighted a figure of a human body undraped with hands crossed (Fig. 1), a large debate on the mechanism that may have produced such an image has been conducted in the scientific community.


The paper does not address the question of how the image was formed. The paper only states that neutron radiation may have caused the discoloration of the shroud fibrils. This quote is from the second paragraph:

In this work, the authors consider that neutron emissions by earthquake—as for the conventional gadolinium-­ like neutron imaging technique— could have induced the image formation on Shroud linen fibres through thermal neutron capture on nitrogen nuclei….. “


The editor should have replaced the phrase “image formation” with the phrase “changing the color of the fibril from white to yellow at certain points on the fibril.”

The article says the source of the neutrons in an earthquake is the crushing of stones. The authors call the process “piezonuclear fission,” and there is a lot of controversy about it. See:

http://www.scienceonthenet.eu/content/article/embarrassing-­piezonuclear-­affair

Very truly yours, David Roemer

David,
Thank you for passing along this information. The appropriate parties at IEEE have been made aware of your concerns.
With kindest regards, Gordon

Gordon MacPherson
Director, Conference Quality
IEEE

Letter to Joseph A. Kalasky, August 11, 2014
Dear Mr. Kalasky,
I’v enclosed a printouts of the three emails I sent to Gordon MacPherson. “Springer.pdf” is an example of the kind of garbage the IEEE will be publishing if the IEEE does not withdraw its sponsorship of conference #32930.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
mailed with a certificate of mailing and emailed

LinkedIN correspondence with Managing Director of the IEEE

Letter to Joseph A. Kalasky, August 18, 2014
Dear Mr. Kalasky,
I have asked Howard Michel and Dom DeMarco for an appointment so I can explain why I think the IEEE should withdraw its endorsement of the ATSI conference (Advances in Turin Shroud Investigations). I’v enclosed the email I sent Dr. Michel.

I’v also enclosed the screenshot of my LinkedIn message from Jose Roberto de Marca asking for information. According to Dom DeMarco, it would be “inappropriate for the President to comment or intervene in an on-going process.”

I’v enclosed screenshots of my correspondence with Chris Brantley on LinkedIn. There is a perfect analogy between the theory that the Shroud of Turin is authentic and the theory of intelligent design. They are both examples of pro-religion pseudoscience. The ATSI conference organizers and participants are trying to prove the Shroud is authentic and are using the IEEE’s reputation to bolster their religious enthusiasms.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
347-417-4703
http://www.newevangelization.info

Letter to Joseph A. Kalasky, August 18, 2014
Dear Mr. Kalasky,
On May 8, 2014, I filed a complaint (see enclosure) against Bruno Barberis, a general chair of the IEEE-ATSI-2014 and a science advisor to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin (Cesare Nosiglia), for participating in the St. Louis Shroud Conference to be held on October 9, 2014. Like the ASTI conference, the St. Louis conference rejected my submission because I argued that the Shroud was not authentic.

The abstracts of the papers presented in St. Louis have been posted and this will give you some idea about the papers that will be presented at ATSI-2014. I recommend that you read the following abstracts at
http://www.stlouisshroudconference.com/program/title-of-abstract.

My comments are beneath the titles:
dating-the-shroud-of-turin-weighing-all-the-evidence
In 1988, a carbon dating procedure authorized by the Catholic Church indicated that the Shroud was created in the middle ages. This dating has been thoroughly discredited because of the choice of the sample tested and the historical evidence that the Shroud predates the middle ages. This paper will only remind people who think the Shroud is authentic of their great victory over the 1988 setback. What this paper does is create a straw man. People are being led to believe that the choice is between the authenticity of the Shroud or its middle age date. The papers of this conference completely ignore the theory of Robert Drews that Gnostics created the Shroud of Turin in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim or volunteer and methods that have been lost to history. There are a number of other papers in this conference that have no purpose other than to refute the 1988 fiasco. They are:
spectroscopic-analyses-of-fibers-from-the-shroud-of-turin-what-do-they-mean
the-halo-around-the-head-in-the-image-of-the-man-on-the-shroud
study-of-shroud-feature-evidence-using-video-and-photogrammetric-analysis-methods
the-future-of-research-on-the-shroud
the-hypotheses-about-the-roman-flagrum-some-clarifications
the-shroud-and-the-iconography-of-christ
modern-scholarship-and-the-history-of-the-turin-shroud
the-full-length-history-of-the-turin-shroud
constantinople-documents-as-proof-of-the-shroud-in-edessa

the-enigma-of-the-apparent-age-of-the-shroud-of-turin-given-the-1988-radiocarbon-dating
This article reports evidence of spontaneous human combustion.
the-origin-of-rogers-raes-and-c14-samples
This article argues that there should be a new radiocarbon dating of the Shroud.
natural-manufactured-or-miracle
This paper give evidence for “Near Death Experiences.”
speculations-on-the-14th-century-origins-of-the-turin-shroud
I can’t comment because I found the abstract unintelligible.
earthquake-induced-piezonuclear-reactions-and-the-image-on-the-shroud-of-turin-critical-remarks
This abstract is based on the paper published by Springer (DOI 10.1007/s11012-013-9865-x) titled “Is the Shroud of Turin in relation to the Old Jerusalem historical earthquake.”

My opinion is that the editor of this article had a responsibility to make changes that the peer-reviewers and authors may have overlooked. This is the same mistake Richard Sternberg made, as I mentioned in the affidavit I sent to the IEEE (see “Sternberg peer-review controversy” in Wikipedia).

These are excerpts from the first and third paragraphs:

After the first photographs of the Shroud, taken by Mr. Secondo Pia during the Exposition of 1898 in Turin [1], a widespread interest has been generated among scientists and curious to explain the image formation and to evaluate its dating.



Starting from the first photographs of the Shroud, which highlighted a figure of a human body undraped with hands crossed (Fig. 1), a large debate on the mechanism that may have produced such an image has been conducted in the scientific community.


The paper does not address the question of how the image was formed. The paper only states that neutron radiation may have caused the discoloration of the shroud fibrils. This quote is from the second paragraph:

In this work, the authors consider that neutron emissions by earthquake—as for the conventional gadolinium-like neutron imaging technique— could have induced the image formation on Shroud linen fibres through thermal neutron capture on nitrogen nuclei…..


The editor should have replaced the phrase “image formation” with the phrase “changing the color of the fibril from white to yellow at those points on the fibril where the image exists.”

The article says the source of the neutrons in an earthquake is the crushing of stones. The authors call the process “piezonuclear fission,” and there is a lot of controversy about it. See:
http://www.scienceonthenet.eu/content/article/embarrassing-piezonuclear-affair
biophotonic-hypothesis-of-the-turin-shroud
As with the article about earthquakes discussed above, this abstract refers to “image formation,” but in fact only discusses the discoloration of the linen fibrils. This means there are five the kinds of radiation that are used to explain the discoloration: photons from the transformation of the corpse of Jesus into a spiritual body, neutrons from an earthquake, corona discharge, alpha particles, and biophotons.
about-the-second-image-of-face-detected-on-the-turin-shroud
The “second-image-of-the-face” is really, I think, the third image. The first image is only on one side of the linen. The second image is on the other side, and is not visible to the naked eye. However, this faint image can be detected with computerized image enhancement. I personally could not see even this enhanced image, which is why I did not include it in my slideshow. Apparently a third image was detected in this way. The author of the article is skeptical about this third image, but not the second.
charge-separation-as-the-mechanism-for-image-formation-on-the-shroud-of-turin
This paper advances the theory that the discoloration of the fibrils, misleadingly referred to as the image, was caused by an electric field.
the-alpha-particle-irradiation-hypothesis-part-i-entering-johns-gospel
John’s gospel is the most Christian and least Jewish of the four gospels. It supports the doctrine of the Incarnation. The author is saying we can understand the image by reading John’s gospel, not the Jewish gospels.
the-alpha-particle-irradiation-hypothesis-solving-the-mystery-of-the-shroud
This is part ii of the above paper. I can’t tell if the author is seriously supporting the theory that the discoloration was caused by alpha particles or making fun of this theory.
new-discoveries-on-the-sudarium-of-oviedo
The Sudarium of Oviedo supposedly covered the face of Jesus when he was being transferred from the cross to the tomb. The author considers the connection between the two to be evidence of the Shroud’s authenticity.
the-mandylion-or-the-story-of-a-man-made-relic
The author disputes the theory that the Shroud of Turin is the Image of Edessa, called also the Mandylion.
theology-of-the-shroud
The author states that the Shroud is almost certainly authentic. I am sure the author thinks it is almost certainly true that Jesus’ corpse transformed into a “spiritual body” on Sunday morning. In other words, he thinks it is highly probable that a video camera could have recorded Jesus’ appearances and the disappearance of the corpse. This means he is criticizing the historical judgment of people who do not agree the bodily resurrection of Jesus, which is how they think of the Resurrection, is highly probable. This is why he feels justified in criticizing the scientific judgment of people who think the Shroud is a work of human ingenuity.

It is not clear that Jesus was buried in a separate tomb. According to John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, Jesus’ body was put in a mass grave for criminals and devoured by dogs. This means there was no empty tomb on Sunday morning. A Catholic biblical scholar, Raymond Brown, argues that it is historically certain that Jesus had a separate tomb. However, Brown does not think it is an historical fact that the tomb was empty. But there is no disagreement between Brown and Crossan about the Resurrection of Jesus. They both agree that within a few years of the crucifixion, the disciples of Jesus renewed their fellowship and started Christianity. There is, however, a conflict between Crossan and Brown because Brown has the gift of faith and Crossan thinks Brown is irrational. I mention this because conflict produces anxiety and inhibition is a defense mechanism against anxiety. Religion inhibits people from thinking rationally and intelligently.
nazah-the-unveiling-of-a-hidden-purpose-for-the-shroud
The author says that the pollen on the Shroud proves it is authentic. It only proves the Shroud was made near Jerusalem in the 1st or 2nd century.
the-shekinah-glory-of-the-lord-and-the-shroud-of-turin
This paper implies that the image on the Shroud is miraculous.
a-galatian-sojourn-of-the-shroud-of-turin-pollen-paul-and-a-public-portrayal-of-christ
This paper will argue that early missionaries used the Shroud to prove Jesus rose from the dead. Atheists use this scenario to explain how the myth of the Resurrection got started.
science-and-semantics
This abstract states that there is evidence the Shroud image was created by “UV or particle radiation emanating from a stationary or disappearing human body.”
shroud-science-and-faith-dialogue-or-conflict-quot
The author of this is Bruno Barberis. He repeats the same misleading statement that permeates the papers being presented. He says scientists have been studying the image on the Shroud for years. They have not because every rational person knows craftsmen or artists create images. There is one exception. On April 21, 1902, Yves Delage, an internationally acclaimed zoologist, told the French Academy of Science in a lecture that ammonia vapors from the decaying body of Jesus created the image. Members of the audience shouted out “traitor” and shook their fists. For his safety, Delage had to make a quick exit from the auditorium. The scientific work Baberis is referring to is just about what caused the discoloration of the linen fibrils.
mcnp-analysis-of-neutrons-released-from-jesus-body-in-the-resurrection
This abstract says “that a very small fraction of neutrons in the body of Jesus were emitted from the body as it disappeared in the resurrection.”
hypothesis-that-explains-the-shroud-s-unique-blood-marks-and-several-critical-events-in-the-gospels
One of the reasons rational people think the Shroud is a work of craftsmen is that the blood marks are not smeared. The abstract said the blood marks were formed because the body appeared outside the cloth, but the blood remained in the cloth. I consider this disingenuous because no mention is made of the fact that the blood marks are not smeared. There are two other abstracts that repeat this misinformation:
a-critical-re-evaluation-of-the-shroud-of-turin-blood-data-strength-of-evidence-in-the-characterizat
joseph-m-gambescia-m-d-and-the-position-of-the-feet-on-the-shroud-of-turin-the-history-of-an-investi
an-artist-explores-the-facial-image-of-the-shroud-of-turin
I did not understand this abstract.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
mailed with a certificate of mailing and emailed

Dismissal of ethics complaint against the Italy Section of the IEEE (October 8, 2014)