Sunday, June 16, 2019

Allen, N: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Allen, N #8

This is the third installment of "Allen, N," part #8 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. For information about this series, see part #1 and part #2. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. I have not italicised Shroud in my quotations of Allen, as he idiosyncratically does. See also my 2016 post, "Medieval photography: Nicholas Allen."

[Index #1] [Previous: Adler, A #7] [Next: AMS #9]


Nicholas Peter Legh Allen (1956-) was (or is) a Professor of Art in the University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

[Right: Nicholas P.L. Allen [2].]

Allen's first exposure to the Shroud was in 1969, as a 13 year-old, when he saw a photograph of the Shroud face on the wall of the Zimbabwe home of his parish priest, Fr. Philip Foster[3]. Allen was "completely overawed by this holy relic" and by what he "then perceived, to be its very serious implications for mankind as a whole"[4].

However, after the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud claimed it was "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390," Allen accepted that "this piece of linen was produced sometime in the late thirteenth century"[5]. Allen is evidently rewriting history here to support his later Medieval Photography theory because the midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65[6], which is the early fourteenth century.

Somehow from that radiocarbon date, Allen, in what sounds like a case of "psychological projection":

"... finally knew for certain, that as far as the Shroud ... was concerned, there were, to put it quite plainly, no experts. Rather, there existed a proliferation of opinionated individuals who often used whatever means were available to promote their particular hobby horse"[7].

Except Allen presumably, because he alone "knew that the answer to the Shroud's secret had to be obvious":

"Certainly, by 1988, I knew that the answer to the Shroud's secret had to be obvious — so obvious that when we comprehended it at last, we should wonder for quite some time, how our supposedly superior twentieth century civilisation could have been so persistently dull and witless"[8].
So according to Allen, anyone who doesn't accept his Medieval Photography theory is "dull and witless" and that includes his fellow anti-authenticists like Joe Nickell, who described Allen's theory as "astonishingly absurd":
"...the astonishingly absurd notion of an art historian named Nicholas Allen that the image was `the world's first photograph.' (The technique was supposedly invented to make a fake shroud and then conveniently lost for subsequent centuries!)"[9].

In 1993 Allen proposed his `Medieval Photography' theory of the Shroud's origin, in a South African Journal of Art History article, "Is the Shroud of Turin the first recorded photograph?"[10].

In that article Allen, the anti-authenticist, in the manner of a circular firing squad, first refuted the claim of his fellow anti-authenticists that the image of the man on the Shroud is a painting:

• "This image ... cannot be readily discerned by the human eye at close range ... [it] is so faint that it is visually coherent only at a distance of some seven metres [sic]"[11].

• "... the image has many of the characteristics of a modern day photographic negative ... if the polarity of this image is reversed (e.g. by making a photographic negative of the Shroud) one can clearly see a positive, seemingly three-dimensional image of a man ... This positive version of the Shroud's image ... is highly naturalistic and detailed"[12].

• "If it is to be accepted that the Shroud is, in fact, simply a painted/dyed/stained product of a medieval band of forgers ... then why is our culture (with its highly sophisticated technology and expertise) still unable to explain its means of production, far less duplicate it?"[13].

• "Also ... why did its creators go to so much trouble over this relic when, conceivably, they could have quite easily satisfied the needs of the credulous with a production far less sophisticated than the Shroud actually is"[14]. Allen does not realise that the same unanswered question applies to his hypothetical medieval photographer!

• "... why does this relic not contain the vestiges or stylistic minutiae characteristic of the culture that produced it? ... if the carbon dating can be trusted, the image which appears on this seemingly unique relic was produced at a time when Christian art ... was more normally characterised by the fairly rigid stylistic conventions ..."[15].

• "... Christian teaching in the late thirteenth century would have ensured that Christ be depicted with the marks of the nails in the palm of his hands and ... a crown of thorns. However, the Shroud not only shows Christ uncharacteristically naked, but with the marks of the nails in his wrists and ... a 'helmet' rather than a 'crown' of thorns"[16]. Again Allen does not realise that a medieval photographer would be subject to the same cultural limitations as a medieval painter.

• "In addition to these non-conformist, possibly heretical depictions of Christ, the image in the Shroud ... displays a degree of anatomical/medical/pathological knowledge that simply was not available to ... a medieval artist or forger of relics"[17]. This particularly applies to the Shroud's bloodflows which Allen admits were not photographed but later "daubed on"[18] by his medieval photographer. Thus Allen's `circular firing squad' executes also his theory!

To be continued in the fourth installment of this part #8 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "CurriculumVitae: Nicholas P L Allen, North-West University," Academia.edu. [return]
3. Allen, N.P.L., 1998, "The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens: Testament to a Lost Technology," Empowerment Technologies: Port Elizabeth, South Africa, pp.xii-xiii. [return]
4. Allen, 1998, p.xiii. [return]
5. Allen, 1998, p.xiii. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.7. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.7. [return]
7. Allen, 1998, pp.xiii-xiv. [return]
8. Allen, 1998, p.xv. [return]
9. Nickell, J., 2004, "PBS `Secrets of the Dead' Buries the Truth About Turin Shroud," Skeptical Inquirer, April 9. [return]
10. Allen, N.P.L., 1993, "Is the Shroud of Turin the first recorded photograph?," The South African Journal of Art History, 11, November, pp.23-32. [return]
11. Allen, 1993, p.23. [return]
12. Allen, 1993, p.23. [return]
13. Allen, 1993, p.24. [return]
14. Allen, 1993, p.24. [return]
15. Allen, 1993, p.24. [return]
16. Allen, 1993, p.24. [return]
17. Allen, 1993, p.24. [return]
18. Allen, 1993, p.31. [return]

Posted: 16 June 2019 2019. Updated: 18 June 2019.

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Casabianca, T., et al., 2019, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data," Archaeometry, 22 March

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the final installment (including a possible reconciliation of the carbon contamination and/or medieval repair theories with my hacker theory!) of my long-promised post on this article. I have worked through most of it, commenting on its key points. Much of it is highly technical statistics and although I have studied statistics units in my

[Above (enlarge)[2]: The online heading of the article.]

university degrees, that was many years ago and I am no statistician! The article's words are bold to distinguish them from mine. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

Abstract In 1988, three laboratories performed a radiocarbon analysis of the Turin Shroud. The results, which were centralized by the British Museum and published in Nature in 1989, provided ‘conclusive evidence’ of the medieval origin of the artefact. However, the raw data were never released by the institutions. In 2017, in response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered.[3]

The claim in the 1989 Nature article was:

"The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence"[4].
But as we saw in 17Feb19, the "with at least 95% confidence" was a lie (see below) by the author of the article, Dr Michael Tite[5], then of the British Museum. It was a lie because as Tite must have known, as discovered by Remi van Haelst, a Belgian industrial chemist and expert in statistical analysis, that Arizona laboratory had provided the British Museum with eight radiocarbon dates of the Shroud, some of which when calibrated and converted to calendar years, were more recent than 1355, when the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France:
"Arizona did not provide FOUR but EIGHT data ... The error-values between brackets are estimated ... Mathematically, the calculations following Wilson-Ward, with EIGHT and FOUR data will give the same result. So why were this data reduced from EIGHT to FOUR???? Because with the quoted errors the Arizona data overspans an era of 540-95 = 445 to 753+93 = 846 ... Converted into calendar date 1270-1430 ... [which] ... conflicts with the historical deadline of 1355, when started the veneration of the Shroud in Lirey ... Dr. Leese [Morwen Leese the British Museum's statistician and a signatory to the 1989 Nature article] wrote a letter to Arizona (dated July 28 1988), asking to REDUCE the EIGHT data to FOUR, by considering the TWO runs made the same day, like ONE run. So the data presented in table 1 are not INDIVIDUAL measurements, but the mean of TWO measurements. Which are in fact the average of between 10-20 measurements. Arizona agreed. because they knew that their mean result 646±31 was in fact conflicting with the historical deadline of 1350" (van Haelst's emphasis)[6].
Below is my more compact spreadsheet copy of van Haelst's table in his Shroud News article:

[Above (enlarge): Arizona laboratory's original eight dates, uncalibrated, which were fraudulently statistically manipulated by the British Museum's statistician Dr. Morwen Leese ( presumably as directed by Tite and with Arizona's approval) to become four dates in the 1989 Nature article (see above). Note that the midpoint of 574±45 is 1950-574 = 1376, which 21 years after 1355. So that was combined and averaged with 606±41 to make it 591±30, the midpoint of which is 1950-591 = 1359, still 4 years past 1355! And 540±57, the midpoint of which is 1950-540 = 1410, 55 years after 1355, was combined and averaged with 676±59 to make it also 606±41, the midpoint of which is 1950-606 = 1344, now only 11 years before 1355!]

This was scientific fraud by Leese, presumably directed by Tite and agreed to by Arizona, "making results appear ... more definitive than they really are":

"The term `scientific fraud' is often assumed to mean the wholesale invention of data. But this is almost certainly the rarest kind of fabrication. Those who falsify scientific data probably start and succeed with the much lesser crime of improving upon existing results. Minor and seemingly trivial instances of data manipulation-such as making results appear just a little crisper or more definitive than they really are, or selecting just the `best' data for publication and ignoring those that don't fit the case-are probably far from unusual in science. But there is only a difference in degree between `cooking' the data and inventing a whole experiment out of thin air"[7].
What makes this "with at least 95% confidence" claim a lie is that in a "chi-square distribution table ... for 2 degrees of freedom, the critical value for a 0.05 [i.e. 95%] probability is 5.99"[8]. But according to Table 2 of the 1989 Nature article (see extract below) the Chi-square

[Above (enlarge). Extract from Table 2 of the 1989 Nature article. As can be seen, sample 1 (the Shroud) contrasts markedly with the Chi-square values of the linen control samples 2 (0.1), 3 (1.3) and 4 (2.4), so already there was a serious, but unexplained problem. According to my hacker theory, the solution to that problem is that unlike the radiocarbon dates of the control samples which were real, the dates of the Shroud samples were computer-generated by Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick's program.]

value ("Χ2 value (2 d.f.)") of sample 1 (the Shroud) was 6.4, which means it was already beyond the 0.5 or 95% critical value. Moreover, according to Van Haelst, the chi-square value of the Shroud samples when there were eight, not four Arizona dating runs is actually 7.13[9], which makes the "with at least 95% confidence" claim even more a lie!

INTRODUCTION The Turin Shroud (TS) is a piece of linen cloth approximately 4.4m long and 1.1m wide, considered by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. The first certain historical record dates to the second half of the 14th century AD. In 1987, after a decade of negotiations, three laboratories (Arizona, Oxford and Zürich) were chosen by the Vatican authorities to perform a 14C test using accelerator mass spectrometry techniques (AMS). On 21 April 1988, a sample was taken from one corner of the cloth, and pieces of the sample were delivered to the laboratories, along with three additional control samples. The results were centralized at the British Museum, where the statistical analysis was performed. In their Nature article, Damon et al. (1989) stated that there was ‘conclusive evidence’ that the linen of the TS was medieval (AD 1260–1390 with at least 95% confidence).[10]

I realise that "... considered by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth" is the best that can be written about the Shroud in a secular science journal, but the truth is that the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic, that is, the very burial sheet of Jesus! What Yves Delage (1854–1920), the agnostic Professor of Zoology at the Sorbonne pointed out in 1902 to the `free-thinkers' on the French Academy of Sciences, is still true today, ~117 years later:

"If, instead of Christ, there were a question of some person like a Sargon, an Achilles or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making any objection"[11].
That is, if it was anyone other than Jesus, the evidence would be readily accepted that the Shroud was His!

And see above on the lie that the "medieval (AD 1260–1390" radiocarbon date of the Shroud was "... with at least 95% confidence"!

Currently, non-specialists consider this general conclusion straightforward disproof of the hypothesis that the TS is an antique linen cloth (Ball 2017). However, since 2005, a growing number of studies have provided elements and arguments contradicting the medieval hypothesis (Rogers 2005; Poulle 2009; Fanti and Malfi 2014; Bevilacqua et al. 2014; Boi 2017; Casabianca 2017). In 2013, a new statistical study based on a regression analysis seriously called into question the reliability of the conclusions of the 1988 dating (Riani et al. 2013). Recently, we obtained the raw data and, for the first time, measured their convergence with the radiocarbon dates published in Nature.[12]

I don't have all these articles, and even if I did, there is no space here to consider them. Besides it would be a diversion from the central point of this article. It is noteworthy that it took "a legal request" (see above) that is, a Freedom of Information request (see below) to the three laboratories and the British Museum and only the latter complied. This raises the question: what are the laboratories hiding? This secretiveness falls far short of the standard of scientific honesty that all scientists should adhere to, stated by the late Professor of Physics at Caltech, Richard P. Feynman (1918–1988), that "... the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution":

"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty - a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid-not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, And how they worked-to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can-if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong-to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it ... the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another ... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist"[13].
The basic idea of this paper is to conduct a robust statistical analysis using the raw data and to compare these results with those obtained using the official data. We use statistical tests to determine whether the measurements intra and inter laboratories can be combined to obtain a calendar range. Based on the statistical results, we question the level of confidence of 95% attributed to the AD 1260–1390 calendar age range.

This is no little thing. It has been a major part of Tite's, the laboratories' and anti-authenticists' propaganda that the Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date was "with at least 95% confidence":

"During the second week of October 1988 press personnel of the English-speaking world were notified that the results would be announced on Thursday, 13 October in the British Museum's Press Room ... Accordingly, early that Thursday afternoon I joined this gathering in a ... room of the British Museum. At one end of the room had been set a low platform which three men mounted ... They were ... Dr Michael Tite, with the Oxford radiocarbon-dating laboratory's Professor Edward Hall and Hall's chief technician, Dr Robert Hedges ... their only `prop' was a blackboard behind them on which someone had rather crudely scrawled: `1260-1390!' ... as Dr Tite explained, these numbers represented radiocarbon dating's calculation, to a ninety-five per cent degree of probability, of the upper and lower dates of when the Shroud's flax had been harvested. Representing an average of the laboratories' findings, which had proved in excellent agreement with each other [another lie see 20Dec14], they indicated that the Shroud's raw flax had most likely been made into linen on or about the year AD 1325, give or take sixty-five years either way"[14].
But they were wrong on that major point, and it cannot have been a mistake. Tite and the laboratory leaders were and are experts in the application of statistics to radiocarbon dating and Tite had a statistician, Morwen Leese, working for him. Besides, it has been brought to their attention by Van Haelst and others many times that the "with at least 95% confidence" claim is false, but they have ignored it, even though they must know that the criticism was true. The very least that the living signatories to the 1989 Nature article, including Tite, Timothy Jull of Arizona and Christopher Ramsey of Oxford should have done, and should do now is to publicly write to Nature advising that the "with at least 95% confidence" claim was false. It will be interesting to see what they will do now after their lie has been exposed in this Archaeometry article!

DATA AND METHODOLOGY Since 1989, scholars interested in the TS have often requested the raw data from the laboratories, without success (Pourrat 1991). This denial of access led to controversy and hindered the assessment of the analysis performed by the British Museum (Marinelli 2012; Rinaldi 2012). In 2017, several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the institutions involved in the TS radiocarbon dating were made. The British Museum replied favourably and made all its files, ‘not dated or arranged in any order’, available. On 18 July 2017, the British Museum electronically sent a file of 211 pages and in September 2017, one of the authors (T.C.) visited the British Museum and scanned more than 500 new pages[15].

Again, that the laboratories have since 1989 (i.e. for 30 years) refused to provide Shroud scholars with the raw data of the 1988 radiocarbon dating:

"... the Belgian researcher, Remi Van Haelst, who has consistently and persistently claimed that the results were incorrectly calculated. He has been campaigning for years to be given the raw data from the three laboratories so that others may examine their accuracy, but so far has been rebuffed by all of them. He gave a detailed resume of his years of work on the statistical data, profusely illustrated by graphs, indiscernible in the auditorium, but supporting his constant claim that inconvenient data were ignored by the laboratories, their calculations were wrong and that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the Shroud is medieval"[16].
can only be because they have something to hide! If the laboratories truly believed that, "The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence," they would be eager to share the raw data which is that "conclusive evidence." Instead the laboratories' `body language' betrays that they don't truly believe it! Theirs is the very antithesis of Feynman's, "you must ... give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution" (see above).

We learned that Zürich performed 4 × 10 measurements for each of their five TS subsamples. Oxford performed five measurements, and while the detailed measurements were not sent to the British Museum, a mean was provided for two measurements, resulting in only three radiocarbon dates. The Arizona report shows that 40 measurements (5 × 8) were made. Several scholars already disclosed the eight Arizona radiocarbon dates (Van Haelst 2002), but these dates have never been confirmed. We are now certain that the eight disclosed dates (designated Arizona raw 2) were correct. However, previously, Arizona modified the errors of two of its eight dates (designated Arizona raw 1). In contrast to Zürich and Oxford, Arizona included in its report eight computer printouts along with the counts of the detected radiocarbon atoms (designated Arizona counts).[17].

Zurich's "4 × 10 measurements" is presumably what Prof. Harry E. Gove (1922-2009) described of Arizona's dating, and if so, presumably applied to all three laboratories:

"The first sample run was OX1 [an oxalic acid standard]. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The first sample run was OX1. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The age of the control sample could have been calculated on a small pocket calculator but was not-everyone was waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue. His face became instantly drawn and pale. At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first. It had taken me eleven years to arrange for a measurement that took only ten minutes to accomplish! Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began"[18].
So not only did Tite with Arizona laboratory commit scientific fraud (i.e. "improving upon existing results ... making results appear just a little ... more definitive than they really are" - see above) by stating

[Right (enlarge): Extract from Table 1 in the 1989 Nature article, showing the dates of each sub-sample at each laboratory of Sample 1, the Shroud[19]. The dates are years before 1950[20]. Thus the midpoint of Arizona's first date was actually 1950-591=1359, i.e. four years after 1355, when the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France!]

in Table 1 of the 1989 Nature article [right] that Arizona dated four Shroud sub-samples ("individual measurements"), when it was actually eight (see above); Tite with Oxford also committed scientific fraud by stating that Oxford dated three Shroud sub-samples, when it was actually five! Only Zurich was honest in correctly stating that it dated its "five TS subsamples"!


The Nature and raw radiocarbon dates (Table 1) show that relevant differences exist among the estimates provided by the three laboratories: the Arizona minimum Nature estimate is 591, whereas the Oxford minimum is 730; the Arizona maximum is 701, whereas the Oxford maximum is 795. Most importantly, discrepancies exist even within the laboratories. For example, Arizona’s estimates range from 540 to 701, whereas Oxford’s estimates reach a value of 795.[21].

Below (enlarge) is my Excel copy of Casabianca, et al.'s Table 1[22]. I

made the point in my posts of 17Feb19, 18Nov15, 11Feb15 and 13Jun14, that the wide variations in the dates of the Shroud samples across the three laboratories' (and even within each laboratory!) is evidence that they are not real dates but were computer-generated by a hacker's (Timothy W. Linick's) computer program.

The computed error in the radiocarbon dates by Arizona presents differences (the error ranges from 30 to 41 in Nature and from 37 to 57 in the raw dates), whereas Oxford appears to have produced consistent estimates (homogenous radiocarbon estimates between Nature and the raw dates), but the computed errors in the raw radiocarbon dates are lower than the published errors (the most relevant is 730 ± 30 in the raw data against 730 ± 45 in Nature). Regarding Zürich, the problem is related to both the estimates and computed errors: the estimates are incongruent between the raw and Nature dates (a clear difference in the fifth observation, which is equal to 595 in the raw data and 679 in Nature).[23].

According to my hacker theory, the "extremely mathematically gifted" Timothy W. Linick[24] wrote a program which (with the possible exception of Arizona's very first run which returned the psychologically crushing calibrated date of "1350" - see above), thereafter would automatically intercept the output of the AMS system at each of the three laboratories, en route to the control console computer's screen and replace the Shroud's first (or early because of irremovable contamination) century date with random dates within limits which, after calibration, displayed dates clustering around 1325 ± 65. Then finally the hacker's program would order its own deletion when that laboratory's dating of the Shroud would have been completed (e.g. after 6 months from the program's activation), leaving no trace of its previous existence [see 08Jun14, 13Jun14, 05Jul14, 13Dec14, 30Jan15, 31Mar15, 22Feb16]. Whether Linick's program also generated bogus error ranges, or the laboratories calculated these from the bogus dates, my theory is compatible with either. However, recently I have been thinking that Linick may have preset the random number limits lowest (most recent) for Arizona, intermediate for Zurich and highest (oldest) for Oxford, although why he would do that is unclear. Or it may well be that Jesus, the Man on the Shroud, who as Yahweh come in the flesh (Jn 8:24,28,58; 13:19; 18:5-6; Mt 14:23-27; Mk 6:47-50; Jn 6:16-20) [the Greek ego eimi literally is "I AM" (Ex 3:14. Dt 32:39; Isa 41:4; 46:4 LXX)][25], directs the outcome of random numbers (Pr 16:33), created problems in the random number outputs of Linick's program that statisticians would later find invalidated them!

From a statistical perspective, these differences do not create a problem if they are irrelevant, but the data published in Damon et al. (1989) are affected by several problems (Brunati 1996; Van Haelst 1997, 2002; Riani et al. 2013). The Arizona counts table (Table 2) represents the eight sessions (A1, A2, A3, …) included in the report sent by Arizona to the British Museum. Two sessions were performed daily using the same standards (A1 and A2, A3 and A4, A5 and A6, and A7 and A8). Due to a technical incident encountered in the two first measurements of A2, the Arizona printout of A2 only includes four values, one of which (17 584) is the equivalent of two measurements. For the purpose of the analysis, we chose to keep five values for each session and we attributed the mean value (17 584/2 = 8792, in italics in Table 2) to the two problematic measurements.[26].

See below (enlarge) my Excel spreadsheet copy of Casabianca, et al.'s Table 2[27]. The first thing I noticed in transcribing this data was the

great variability in these "counts of the detected radiocarbon atoms." Reading across from Arizona'a sessions A1 to A8, the maximum C14 atom count was 11409 in session A6 and the minimum was 5128 in session A7. That is a difference of 6281 or 122.48%! This could be explained by the subsamples being unequal in physical size, a larger subsample containing more carbon-14 atoms than a smaller one but why would a laboratory do that? The obvious thing to do would be to cut each subsample into as near equal in size as possible. And according to Gove who was there, that is what Arizona did: "divide the total area ... into four pieces each about 0.5 square centimetres or 1/4" x 1/4" in area":

"Around 5 pm, Paul Damon called and suggested he come to the Doubletree [Hotel in Tucson, Arizona] and have a beer and a chat with us ... He said when he and [Douglas] Donahue had returned from Turin on the Saturday after the sample had been removed from the shroud, they had decided to divide the total area of about 2 square centimetres (0.3 square inches) they had received in Turin into four pieces each about 0.5 square centimetres or 1/4" x 1/4" in area and to store them in different places"[28].
Presumably the eight columns A1-A8 are of the four equal subsamples each further subdivided in half. But note that it cannot be this second subdivision of Arizona's four subsamples into eight that was unequal because while column A1's numbers are mostly higher than A2's, the first number (which equated to "1350" - see above - and which I claim may have been the only date `hardwired' in Linick's program), is lower than any of the numbers in A2. The same applies to the A7-A8 pair. While A7's numbers are mostly higher than A8, the lowest count, 5281, is in A7!

As I have posted before [11Feb15, 18Nov15, 24Oct16 & 17Feb19], this is (or seemed) inexplicable if the Shroud sample dates were real, given that the three laboratories' Shroud `postage stamp' size samples[29] were all sub-divided from the same ~8 cm x ~1.2 cm sample, cut from the Shroud[30] (see below). And the three laboratories were effectively

[Above (enlarge): Drawing of the approximately 8 cm x 1.2 cm sample cut from the Shroud and subdivided into sub-samples from right to left: "A" (Arizona), "Z" (Zurich), "O" (Oxford), and "A1" (Arizona additional), with a photograph of the sample superimposed over the bottom right hand side[31]. Was there a significant difference in carbon contamination (including from a medieval repair) across the three laboratories' samples, especially Arizona's two samples A1 and A which were from opposite ends of the Shroud sample?]

clones[32], using the same AMS dating method on near-identical machines.

But looking at the great variability of Arizona's C14 atom counts across its subsamples A1-A8 (above), it has just now occurred to me that the carbon contamination and/or medieval repair theories and my hacker theory may not be incompatible. What if Linick's program did not substitute the C14 atom counts coming from the Shroud, but in a mathematically sophisticated way inflated them to 13th-14th century dates? If so, then the variability of the C14 atom counts could reflect actual carbon-14 variability across the Shroud sample, due to contamination and/or younger repair threads (see above that Arizona's subsample was in two parts A1 and A from opposite ends of the Shroud sample). But the 13th-14th century dates of the Shroud samples would be due to Linick's program inflating that carbon-14 variability to 13th-14th century date levels!

And again note that in favour of my theory is that `odd man out' very first run C14 atom count of 8226 (above) which equated to "1350" (see above).

The methodology adopted in this study is classical. A central argument proposed by critics of the TS radiocarbon dating results is that the computation of the p-value using the method in Ward and Wilson (1978) contains an error (Brunati 1996; Van Haelst 1997). The Ward and Wilson method is used to test whether the radiocarbon determinations can be combined (Ward and Wilson 1978, 23). Following Van Haelst (1997), we present the results of the chi-square tests using the Ward and Wilson method to detect statistically significant inconsistencies in the raw radiocarbon dates and we perform ANOVA, parametric and non-parametric tests to determine possible significant differences between means in the raw data to eventually validate the results. To test the eventual existence of an interaction effect between the types of data (raw vs. Nature) and the laboratory that produced the data (Arizona, Oxford or Zürich), we perform a two-way ANOVA. Hereafter, a 5% level of significance is assumed for all procedures.[33].

The conclusion of "Van Haelst (1997)" (according to my `reading between his lines') was that the statistical analysis of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was both fraudulent and corrupt:

"CONCLUSION:
Facts :
The Arizona error was arbitrary enlarged from 17 to 31. The Wilson & Ward mean 689±16 was replaced by the UNWEIGHTED mean 691±31. The multiplying t-factor for 95% confidence was enlarged from 1.96 to 2.6. The claimed `at least 95 % confidence' for the medieval dating of the Shroud is NOT supported by statistical analysis. One may wonder, why these OBVIOUS facts, were not spotted by the `team of peers' who judge all papers before publication in Nature. Even stranger is the FACT, that Prof. Bray of the `Istuto di Metrologia' of Turin, confirmed that the results of the 3 labs were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the means WERE questionable. Prof. Bray declared not to be at liberty to answer any questions. His answer was : `On the evidence submitted, no averaged results APPEAR questionable. The scatter for sample 1 is about equal to the limit.' The only possible explanation is, that NOT all evidence was submitted to Prof. Bray. Prof. Bray refused to comment on the `combination from EIGHT to FOUR Arizona dates. I asked the editor of Nature, to compare my calculations with the results given by Damon et al. Following Dr. Laura Garwin (Physical Science Editor) : `You are asking me questions that are beyond my ability to answer. The Damon et al paper was refereed by qualified referees and no dissatisfaction was raised with the assignment or errors.' I also asked the advice of Prof. Bene (University of Geneve). `I would like to congratulate you for the quality of your work. You established definitive evidence, that the measurements made on the linen of the Shroud are NOT homogeneous and that they should be rejected.' Prof. Jouvenoux (University of Marseille-Aix): `Van Haelst was probably the first to question the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in a scientific way'" (Van Haelst's emphasis )[34].
and that therefore the 1989 Nature article should never have been published and should be retracted!

Finally, due to the current importance of radiocarbon procedures, we present results obtained with the software OxCal version 4.3 (OxCal 2018), which was used here to statistically analyse specific versions of the radiocarbon dates. OxCal is an open-access diagnostic tool based on a Markov chain Monte Carlo developed by Christopher Ramsey (Oxford) in the mid-1990s and is currently used by many radiocarbon specialists (Ramsey and Lee 2013). The individual agreement, model agreement and overall agreement indexes should generally all be over 60% in the case of a homogeneous result. Several individual measurements below the 60% level combined with model and overall agreement indexes below 60% indicate the presence of at least one problem in the data, probably due to a flawed measurement or contamination.[35].

Spoiler Alert! [Left [36].] Here where I can't think of anything to comment on in the above, is a good time to reveal that because Casabianca, et al's paper accepts the radiocarbon dates as real, albeit flawed, they are not going to find that the 1989 Nature article was wrong in its claim that "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval," only that it wrong in its claim that it is "AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence" (which itself is significant because Tite and his statistician Dr Morwen Leese must have known that the latter claim was false and therefore they knowingly lied in claiming it - see above). Later in their paper Casabianca, et al admit that:
"Our statistical results do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out"[37].
What does not merely "imply" but proves beyond reasonable doubt "that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out" is the overwhelming evidence that the Shroud is authentic. See my brief presentation of that evidence in my "Open letter to Professor Christopher Ramsey" of 4 October 2018. I sent a copy of that open letter to Prof. Ramsey both as an email and snail mail, but he never responded. I don't mind him ignoring me but I do mind him ignoring the evidence for the Shroud's existence all the way back to Edessa in AD 544!

"A picture that is worth a thousand words" in that open letter to Prof. Ramsey was the c. 1070 depiction by John Skylitzes (c.1040s–c.1101) of the transfer of the Image of Edessa from Edessa to Constantinople in

[Above (enlarge): "Surrender of the Mandylion [the `Image of Edessa] to the Byzantines"[38].]

944 [see "944b"], and behind the face-only Image of Edessa is the full-length Shroud (see above)!

RESULTS The ANOVA on Nature radiocarbon dates (Table S2) shows that at least two groups’ means are significantly different from each other, providing evidence that the differences among the laboratories are not irrelevant, especially for the Arizona/Oxford Nature dates (Table S3). The Ward and Wilson test is also above the critical value (8,60>5.99). The OxCal 4.3 software confirms these results with an overall agreement index of 41.8%, strongly below the usual threshold of 60%. On 12 radiocarbon dates, three have a low individual agreement index (Table 3 for the Ward and Wilson tests and the OxCal analysis)[39].

A note at the end of the article explains that Table S2 and S3 are part of the "Additional supporting information" that is not in the article itself. "ANOVA" or "Analysis of variance" "... in its simplest form ... provides a statistical test of whether two or more population means are equal"[40].

There are two questions here: 1) Why is there any significant variability at all in the Shroud samples between the three laboratories and indeed within a laboratory? And 2) Why does the first-century Shroud (according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence) have, not just a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date, but a `bull's eye' 1325 ±65 radiocarbon date?

The carbon 14 variability in the Shroud samples cannot have been a problem with the AMS systems at the laboratories because the 1989 Nature article admitted that the agreement in the control samples across the three laboratories was "exceptionally good" yet the "spread of the measurements" of the Shroud samples was "greater than would be expected":

"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for [control] samples 2, 3 and 4 is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted"[41].
The answer to both questions is provided by my recently realised proposed reconciliation of the carbon contamination and/or medieval repair theories with my hacker theory. First, there was carbon contamination variability across the Shroud sample that the laboratories' cleaning could not remove, as pointed out by textile expert (later Professor) John Tyrer:
"In 1532 the Shroud was being kept inside a silver casket stored in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambery, when a fire nearly destroyed the building. The intense heat melted a corner of the casket, scorching the folded linen within, and producing the now familiar scorch marks on the Shroud. Since silver melts only at 960 degrees centigrade, the heat inside the casket must have been intense. In these circumstances moisture in the Shroud would turn to steam, probably at superheat, trapped in the folds and layers of the Shroud. Any contaminants on the cloth would be dissolved by the steam and forced not only into the weave and yarn, but also into the flax fibres' very lumen and molecular structure ... Under the circumstances, contaminants would have become part of the chemistry of the flax fibres themselves and would be impossible to remove satisfactorily by surface actants and ultrasonic cleaning. More drastic treatments to destroy the contaminants would inevitably damage the flax fibres themselves"[42].
But that irremovable residue of the previous total carbon contamination would have to be not only about 60% of the Shroud sample [see 01Nov13, 24May14, 22Aug14, 08Dec14 ...], but exactly the right amount to shift the first century Shroud's carbon date thirteen centuries into the future to the `bull's eye' date, 1325 ±65!

Second, according to my modified hacker theory, Timothy W. Linick's hacker program was designed to build on (not substitute for) the existing level of carbon 14 in each Shroud sample, and inflate it so that when combined and averaged (with fraudulent help by Tite and Leese - see above ), it was 1325 ±65, the midpoint of which was a mere 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in 1355!

With that I will conclude this post. The remainder is highly technical statistics and I do not claim to understand it sufficiently to comment on it.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Casabianca, T., et al., 2019, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data," Archaeometry, 22 March, pp.1-9, 1. [return]
3. Ibid. [return]
4. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
5. Morgan, R., 1990, "Interview With Dr. Michael Tite by Orazio Petrosillo and Emanuela Marinelli, 8 September 1989, during the Paris Symposium," Shroud News, No 59, June, pp.3-9, 7. [return]
6. Van Haelst, R., 1991, "Radiocarbon data indeed manipulated," Shroud News, No 68, December, p.5. [return]
7. Broad, W. & Wade, N., 1982, "Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science," Simon and Schuster: New York NY, p.20. [return]
8. Banas, T., "How to Chi-Square Test," Sciencing, April 24, 2017 . [return]
9. Van Haelst, 1991, p.7. [return]
10. Casabianca, et al., 2019, p.1. [return]
11. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.106-107. [return]
12. Casabianca, et al., 2019, p.2. [return]
13. Feynman, R.P., 1985, "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!," Unwin Paperbacks: London, Reprinted, 1990, pp.340-343. [return]
14. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.6-7. [return]
15. Casabianca, et al., 2019, p.2. [return]
16. Morgan, R., 1993, "The Rome Symposium - Part 2," Shroud News, No 78, August, pp.4-16, 5. [return]
17. Casabianca, et al., 2019, p.2. [return]
18. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.264. [return]
19. Damon, et al., 1989, p.612. [return]
20. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
21. Casabianca, et al., 2019, p.2. [return]
22. Casabianca, et al., 2019, p.3. [return]
23. Casabianca, et al., 2019, p.2. [return]
24. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. https://goo.gl/ZDcXAW. [return]
25. Rhodes, R., 1992, "Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.14-15, etc; Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.160-161, etc. [return]
26. Casabianca, et al., 2019, pp.2-3. [return]
27. Casabianca, et al., 2019, pp.2-3. [return]
28. Gove, 1996, p.259. [return]
29. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.104; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.94; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.170. [return]
30. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.6; Wilson, 1998, pp.6,191; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.82A, 87, 95. [return]
31. Wilson, 1998, p.189. [return]
32. Wilson, 1991, p.178; Wilson, 2010, p.281. [return]
33. Casabianca, et al., 2019, pp.3-4. [return]
34. Van Haelst, R., 1997, "Radiocarbon Dating The Shroud: A Critical Statistical Analysis," Shroud.com. [return]
35. Casabianca, et al., 2019, p.4. [return]
36. Extract from Thompson, C., 2018, "Spoiler Alert!," Eagle Nation News, May 14. [return]
37. Casabianca, et al., 2019, p.7. [return]
38. "Chronography of John Skylitzes, cod. Vitr. 26-2, folio 131a, Madrid National Library, in "File:Surrender of the Mandylion to the Byzantines.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 20 December 2012. [return]
39. Casabianca, et al., 2019, p.4. [return]
40. "Analysis of variance," Wikipedia, 1 June 2019, [return]
41. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
42. Tyrer, J., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. [return]

Posted: 29 May 2019. Updated: 19 June 2019.

Monday, May 27, 2019

23 May 1989: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the fourth and final installment of part #16, "23 May 1989" of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1. Installments will be to the whole post and not specifically linked. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: Mar89: #15] [Next: 4 June 1989 #17]

23 May 1989 Before noon on 23 May 1989, German former hacker for

[Above (enlarge): Partially burnt forest trees from the gasoline fire that killed Karl Koch[2]. Note that a fire which can partially burn dry trees would not go out until all the wood was burned, unless it was controlled by at least one person using a fire extinguisher, hose or buckets of water. But Koch couldn't have extinguished the gasoline fire that killed him and there was no fire extinguisher, hose or bucket at the scene anyway. Therefore Koch's death was murder, not suicide! See below. See also 21Jul14, 17May15, 02Jun16 & 15Jul18.]

the KGB, Karl Koch (1965–89), left his workplace at the Hanover office of then West Germany's Christian Democratic Union party, in his employer's vehicle, to deliver a package to a government office in Hanover, but he never arrived[3].

In the late afternoon, Koch's employer notified the police of his disappearance[4]. Koch's friends and the German domestic security agency (BFV) sent out search parties looking for Koch but after a week the searches were abandoned[5].

On 30 May a farmer who had been checking his irrigation daily noticed

[Above (enlarge)[6]: Road from the village of Ohof, Germany (bottom right), leading to patches of forest adjoining farmland. Presumably it was to one of these patches of forest along that road on the night of 29-30 May 1989 (see below), that two cars, one being Koch's work car containing his barefoot (see below) dead body, were driven by agents of the East German Stasi on behalf of the KGB. There a circular patch on the edge of the forest was burned, controlled by a fire extinguisher to provide a firebreak, and then Koch's dead body was laid in the centre of that circular firebreak, doused with gasoline (petrol) and set alight, to simulate Koch's suicide. Koch's car was then hidden in the forest nearby and covered with dirt (see below) in the hope it would not be discovered for a long time.]

a car parked in the adjoining forest[7] near the village of Ohof, north of Hanover[8]. After a few days in a row, when he saw that the car was still there, he called the police[9], on 1 June.

The police investigated the report that day and found that the car's roof, hood and windscreen were thick with dust[10], looking like it had been there for years[11]. In the undergrowth near the car, the police found a charred corpse lying next to an empty gasoline can[12]. He was lying face down with an arm over his head as though trying to shield himself from the flames[13].

The vegetation in the surrounding 3 - 4 metres had been burned black[14] (see above). The police concluded that the driver of the car had committed suicide[15] by pouring the contents of the gasoline can over himself, soaking the surrounding earth as well, lighting a match, and was burned to death[16]. The police noted that the corpse was barefoot but no shoes were found in the car or in the surrounding area[17]. They were puzzled because there had been no rain for five weeks and the undergrowth was as dry as matchwood, yet the scorched patch around the body was contained, as if it had been carefully controlled[18]. On 3 June 1989[19] the body was publicly identified by the police as that of Karl Koch[20].

[Above (enlarge): Timeline between: a. Koch's disappearance on 23 May 1989[21]; b. a farmer first noticing on 30 May what turned out to be Koch's work vehicle parked in the adjoining forest[22]; c. police responding to the farmer's report found a burnt body near the vehicle[23]; d. police identification on 3 June of the body as that of Koch[24]; and e. Timothy W. Linick's `suicide' (see 22Feb16 & 07Mar16) a day later on 4 June[25]!]

But see above that Koch couldn't have controlled and extinguished the gasoline fire which killed him and there was nothing at the scene by which he could have controlled and extinguished it. Koch would have been wearing shoes when he left his office in his work car, but they weren't in the car or the surrounding area[26]. And there was no suicide note by Koch[27].

Moreover, suicide made no sense, since Koch had confessed to the West German authorities his selling of hacked Western computer secrets to the KGB[28]. He was therefore in no danger of being prosecuted, being protected from punishment by the terms of the West German espionage amnesty legislation[29]. The authorities had actually provided Koch with accommodation and found him a job with the Christian Democratic Party[30]. He was also receiving help with his drug dependency and seemed on his way to rehabilitation[31] Koch was even planning to move into an apartment of his own and had embraced conventional religion[32]. There "was `a strong whisper'" coming from the West German intelligence services that "the Stasi - East Germany's secret service was responsible for Koch's death"[33].

There would have been no need to take the trouble to drive Koch ~43 kms (~28 mi) from Hanover, burn Koch alive to kill him in a simulated suicide, and then hide his car. A forced overdose of drugs would have plausibly implied that the former drug addict Koch had killed himself accidentally. But the burning of Koch's already dead body would have been necessary to hide the marks of torture by the Stasi/KGB to find out who else Koch had told about his hacking of the Shroud's dating for the KGB. Therefore, in view of the above evidence, Koch's `suicide' was murder by the Stasi on behalf of the KGB to silence Koch from talking further about his hacking of Zurich and Oxford's Shroud radiocarbon dating computers!

Especially since Arizona laboratory's Timothy W. Linick was found dead of `suicide' on 4 June 1989, the day after Koch's body was publicly identified as his on 3 June 1989 [see next "4 June 1989"]!

To be continued in the next part #17 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Cliff Stoll visiting Karl Koch's death forest," FirstPost, 2014 (no longer online). [return]
3. Clough. B. & Mungo, P., 1992, "Approaching Zero: Data Crime and the Computer," Faber & Faber: London & Boston, p.163. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. Hafner, K. & Markoff, J., 1991, "Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier," Corgi: London, reprinted, 1993, pp.302-303. [return]
6. "Ohof, 38536 Meinersen, Germany," Google maps, 2019. [return]
7. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
8. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
9. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
10. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
11. Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 26 April 2019. [return]
12. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
13. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
16. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
17. Ibid. [return]
18. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
19. King, T., ed., 1989c, "One of Cliff Stoll's `Wily Hackers' Is Dead (Suicide?)," Phrack Magazine, June 5. This 5th June Phrack Magazine report states that Koch died on 3 June, evidently wrongly assuming at the time that Koch had died the same day that the police publicly identified his body. [return]
20. Ibid. [return]
21. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.302-303. [return]
22. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p. 303. [return]
23. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
24. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
25. Galeazzi, G., 2013. "Never solved: The enigma that still divides the Church: The Shroud," Vatican Insider, 1 April. Translated from Italian by Google (no longer online). English translation, "Unsolved Enigma that Still Divides the Church: The Shroud" (no longer online). [return]
26. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
27. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991, p.362. [return]
28. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
29. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.186. [return]
30. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.302. [return]
33. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]

Posted: 27 May 2019. Updated: 29 May 2019.

Sunday, May 19, 2019

"News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, April 2019

Shroud of Turin News - April 2019
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: March 2019, part #1] [Next: May 2019, part #1]

This is the April 2019 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed below linked news article(s) about the Shroud in April as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them. I will comment on some of them in future installments.


I received an email today (24May19) from Joe Marino, which began:
"... https://sindone.it/museo/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Radiodatazione-Sindone-_-Nota-su-art-Catholic-herald.pdf Note on the radiocarbon age of the Turin Shroud and on recent studies published in Archaeometry that will be presented on May 23, 2019 at the University of Catania The research results will be presented recently at the University of Catania on 23 May published by some scholars coordinated by Prof. Torrisi of the same University, in which it was completed a statistical analysis on the raw data of the radiocarbon age measurement carried out in 1988 on a flap taken from a corner of the Turin Shroud sheet. As is known, the three laboratories in charge of the radiocarbon measurement of 1988 obtained a dating between 1260 and 1390 AD publishing methodology and results in the authoritative scientific journal Nature (https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm). Thanks to a legal request on the right of access to administrative documents `Freedom of information act' only in 2017, 29 years after the radiocarbon measurement, it was possible to access the raw results of the measure in the possession of the British Museum. The radiocarbon raw data was found still not elaborated mathematically to obtain the average age, today analyzed by the Torrisi group with methods of statistical mathematics. The results of Torrisi's statistical analyzes have been published in the scientific journal Archaeometry (https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12467). In a nutshell, the authors conclude that the data obtained from 1988 measure are uneven to the point that they cannot be considered valid, let alone be considered `the conclusive proof that the Shroud is medieval' as recklessly stated in the article of Nature ..."
The remainder of the article can be obtained by clicking the link and running it through Google Translate, which the above evidently is from. I promised to blog about this in my post of 11Apr19 but I still haven't done it because I have had higher blog priorities. And I still have: 23 May 1989 was when Karl Koch went missing and was subsequently found dead of a murder disguised as suicide [02June16], and 6 June 1989 was when Timothy Linick was found dead of presumed suicide [22Feb16]. So I will have to blog next on those two dates in my, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" series [I had a gap in between them]. But I will blog on this "raw results of the measure in the possession of the British Museum" issue eventually [see 29May19], and in a sense I already have!


News:
• "The April Fools' Day pranks that have made history," GQ, Chris Sullivan, 1 April 2019 ...

"The most persistent of these counterfeits has been The Shroud Of Turin ... Pundits considered the cloth consigned to fakery in 2005 after Dr Jacques Costanza [sic] proved that such an impression might have been achieved in the Middle Ages by rubbing iron oxide mixed with gelatin on to cloth. Nevertheless, the argument rages to this day as die-hard disciples drowning in their own ignorance refuse to accept that it is anything but the real McCoy. An able illustration of the old adage that people will believe exactly what they want to believe totally regardless of the facts, the Shroud's enigma lives on."
Since GQ is "an international monthly men's magazine based in New York City and ... focuses on fashion, style, and culture for men," presumably this "Chris Sullivan" is the "journalist who has written for every UK style magazine that has ever been published [sic]..." If so, what are his credentials to write so authoritatively on the Shroud? Presumably NONE because it is evident that Sullivan has not read any Shroud pro-authenticist literature, otherwise he would not spout such nonsense as that Shroud pro-authenticists are "die-hard disciples drowning in their own ignorance." Indeed, the boot is well and truly on the other foot! It is Sullivan who is ignorant and who believes what he wants to, "totally regardless of the facts"!

As for "Dr Jacques Costanza," his name actually is Jacques di Costanzo,

[Right (enlarge): "Jacques di Costanzo is a Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of Sciences. He is also a doctor at the University Hospital of Marseille. On the literary level, Dr. Jacques di Costanzo is the author of publications on the death of Napoleon I and the Shroud of Turin"[3].]

so Sullivan is ignorant of that also!

I blogged about di Costanzo's bas relief claim in my post of 01Nov08. Back then I was unable to find a photo of di Costanzo's `shroud' but I have now found two (see one of them below). In my post of 01Nov08 I

[Above (enlarge)[5]: di Costanzo's bas relief (left middle and lower right) and the `shroud' face that he made from that bas relief (upper right). As can be seen, it is "nowhere near the quality of the original" (see below).]

listed the following points against di Costanzo's `shroud': 1) It is only a face, not a full-length body, front and back. 2) As with Shroud anti-authenticists Picknett and Prince's criticism of McCrone's iron oxide on a linen bas-relief `Shroud' face, even though he commissioned an artist to produce it, it was "nowhere near the quality of the original"[6]; 3) It was not "the ... image of the crucified Christ" because it did not have "all the major features of the Shroud"; 4) As the French translated web page noted, "This is not a 3D image and the image of the Shroud is in 3D"; 5) di Costanzo used iron oxide in a gelatin binder, but as we saw in 21Apr19, there is no gelatin on the Shroud and the iron oxide is in fact blood! and 6) The Science & Vie article that reported di Costanzo's `shroud' remarked, "It's obviously easier to make a fake shroud than a real one," so it regarded di Costanzo's `shroud' as not "real" but a "fake."!

In my post of 01Nov08, I listed problems with claimed bas relief replications of the Shroud image: 1) A bas relief image is comprised of powder or pigment but there is no powder or pigment that comprises the image on the Shroud; 2) bas-relief `shrouds' are not true 3D, nor superficial or non-directional as the Shroud is; 3) the bas-relief technique was unknown in the 14th century; 4) A bas relief of the full-length, front and back Shroud would itself be a great masterpiece of art and should still exist; 5) there would be many Shrouds mass-produced from the same bas-relief; and 6) the anatomical accuracy of the Shroud body, wounds and blood flows are unknown in medieval bas-reliefs, carvings or sculpture.

• "Scientific photos of Shroud of Turin published," Catholic News Agency, Denver, Colorado, April 11, 2019:

"A new website aims to make available to Catholics and researchers a collection of photographs of the Shroud of Turin by a scientific photographer who was part of a research project that spent more than one hundred hours conducting tests on the shroud."
See also "Museum of the Holy Shroud to open in Shreveport," KSLA, 2 May 2019, Melissa Kakareka; "Cathedral of St. John gains incredible collection for all to see," Shreveport Times, 3 May 2019, Henrietta Wildsmith.

• "The Sudarium of Oviedo: The `Other Shroud' of Jesus," National [Above (enlarge): The Sudarium of Oviedo.]

Catholic Register, April 18, 2019, Kathy Schiffer:

"It was Jewish custom at the time of Jesus' burial to first clean and cover the face, as a sign of respect and compassion for the family. Mourners would then cover the body with fragrant herbs and wrap it in a shroud, or burial cloth. When Jesus rose from the dead, it is believed, he set aside the face cloth before emerging from the tomb. This small linen napkin, measuring approximately 2¾ feet by 1¾ feet, is called the Sudarium (Latin for `face cloth'). It was preserved from the time of the crucifixion in a reliquary; however, the two linens were separated — eventually being carried to other countries. The Sudarium made its way to the town of Oviedo, in north-central Spain, where it has been venerated for centuries ..."
"... The Sudarium has assumed importance in recent years for two reasons: Reason #1. The history of the Sudarium supports the Shroud's authenticity Unlike the Shroud (called a "sindon" in New Testament Greek), it has never been missing, so there's no question regarding its ancient origin ... the Sudarium ... is known to have been in Spain since 631 A.D. Before that it was ... hidden in a cave near the monastery of St. Mark, not far from Jerusalem. When Persian forces invaded the Byzantine provinces in 614, the oak case in which the Sudarium was kept was spirited out of Palestine through northern Africa ... into Spain ... Reason #2. There are similarities between the Shroud and the Sudarium ... the blood and lymph stains on the two cloths match — both are type AB, which was uncommon among medieval Europeans but is a common blood type in the Middle East ... Pollen residues on the Shroud and the Sudarium both provide evidence that the cloths were in the same region of Palestine. Stains on the two cloths ... match. Because of the way the Sudarium would have covered the head, there is no clear face print — but there are remarkable correlations between stains on the two cloths. The Sudarium would have been wrapped over the head of Christ while his relatives waited for permission to remove the body; and so the stains show that the body was held in a vertical position with the head dropping back. At the back of the head, the cloth shows blood from deep puncture wounds, similar to the wounds on the Shroud of Turin, which may have been made by the crown of thorns. A second, overlaying stain was produced by fluids excreted from the nostrils when the body was lain horizontally ... this second set of stains is composed of one part AB-type blood and six parts oedemal fluid. This fluid proves, according to scientists, that the victim died from asphyxiation — which is the cause of death for people who are crucified ..."
The Sudarium of Oviedo is a `two factor authentication' which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that both the Shroud and Sudarium are authentic! See 09May15 & 23Jun15. See also 24Jan17 & 27Jul17.

• "A Groundbreaking Future Exhibit About the Shroud of Turin," Townhall, Myra Kahn Adams, April 28, 2019: "Tuesday at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington D.C., the following announcement was made from the podium on behalf of a major sponsor":

"Museum of the Bible is excited to propose a groundbreaking, high-tech, innovative exhibition about the Shroud of Turin with a mission to explore its history, mysteries, facets, and themes by utilizing state-of-the-art imaginative displays." The operative phrase is "excited to propose." Henceforth, in order for the Museum to produce what would be the most creative, high-tech Shroud exhibit in the world, targeted to open in January 2021, at least $2 million must be raised."

Editorial
Posts: In April I blogged only 3 new posts (latest uppermost):
"Adler, A: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia" - 21st; "March 1989: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" - 13th; "`News and Editorial,' Shroud of Turin News, March 2019" - 11th.

Comments: In April I deleted a comment because:

"... it is not a comment on one of MY posts, but an attempt by you to use this MY blog, as a vehicle for posting YOUR views. This is my longstanding policy. See for example my recent comment under "New tests by Prof. Giulio Fanti show the Shroud of Turin could date from the time of Christ".

Updates In April, from memory, there were no significant updates in the background of my past posts.

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. In April I blogged one post on this: "March 1989: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud."

My book: [see 11Apr19]. In April I continued writing Chapter 2, "A linen cloth." In early May I started Chapter 3, "The man on the Shroud." I feel like I am making slow progress, but then I am averaging about 0.6 of a chapter a month, or 7.2 chapters in 12 months. At that rate I could finish the book in 3 years! Hopefully I won't take as long as Adam Clarke (c. 1760-1832) did writing his whole Bible commentary:

"Malachi 4:6 - I have this day completed this commentary, on which I have labored above thirty years; and which, when I began, I never expected to live long enough to finish. May it be a means of securing glory to God in the highest, and peace and goodwill among men upon earth! Amen, Amen. ADAM CLARKE, Heydon Hall, Middlesex, Monday, March 28, A.D. 1825"[4].

Pageviews: At midnight on 30 April 2019 Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 1,051,769. This compares with 885,877 at the same time in April 2018. That is

165,892 pageviews over the past 12 months, or an average of 165,892/365 = ~454 pageviews per day.

Google Analytics also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "Dimensions of the Shroud: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia," 4 February 2015 - 313; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.5. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crowned with thorns," 8 September 2013 - 216; "Were crowned with thorns #5: Bible and the Shroud: Jesus and the man on the Shroud: Shroud of Turin quotes,"19 October 2015 - 176; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.3. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were scourged," 15 July 2013 - 135 & "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 121.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "STOP PRESS – AG Opinion in Huawei v ZTE published today," The CLIP Board, 20 November 2014. [return]
3. "Jacques di Costanzo," Actu & Histoire, 2016. Translated by Google. [return]
4. Clarke A., 1826, "Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Entire Bible," Earle R., ed., Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Single Volume Edition, 1967, p.761. [return]
5. Bourdial, I., 2005, "Holy Shroud: Science blinded by passion," Science & Life, No. 1054, July. Translated by Google. [return]
6. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, pp.74-75. [return]

Posted: 19 May 2019. Updated: 14 June 2019.

Sunday, April 21, 2019

Adler, A: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Adler, A #7

This is "Adler, A," part #7 of my new Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. For information about this series, see part #1 and part #2. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. Much of this is about Heller and STURP. When I get to "Heller, J" and "STURP" and also "McCrone, W" and "Jesus," I will transfer some of this to those entries and link to them from here.

[Index #1] [Previous: Acts of Thaddeus] #6] [Next: Allen, N #8]


Alan David Adler (1931-2000), was a Professor of Chemistry at

[Right (enlarge)[2]: Alan David Adler (5 October 1931-12 June 2000).]

Western Connecticut State College, now Western Connecticut State University, up to his retirement in 1992.

Adler was a renowned porphyrin chemist and because of his extensive porphyrin studies and encyclopedic knowledge, he was considered an authority on blood chemistry.

Dr. John H. Heller Before that, for seven years from 1967 to 1974, Adler was a research scientist at the then New England Institute, Ridgefield, Connecticut. There he was a colleague of the founder of the Institute, biophysicist Dr. John H. Heller (1921-95) [see future "Heller, J"].

John P. Jackson In 1978 Heller read an article about the Shroud in the journal Science by leading science journalist Barbara Culliton[3] and his curiosity was aroused by the phrase in it, "the physics of miracles"[4]. The article was about a group of scientists who were investigating the Shroud of Turin[5] (which was the nucleus of the Shroud of Turin Research Project - STURP) [see future "STURP"]. Heller wrote to John P. Jackson [see future "Jackson, J"] whom the article said was the leader of the group[6]. The article had mentioned that there was skepticism about the blood because preliminary tests showed that the blood stains on the Shroud fluoresce, but blood does not fluoresce[7]. In his letter to Jackson, Heller asked if the blood on the Shroud was an image of blood or actual blood, and if the latter "it should be very simple to determine"[8]. Jackson phoned Heller and clarified that the blood was tested in 1973 (by the Turin Commission) [see future "Turin Commission"] but unsuccessfully[9]. Heller said that the 1973 test must have been "extraordinarily inept" not to have detected blood if it was present[10]. Heller added that "members of the institute [New England Institute] staff had been working with blood porphyrins [see future "blood"] and had learned how to make them

[Left (enlarge)[11]: Diagram of a porphyrin ring containing an iron atom in a blood haemo-globin molecule.]

fluoresce, which was then measured with "micro-spectrophotometry"[12]. Heller does not explicitly say, but presumably this porphyrin fluorescence research was conducted by Adler.

Raymond N. Rogers Jackson asked Heller to contact Los Alamos National Laboratory chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005) [see future "Rogers, R"] which he did[13]. Rogers agreed that "[p]orphyrin fluorescence is an interesting approach"[14] to identify if the blood on the Shroud really is blood.

STURP When Heller reported back to Jackson on his talk with Rogers, Jackson invited Heller to a "Shroud team" meeting in Amston, Connecticut, over the Labor Day weekend [2-4 September, 1978][15]. Heller attended the meeting in Amston which turned out to include a "dry run"[16] of a planned 4 days of testing the Shroud in Turin from 9 to 12 October 1978[17],

[Right (enlarge): STURP photographer Barrie Schwortz' [see future "Schwortz, B"] copy of the "Operations Test Plan for Investigating the Shroud of Turin" from the "dry run" in Amston, Connecticut, on 3 and 4 September 1978[18].]

at the end of the 1978 Exposition of the Shroud from 26 September to 8 October, 1978[19].

Jackson informed the meeting that "a corporate entity in the state of Connecticut" had been created "called the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc., or STURP"[20]. After modifications to a secrecy agreement everyone signed and became members of STURP"[21]. But Heller was told he would not go to Turin, because his job, the determination of the presence or absence of blood on the samples the team would take from the Shroud, would begin when the specimens came back from Italy[22].

Blood porphyrins At the Amston meeting Heller told Rogers that at the New England Institute his colleagues had extracted the iron atoms out of the centre of blood porphyrin molecules, after which they fluoresced a specific ruby-red colour under ultraviolet light, and using that technique they could measure 100 nanograms (100 billionth of a gram) of blood if it was present[23].

Blood tape samples In Turin Ray Rogers and Rev. Robert Dinegar (1921-2005) applied a special $5000-per-roll sticky-tape supplied by 3M Corporation[25],

[Left (enlarge): STURP's Rogers and Dinegar taking a sticky tape sample from the Shroud in 1978[24].]

using a special applicator designed at Los Alamos that measured applied pressure[26], took 32 sticky tape samples[27] of every feature (see below), according to a predetermined grid[28].

Walter S. McCrone But Rogers made the mistake of first loaning the 32 tapes from the Shroud to leading microscopist Walter McCrone (1916-2002)[30] [see future "McCrone, W"],

[Above (enlarge)[29]: Composite map of Shroud front (left) and back (right) locations of 32 sticky tape samples taken by STURP's Rogers and Dinegar in 1978.]

not realising that McCrone was an extreme anti-authenticist who would not accept that the Shroud was Jesus' even if its radiocarbon date was first century[31].

As an example of McCrone's capacity for self-delusion (or rather lying - see below), he claimed that half of STURP's samples were his and the other half were Rogers':

"Ray took the tapes back to Los Alamos and I collected them from him during the week of December 15, 1978 ... When I returned to Chicago with the tapes, I split them into two duplicate sets - one for Ray and one for me"[32].
That McCrone was here lying is evident in that he kept and worked on all 32 tapes ("Careful study of each of these 32 tapes, micrometer by micrometer, over a period of months"[33]), damaging them all in the process[34].

McCrone initially refused to return STURP's tapes to Rogers but under threat of legal action by "STURP's lawyers"[35], he first returned to Rogers the most damaged half of the tapes[36]. And then after a visit to his Chicago laboratory by STURP's "Ray Rogers, John Jackson and Eric Jumper," McCrone returned to them the remaining "all slides, bits and pieces of those tape slides"[37]. Even then McCrone was lying because he kept back one Shroud "slide 3-CB," but afterwards he "was forced by threats of legal action to return even that tape"[38]. Later McCrone falsely claimed that he was "[not] very bright" and was "conned out of my set of tapes" by STURP[39]!

Heller's early tests Early in 1979, before the events above, at Rogers' request, Heller phoned McCrone several times for the return of STURP's tapes, but he was never available[40]. So Heller experimented with non-blood colourants which a medieval forger might have used on the Shroud, but these were all unsuccessful[41]. Eventually McCrone sent Heller four poor-quality tape microscope slides with his notes which indicated there was little or no blood on them[42]. Heller did succeed in identifying blood using porphyrin fluorescence, but the amount of `blood' on the tapes McCrone had sent him was too small (about 700 picograms where a picogram is 1 thousandth of a nanogram) [see above on a nanogram] that Heller could not prove it[43]. Heller called McCrone again and left a message, "requesting any other slides that had or might have blood on them" but McCrone's (lying and/or deluded) relayed answer via his receptionist, was "no"[44].

Enter Adler Then Heller thought of Adler:

"Then a colleague, Professor Alan Adler, popped into my mind. I had worked with Dr. Adler on various projects over the years. He would admit to being a physical chemist, thermodynamicist, and a porphyrin nut. He is a Renaissance man, with an encyclopedic knowledge of the physical and biological sciences, military history, ecology, and many other fields. I wondered whether he would be interested ... "[45].
Adler was interested! He agreed with Heller that it was blood on a tape returned by McCrone, and he improved on some of Heller's experiments, but still the amounts were too small to prove that they were blood[46].

STURP workshop, Santa Barbara CA, March 1979 STURP's first post-Turin workshop intervened[47]. It was held at the Brooks Institute of Photography, Santa Barbara, California, on the weekend of 24-25 March 1979[48]. Topics included:

• Roger Morris, a physicist from Los Alamos, presented a paper on x-ray fluorescence, in which he reported the Shroud was covered in calcium, and to a lesser extent strontium and iron[49]. Heller "wondered where ... it could have come from"[50]. but Jesus was buried in a limestone (calcium carbonate) tomb and Jerusalem limestone has both strontium and iron in it [see 22Mar13 & 27Dec18]! If the Shroud image had been painted, x-ray fluorescence could identify any of the inorganic pigments made up of such elements as arsenic, cobalt, and mercury, available in the Middle Ages, but it didn't[51]. The iron was also spread uniformly over the Shroud, except in the bloodstains where there was a significantly higher incidence of it, which is evidence that the bloodstains are blood, because blood contains iron atoms in its heme porphyrins[52] (see above).

Don Lynn (1932-2000)] and Jean Lorre (1945-2005), both of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, using a microdensitometer and a computer showed that the Shroud front and back "images were directionless and therefore could not have been painted by human hand"[53] [see 29Oct16].

John Jackson presented mathematical models which demonstrated

[Above enlarge: "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape"[54].]

that the Shroud image can be described by a "single global-mapping function"[55]. This meant that the Shroud had overlain a real human body[56]. "Along with the nondirectional quality of the images [above], the results of the X-ray fluorescence [above], and Rogers' evaluation":

"Ray Rogers was an eminent expert in thermal effects. His initial interest in the Shroud was fanned by the observation that it had been through a fire in 1532, at which time parts of the silver box containing the cloth had melted. Molten metal had burned through the layers of folded material, intersecting areas of `blood' and body image, and leaving ugly holes and scorched areas down both sides of the linen. Rogers realized that this mischance had created a first-rate thermal experiment ... the melting point of silver made during the Middle Ages ... [was] about 900°C. He calculated that the temperature within the box had risen to nearly 200°C, before the box was doused with water ... He realized that if the blood and body had been created by an artist using any organic pigment — or even an inorganic pigment in an organic vehicle — the heat would have produced a significant change in color in portions of the images ... However, the photographs of the Shroud, both in black and white and in color, showed no effect whatsoever"[57]
"this significantly reduced the possibility that the Shroud was a painting"[58] (to put it mildly)!

• Roger Gilbert presented his reflectance spectroscopy measurements but Heller admitted there "was far too much information" for him "to digest at one sitting," although he did note that"the lightest scorch area [from the 1532 fire] was similar to the color of the images of the man, but he had "had no idea" what this meant[59]. See 22Dec11 where the closest match to the Shroudman's image on linen was produced by "extremely brief pulses of ultraviolet light" from a high-frequency excimer laser. Heller did not mention the Gilbert's discovery that there were almost invisible traces of dirt on the man's feet, which turned out to be a very close match to Jerusalem limestone dust! [see 22Mar13 & 27Dec18].

• Heller's presentation was brief because it was only of two microscope slides, one of "seven microfibers with something on them that looked like blood" on the poor-quality tape (out of STURP'S 32) returned by McCrone [above] and one of old Spanish linen with his own blood[60].

McCrone, in his presentation, claimed that from his examination of only "some of the Shroud fibers" that "the body images had been made by red iron-oxide earth pigments"[61]. Although

[Right: "Dr. Walter C. McCrone, Jr."[62].]

McCrone was a particle expert who had written a five-volume "Particle Atlas," nevertheless optical physicist Sam Pellicori [below[63].] was thinking:

"I don't believe this. I've measured the spectrum of iron oxide dozens of times. The color's totally wrong for what he's claiming. Based on spectrophotometry and the X-ray fluores-cence findings, there's no way that the Shroud images are composed of iron oxide. I may be young and naive, and McCrone may be the master, but he's wrong"[64]
Jackson was thinking that McCrone's analysis was contradicted by the Gilberts' reflectance curves[65]. McCrone projected slides on the screen of red dots on Shroud fibres which he claimed were "red iron earth pigments"[66]. McCrone concluded by stating that he was 90 percent sure that the Shroud was a painting - or perhaps there may have been a very faint pre-existing image that was later touched up by an artist using red iron-oxide earth pigments"[67].

The question and answer session that followed McCrone's presentation went like this:

"`Dr. McCrone, how do you know those red dots are iron oxide?’
`Experience.’
`Did you test them chemically?’
`I don't have to. Experience. Besides, it's birefringent.’
`How do you explain the X-ray fluorescence studies and the Gilberts' curves?’
`They must be wrong.’
`How does your iron-oxide paint jibe with the negative image and the 3-D information?’
`Oh, any competent artist could have done that.’
`Do you mean that you just looked through your microscope and, without doing specific tests for iron oxide, can proclaim it a painting?’
`Yes.’"[68].
And with that, McCrone left the meeting[69].

Heller's later test After the Santa Barbara meeting, Heller who had been a Professor of Internal Medicine at Yale University[70], asked a former colleague at Yale, molecular biology professor George M. McCorkle (1921-93), for access to a Yale microspectrophotometer to test whether the 700 picogram sample [above] was blood[71]. McCorkle arranged for Heller to use the microspectrophotometer in the department of Yale cell biology professor, Joseph G. Gall (1928-)[72]. If the 700 picogram red spot was blood it would absorb light at 410 nanometres[73]. As Heller described the test:

"We began our readings of the biltong spot at 700 nanometers. I wrote in the dark. After each reading, we moved down 10 nanometers on the scale. There were some increases and decreases, but until these were plotted, there would be no way of knowing which part of the fingerprint of what molecule it might be. When we reached 450 nanometers, my pulse rate began to go up. Very unscientific. At 430 nanometers, we shortened the gap between readings to 5 nanometers. At 425, the peak was still climbing. At 420 and 415, it still was rising. The crucial reading was 410. If the graph peaked here and began to fall away, we were on to something big. If, however, it continued to rise, the experiment had fallen through and was useless. At 405, there seemed to be a flattening-out. My pulse was racing. `Calm down,' I said to myself. `This is an experiment nothing more, nothing less. The data are the data!' When we hit 400, the peak began to fall. At 395 — more so. At 390, it was sharply down. `Oh, my God,' I said aloud, `it really is blood!' The hair stood up on the nape of my neck. Exhilaration shot through me. This was blood, not iron oxide. I let out my breath with a huge whoosh, and Gall turned to me and smiled. `I guess we did it, John'"[74].
Heller returned to the New England Institute and showed the microspectrophotometer curve he had plotted to Adler, who immediately recognised it as the spectrum of "hemoglobin ... the acid methemoglobin form ... denatured and very old"[75]. Heller and Adler then phoned "two other hemoglobin hotshots" including the New England Institute's Dr. Bruce Cameron (1934-2018) and they both confirmed that the spectrum plotted was that of "old acid methemoglobin"[76]. The 700 picogram red spot on the Shroud fibres attached to the STURP tape that McCrone had returned was blood!

STURP workshop, Los Alamos NM, October 1979 STURP held its second post-Turin workshop at Los Alamos in October 1979[77]. Heller could not attend it but he was sent an audiotape of the proceedings[78]. McCrone had claimed that the iron oxide which comprised the Shroud image was extremely finely ground, less than one micron in size, and had not existed until the 1800s when it was known as "jeweler's rouge"[79]. Furthermore, McCrone claimed that someone had after 1800 "touched up" the Shroud image with a gelatin based iron oxide paint[80]. Jackson asked Heller what he thought of these claims of McCrone[81]. Heller replied that sub-micron particles of iron had existed "since the dawn of time" from micrometeorites, erosion and volcanic eruptions, and that the Shroud had been held "under lock and key" since it had arrived in Turin ~400 years ago[82]. Heller could

[Right (enlarge)[83]: Close-up of the `ground-zero' burn where a drop of molten silver at about 900°C first contacted the Shroud and its image [see 20Jan18]. The scourge marks show where the body image is, but there is no change to the colour of the image (the darker colour is scorching near where the Shroud had caught fire - the two missing `triangles'), as there would be if the image was comprised of iron oxide suspended in gelatin, as McCrone claimed.]

have added Ray Roger's point above, that if the Shroud image was "an inorganic pigment [iron oxide] in an organic vehicle" [gelatin], it would have changed colour in the intense heat of the 1532 fire, but it didn't.

STURP conference, Colorado Springs, January 1980 On 21-22 January 1980, STURP members, including Heller and Adler, met at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs[84]. The purpose of the meeting was to better understand the chemistry of the Shroud[85]. The original dates had been inconvenient to McCrone, so the members all changed their plans to accommodate him, but then at the last minute McCrone sent a message that he wasn't coming[86]! The October 1979 Los Alamos meeting was the last STURP meeting McCrone attended, even though he was invited to all of them[87]. Jackson informed Heller and Adler that McCrone had returned STURP's tape slides[88] [see above]!

Heller looked through a microscope at a slide with body image fibres on it and saw "microacres of what looks like blood"[89]. They decided to first test McCrone's assertion that gelatin, a protein, was present in the image. McCrone had used a general test for protein, Amido Black, but that was a poor choice as it is not specific and reacts with cellulose of which the Shroud's flax fibres are comprised[90]. Adler used a test for protein that was far more sensitive than the Amido Black test - the Biuret-Lowry and found no reaction[91]. Next Adler carried out a fluorescence test for porphyrin and the distinctive ruby-red colour of blood porphyrin could be clearly seen, not only under ultraviolet light, but even with the naked eye[92]! The blood was indeed blood and the image did not contain gelatin[93]! Adler and Heller then placed further "red dots" on both image and non-image fibrils under the microscope and when hydrazine was added to dissolve any iron they turned the typical hemochromogen colour, upon which Adler declared:

"This, lady and gentlemen, is not iron oxide; it is blood!"[94]!
Heller concluded these January 1980 Colorado Springs tests with:
"For the next few days, repeated tests for protein in image fibers were negative. The red particles dissolved in hydrazine. There was, of course, protein in the bloodstain areas but not in the body image areas. Other tests were done, but by now we had enough unequivocal data to serve as a solid base for a preliminary conclusion that the images were not gelatin and iron oxide and that the blood was in fact blood. We had not ruled out unconventional colors and other methods of image making, but McCrone's hypothesis was unlikely"[95]!
STURP final meeting, New London CT, January 1980 To cut this already long story short (it will be covered in future "Heller, J", "McCrone, W" and "STURP" entries), STURP held its final meeting, open to the public, in the main auditorium of Connecticut College in New London, CT[96]. McCrone was again invited to take part but again he declined[97]. McCrone's `body language' shows that deep down he knew that he was wrong!

After the presentations there was a press conference during which Adler was asked how he could answer McCrone's claim that there was no blood, but merely a mixture of red ochre and vermilion[98]. Adler displayed on the screen table 5 from their 1981 paper, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin"[99]:

"Tests confirming the presence of whole blood on the Shroud
  1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence
  2. Indicative reflection spectra
  3. Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra
  4. Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence
  5. Positive hemochromogen tests
  6. Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests
  7. Positive detection of bile pigments
  8. Positive demonstration of protein
  9. Positive indication of albumin
  10. Protease tests, leaving no residue
  11. Positive immunological test for human albumin
  12. Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls
  13. Forensic judgment of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks"[100].
Then, after briefly explaining each item, Adler answered the question:
"That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!'"[101].
Science cannot prove that the Shroud is Jesus'? Heller continued:
"Many people in the audience and in the press asked, in more ways than I thought were possible, whether the scientific evidence indicated that the Shroud was the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. We thought we had answered this question as many times as it was asked. Finally, Ray Rogers took the floor. `In science, you're entitled to any hypothesis you choose, including the one that the Shroud was made by elves from the Black Forest. But if you don't have a test to examine that hypothesis, it's not worth anything. We do not have a test for Jesus Christ. So we can't hypothesize or test for that question'"[102].
Elsewhere Adler similarly claimed:
"There exists no scientifically acceptable experiment that can establish the identity of the man whose image appears on the Shroud of Turin; i.e., there is no experimental test for `Christness'. Hence all the scientific experimentation that one can devise can only support the consistency of a historical identification or authentication of the cloth as Christ's burial shroud, but not `prove' it. However, a single experiment can be seen to be capable of disauthenticating such an identification"[103].
But this is true, only if by "science" is meant the experimental, `hard' sciences, physics and chemistry. Then of course, there is no physics or chemistry, experimental, test of Jesus (or of any historical person)! But physics and chemistry are not the whole of science.

There is a science which identifies individual persons beyond reasonable doubt, and effectively sends hundreds, if not thousands, of them to prison every day, namely forensic science. And forensic science identifies individual persons by probability:

"Forensic statistics is the application of probability models and statistical techniques to scientific evidence, such as DNA evidence, and the law ... This ratio of probabilities is then used by juries or judges to draw inferences or conclusions and decide legal matters"[104].
STURP member Ken Stevenson and Christian philosopher Gary Habermas in their 1981 book, "Verdict on the Shroud," assigned conservative probabilities [in square brackets] to "eight irregularities [which] were present in Jesus' death and burial" which are "also present in the death and burial of the man of the Shroud"[105] [see future "Jesus"]:
"1 ... Jesus' scourging and other mistreatment at the hands of his executioners" [1/2];
"2. ... Jesus was crowned with thorns ... to mock his claims to be ... the `ruler' [King] of the Jews" [1/400];
"3. Many crucifixion victims were tied to their crosses with ropes" ... Jesus ... [was] nailed" [1/2];
"4. The ... Romans commonly broke the legs of crucified persons in order to hasten their death ... Jesus['] ... legs were not broken"[1/3];
"5. To insure that Jesus was dead, a soldier stabbed him in the side, and blood and water flowed from the wound" [1/27];
"6. Since most crucified victims were criminals, slaves, and rebels, few were given individual burials in a fine linen shroud ... [as] Jesus was"[1/8];
"7. ... Jesus had to be buried hastily in order to be placed in the tomb before the Sabbath"[1/8];
"8. ... Jesus' body did not undergo corruption (Acts 2:22-32) "[1/10] ... multiplying these [independent] probabilities" [1/2 * 1/400 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 1/27 * 1/8 * 1/8 * 1/10 = 1/82,944,000 ], we have 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus"[106].
Far from having "vastly overstated the case for the Shroud's identification with Jesus," as claimed by the mathematically challenged[107], "mere arts graduate"[108], Ian Wilson, leading Shroud sceptics Steven Schafersman and Joe Nickell "agree with" Stevenson and Habermas' "odds [of] 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ":
"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[109] and Stevenson and Habermas[110] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[111]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus'[112]."
Adler's voluminous writings about the Shroud The above has been mainly about Adler's crucial role in proving that the bloodstains on the Shroud really are blood. But Adler wrote much more about the Shroud that can be covered here. Fortunately, the late Dorothy Crispino (1916-2014) collected Adler's voluminous writings about the Shroud and published them in a book, "The Orphaned Manuscript" (2002), the papers in which are online as the last, Special issue of Crispino's Shroud Spectrum International.

Adler's `larger than life' character Adler was evidently a `larger than life' character. Heller described him as "somewhat overwhelming to strangers ... exuberant and unflappable, a compulsive talker ... [with] the subtlety of a tank":

"When Adler and I arrived at the motel in Colorado Springs, Adler had to be introduced to the team'. Al seems somewhat overwhelming to strangers. In the fall he lets all his hair from the neck up grow wildly. In the spring he shaves off everything except his eyebrows. I think I remember him with a tie once - at a funeral. His shirt often - and his undershirt always - has blazoned on it a huge chemical structure of the basic porphyrin molecule. He is exuberant and unflappable, a compulsive talker who has the disconcerting habit of declaiming even when he is actually listening. He has the subtlety of a tank, but he is nonetheless extremely kind and will make great personal sacrifices to help people in trouble"[113].
Ian Wilson remembered Adler as:
"A man so full of life and zest and argument that those of us who knew him well can perhaps be forgiven for our failing to give his mortality a second thought. ... Throughout the last two decades Adler has been a regular contributor to both US and international Shroud conferences, his good humour, ebullience, loquacity and above all, consummate scientific knowledge serving always to ensure that he stood out from the rest"[114].
Rex Morgan recalled Adler at a symposium, giving "an emphatic and convincing demonstration of his incisive mind ... without notes and prowling amongst his audience as he spoke":
"Dr Alan Adler one of the handful of top Shroud experts from America presented Concerning the Side Strip on the Shroud of Turin. In his inimitable and totally engaging style, without notes and prowling amongst his audience as he spoke, Adler gave an emphatic and convincing demonstration of his incisive mind. He traced in detail his reasons for proposing that the sidestrip is in fact part of the cloth itself and the apparent seam is a tuck through which a rope or pole had passed to aid suspension of the cloth for display"[115].
Albeit being wrong that the sidestrip is not separate from the main body of the Shroud!

Adler not a Christian? Adler evidently was not a Christian. He was "Jewish-born"[116], but I am not aware that he was observant of the Jewish religion. Adler dismissed as "bizarre" fellow chemistry professor Giles Carter (1930-2010)'s theory that the man on the Shroud's hand and finger bones and teeth are xray images caused by Jesus' resurrection[117]. In fact a search through Adler's writings reveals that the word "resurrection" does not even occur! So tragically, Adler appears to have been another leading Shroud pro-authenticist who was "not far from the kingdom of God" (Mk 12:34).

Continued in the next part #8 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Crispino, D., "Foreword," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.v-ix, ix. [return]
3. Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, 236. [return]
4. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.5. [return]
5. Heller, 1983, p.5. [return]
6. Heller, 1983, p.12. [return]
7. Culliton, 1978, p.237. [return]
8. Heller, 1983, p.12. [return]
9. Ibid. [return]
10. Heller, 1983, pp.12-13. [return]
11. Stewart, C, 2019, "Introduction An average adult has 5 L of blood Blood Red blood cells." [return]
12. Heller, 1983, p.13. [return]
13. Heller, 1983, p.14. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Heller, 1983, pp.74-75. [return]
17. STURP, 1978, "Operations Test Plan for Investigating the Shroud of Turin by Electromagnetic Radiation at Various Wavelengths," The Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc., pp.1-61, 2. [return]
18. STURP, 1978, "Operations Test Plan," p.1. [return]
19. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.303-304. [return]
20. Heller, 1983, p.76. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
22. Heller, 1983, p.83. [return]
23. Heller, 1983, p.88. [return]
24. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.21. [return]
25. Heller, 1983, pp.86, 116. [return]
26. Heller, 1983, p.87. [return]
27. Stevenson K.E. & Habermas G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.81-82; Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, p.11; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.54; Wilson, 1998, p.78; McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.78; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.63, 68; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.58. [return]
28. Heller, 1983, p.117; Scavone, 1989, p.54; Wilson, 1998, p.78; Wilson, 2010, pp.58-59. [return]
29. STURP, 1978, "Operations Test Plan," pp.14 & 15. [return]
30. Heller, 1983, pp.121-122. [return]
31. McCrone, 1999, p.141. [return]
32. McCrone, 1999, p.78. [return]
33. McCrone, 1999, p.140. [return]
34. Rogers, 2008, pp.23-24. [return]
35. McCrone, 1999, p.124. [return]
36. McCrone, 1999, pp.123-124. [return]
37. McCrone, 1999, p.124. [return]
38. Ibid. [return]
39. Ibid. [return]
40. Heller, 1999, pp.122-123. [return]
41. Heller, 1999, pp.123-124. [return]
42. Heller, 1999, pp.124-125. [return]
43. Heller, 1999, pp.126-127. [return]
44. Heller, 1983, p.132. [return]
45. Heller, 1983, pp.132-133. [return]
46. Heller, 1983, pp.133-134. [return]
47. Heller, 1983, p.134. [return]
48. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.45. [return]
49. Heller, 1983, p.136. [return]
50. Ibid. [return]
51. Ibid. [return]
52. Ibid. [return]
53. Heller, 1983, pp.137-138 [return]
54. Jackson, et. al, 1984, "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape," Applied Optics, Vol. 23, No. 14, pp. 2244-2270. [return]
55. Heller, 1983, p.138 [return]
56. Ibid. [return]
57. Heller, 1983, pp.6-7 [return]
58. Heller, 1983, p.138. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
61. Heller, 1983, p.139. [return]
62. "World-renowned Chicago scientist dies at 86: Walter C. McCrone, Jr.," Southwestern Association of Forensic Scientists (SWAFS), 11 October 2015. [return]
63. "Samuel Pellicori, Coating Material News," Materion Corporation, 2019. [return]
64. Heller, 1983, pp.139-140. [return]
65. Heller, 1983, p.140. [return]
66. Ibid. [return]
67. Ibid. [return]
68. Heller, 1983, pp.140-141. [return]
69. Heller, 1983, p.141. [return]
70. Scavone, 1989, p.57; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.47; Wilson, 1998, p.80;. [return]
71. Heller, 1983, p.143. [return]
72. Heller, 1983, pp.143-144. [return]
73. Heller, 1983, p.144. [return]
74. Heller, 1983, pp.145-146. [return]
75. Heller, 1983, pp.146-147. [return]
76. Heller, 1983, p.147. [return]
77. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.173, n.27. [return]
78. Heller, 1983, p.148. [return]
79. Heller, 1983, p.148. [return]
80. Ibid. [return]
81. Heller, 1983, pp.148-149. [return]
82. Heller, 1983, p.149. [return]
83. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal," (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
84. Heller, 1983, p.153; Rogers, 2008, p.36. [return]
85. Heller, 1983, p.153. [return]
86. Heller, 1983, p.154. [return]
87. Heller, 1983, p.141; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.92; Guerrera, 2001, p.69. [return]
88. Heller, 1983, p.156. [return]
89. Ibid. [return]
90. Heller, 1983, pp.158-159; Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, p.47; Scavone, 1989, p.62; Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.50; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.215; Guerrera, 2001, p.69. [return]
91. Heller, 1983, pp.159-160. [return]
92. Heller, 1983, p.160. [return]
93. Heller, 1983, pp.160-161. [return]
95. Heller, 1983, p.165. [return]
96. Heller, 1983, pp.213-214. [return]
97. Heller, 1983, p.214. [return]
98. Heller, 1983, p.215. [return]
99. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, p.52. [return]
100. Heller, 1983, pp.215-216. [return]
113. Heller, 1983, p.216. [return]
102. Ibid. [return]
103. Adler, A.D., 1991, "Conservation and Preservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.67-71, 67. [return]
104. "Forensic statistics," Wikipedia, 8 November 2018. [return]
105. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.127-128. [return]
106. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.126-127. [return]
107. Wilson, I., 2001, "Letters to the Editor," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 54, November, pp.66-67, 67. [return]
108. Wilson, I., 1988, "The Carbon Dating Results: Is This Now the End?," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.2-10, 4. [return]
109. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
110. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.121-129. [return]
111. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
112. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, 42; in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
113. Heller, 1983, p.154. [return]
114. Wilson, I., 2000, "Obituaries: Dr Alan Adler," BSTS Newsletter, No. 51, June. [return]
116. Wilson, 1998, p.80; Ruffin, 1999, p.96; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.105. [return]
117. Zurer, P., 1983, "Archaeological Chemistry," Chemical & Engineering News, 21 February, p.35, in Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.40-41; Ruffin, 1999, p.151; Guerrera, 2001, pp.74-75. [return]

Posted: 21 April 2019. Updated: 16 June 2019.