Tuesday, November 22, 2016

The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #11

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction. This is the tenth installment of part #11 of my concluding summary of the evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[2] was the result of a computer hacking, allegedly by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[3], aided by German hacker Karl Koch (1965–89)[4], on behalf of the former Soviet Union, through its agency the KGB. Previous posts in this series were parts: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10. It is my emphasis unless otherwise indicated.

[Above: (enlarge): Professor Harry E. Gove (1922-2009), the co-developer of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating[5], who must have realised that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date, but in his book, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud" (1996), although he circled around the leak of Arizona's "1350" date, and even by a process of elimination concluded that the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date had to have been "someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement"[6], he studiously avoided stating that Linick was the leaker of that date to Sox, and so covered it up (see future below).]

In this part#11, I will provide evidence of a cover-up by Gove and the laboratories, that after Linick's name was found in David Sox's 1988 book, "The Shroud Unmasked"[7] (see part #5), they must have realised that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date (see part #6), but covered it up. And then after Linick's presumed suicide on 4 June 1989 (see part #6), I will provide evidence that Gove and the laboratories knew, or at least suspected, that Arizona's radiocarbon dating had been hacked by Linick. But Gove and the laboratories may have thought that didn't matter because they could not see how Linick could have hacked Zurich and Oxford's dating.

■ Evidence that the laboratories covered up that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date

• David Sox's August 1988 book, "The Shroud Unmasked," [Right (enlarge)] was the first book published on the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. [see part #5] The book's Introduction states that it had been written by "August 1988"[8], and the London Sunday Times had a copy of it by 18 September 1988[9], more than three weeks before the official announcement on 13 October 1988[10] that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!"[11].

Those in the laboratories would surely have read Sox's book and discovered in it his quote of Linick. Sox's book would surely have been read by those in the laboratories who had been involved in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating. And on the facing page opposite (p.147) where Sox recounted the very first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud at Arizona laboratory on 6 May 1988 (p.146), and therefore seen by almost everyone who had even partially read the book, Sox quoted Linick:

"Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'"[12].
The context is the days before Arizona's first dating of the Shroud[13]. On the day of that first dating, everyone present, including Linick, signed a confidentiality agreement "not to communicate the results to anyone":
"The next morning at about 8 am (6 May 1988) I arrived at the Arizona AMS facility ... I would be the only one present outside the Arizona AMS group. Doug [Donahue] immediately asked me to sign the following statement: `We the undersigned, understand that radiocarbon age results for the Shroud of Turin obtained from the University of Arizona AMS facility are confidential. We agree not to communicate the results to anyone-spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public.' It had been signed by D J Donahue ... P E Damon, Timothy Jull ... before I signed. My signature was followed by T W Linick ... "[14].
• Sox was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date to the media [See part #5] Then BSTS Newsletter Editor Ian Wilson publicly concluded that Sox, an American living in London, was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date to the British media:
"Hardly had this wave of publicity died down before on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran as its front-page lead story `Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake'. Accompanying this was a seemingly authoritative article by librarian Dr. Richard Luckett of Magdalene College, Cambridge, cryptically remarking that `laboratories are rather leaky institutions' and `a probable date of about 1350 looks likely'. This again generated media stories all round the world ... When in a telephone enquiry to Dr. Luckett I asked whether the Revd. David Sox had been his source, he hastily changed the subject. ... On 18 September the Sunday Times carried the front page headline `Official: Turin Shroud is a Fake' ... I complained to the Sunday Times Editor with particular regard to the `official' headline. This prompted a conciliatory phone call from the Science Correspondent who when challenged directly, admitted that his source had been the Revd. David Sox. He said he had in front of him the Revd Sox's already complete book about the Shroud's mediaeval date, awaiting publication the moment this news becomes formally released ... It seems clear that ... the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman whose identity will now be self-evident"[15].
Gove himself (as well as Arizona's Paul Damon (1921-2005) and Doug Donahue) had by 27 September all come to realise that Sox was the leaker of Arizona's "1350" date to the media:
"David Sox called me from London on 23 September 1988 to say that Ian Wilson had charged him with being the source of all the leaks. Sox vigorously denied the charge. On 27 September I phoned Donahue. He told me that Damon had phoned Gonella and that Gonella had conceded that the rumours were correct but that it was not yet official. Gonella also told Damon that he believed the rumours came from me to Sox. Damon himself believed that Sox was the source of the leaks. I assured Donahue that I did not tell Sox the date"[16].
• When the laboratories found Linick's name in Sox's 1988 book they realised that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date to Sox, but covered it up Sox's book was publicly launched on 15 October 1988[17], only two days after the official announcement on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud had been dated to "1260-1390!"[18]. However, as we saw above, by 18 September Sox's book had already been printed and a complimentary copy had been given to the London Sunday Times. And as we shall next, the sudden realisation by Arizona's Damon and Donahue, Turin's Luigi Gonella, and Gove, that Sox was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date to the media, and (except for Gonella) that Linick was the leaker of that date to Sox, was due to them having received by 27 September, a complimentary copy of Sox's book, and reading in it Sox's quote of Linick.

• Evidence from Sox's book that Gove and the laboratories had found Linick's name in it and realised that he was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date to Sox
— On the last page of Sox's book, page 160, Sox had written:

"Section XIX Most of the observations in this section come from Harry Gove."[19]
That section begins on page 143 with the arrival of Gove and his partner Shirley Brignall in Tucson on 5 May 1988, the day before Arizona's first dating of the Shroud on 6 May, and it ends on page 147 with the AMS computer's calculations of the Shroud's age being displayed on the computer's control console screen, and that Gove won his bet with Brignall that the Shroud's age would be nearer 1000 years old against her 2000 years old:
"At 9.50am what matters to the layman was available - the results of the measurements, the first carbon dating test on the Turin Shroud. ... The night before the test Damon told Gove he would not be surprised to see the analysis yield a date around the fifth-century, because after that time the crucifixion was banned and a forger would not have known of the details depicted so accurately on the Shroud. Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?' Donahue's wife, who believed the Shroud was genuine, was going for 2000 years. So was Shirley Brignall. She and Gove had a bet. Gove said 1000 years although he hoped for twice that age. Whoever lost was to buy the other a pair of cowboy boots. The calculations were produced on the computer, and displayed on the screen. Even the dendrochronological correction was immediately available. All eyes were on the screen. The date would be when the flax used for the linen relic was harvested. Gove would be taking cowboy boots back to Rochester."[20]
— Sox's "Most of the observations in this section come from Harry Gove" (above) explains why "Gonella ... believed the rumours came from me [Gove] to Sox" and why Gove had to assure "Donahue that I did not tell Sox the date" (above).

— The quote of "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist..." is in the middle of that most important part of Sox's book, and could not have been missed. Arizona's Damon and Donahue, and Gove, would know as soon as they had read it, that it meant Linick had been in direct contact with Sox, and therefore Linick must have communicated Arizona's "1350" date to Sox.

— Sox's quote of Gove's bet with Brignall, that the Shroud was "1000 years" old, against Brignall's "2000 years" old, when as Gove later revealed in his 1996 book that Arizona's first uncalibrated date of the Shroud was "640 years old", which was then calibrated to "1350 AD"[21], and so Gove won the bet because he was closer to the computer screen's date[22], shows that Gove did not tell Sox the "1350" date, so Linick must have.

[Above (enlarge): "Those present at the Arizona AMS carbon dating facility at 9:50 am on 6 May 1988 when the age of the shroud [sic] was determined"[23]. The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is the one in a black shirt standing (significantly[24]) most prominently in the foreground[25].]

• Gove deduced that the leak of Arizona's first "1350" date came "from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement" but he covered it up that the leaker was Linick In his 1996 book, Gove gave his own account of the media leaks of the "1350" date of the Shroud:

"Meanwhile, the story that the Shroud of Turin was a fake was getting increased attention from the press. The original rumour that the shroud was medieval appeared in the article by Kenneth Rose in the London Sunday Telegraph. ... there was not much reaction to the Rose report. However, this changed when the 27th August 1988 edition of the Washington Post carried a story by Tim Radford of the Guardian that `The furor began after Dr Richard Luckett of Cambridge University wrote in the Evening Standard yesterday that a date of 1350 "looks likely" for the 14-foot piece of linen which appears to bear the imprint... of Jesus. He also referred to laboratories as "leaky institutions".' ... the Evening Standard on 26 August ... claimed that Oxford had found the shroud to be a fake which dated only to 1350 AD. ... [but] the Oxford result ... gave a mean several decades less than 1350 AD."[26]
(I have been told by someone who knew Sox, of a likely connection between Sox, Rose and Luckett, but I am not at liberty to reveal it.)

When Gove realised on 9 September 1988 that Luckett did not get his "1350" date from Oxford, he "worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement":

"An Associated Press story appeared in the 9 September 1988 issue of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle headlined 'Shroud's age remains secret Oxford research chief says', with the subhead 'He claims forgery report was just a guess'. Teddy Hall was quoted to this effect in the Oxford Mail. The article went on `But Dr Richard Luckett, a Cambridge University professor, said he stood by his word, adding, "I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories and it wasn't Oxford."' ... I must say I wondered about Luckett's date of 1350 because it was the date Donahue announced to me when I was present at the first radiocarbon measurement on the shroud in 6 May 1988. ... However, I still assumed Luckett had said he got the number from Oxford. When I read that he claimed he got it from one of the other two labs I worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement."[27]
The above is correct as to what Gove knew up to early September. But that changed in late September, when Gove, Damon and Donahue read Linick's name in Sox's book (see above). Gove, writing in 1996, knowing that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date to Sox, continued "it did not really matter now" and so covered it up:
"However, it did not really matter now since all three labs had submitted their results to the British Museum and so none of them could be influenced by this real or imagined leak."[28]
Gove's "imagined leak" is a lie, because he knew by late September 1988, after he had read Linick's name in Sox's book, that Linick must have leaked Arizona's "1350" date to Sox. The laboratory leaders would have asked Linick to "please explain" why his name was in Sox's book and if he had leaked Arizona's first "1350" date to Sox, and if there had been a plausible, innocent explanation, Gove would have mentioned it. The scientific world through the journal Nature, and the general public, had a right to know that Timothy W. Linick, the scientist in charge of the actual AMS computerised dating process at Arizona laboratory (see [24]), had leaked Arizona's first "1350" date of the Shroud to Sox, who in turn had leaked it to the media. The laboratories' and Gove's failure to do so, but rather cover it up, adds weight to my evidence (see next) that after Linick's presumed suicide on 4 June 1989, Arizona laboratory had (or may have) discovered evidence that Linick had also hacked Arizona's radiocarbon dating, but they had also covered that up!

• Evidence that the laboratories knew or suspected that Linick had hacked Arizona's radiocarbon dating of the Shroud but covered it up
— The prompt response by Professors Jull and Ramsey to my mere blogger's post is itself evidence for my hacker theory. As summarised in my post of 03Nov16, the anti-authenticist Hugh Farey had emailed Arizona's Prof Jull and Oxford's Prof. Ramsey one of my early posts, presumably that of 07Mar14, and Dan Porter had posted Jull's response to his blog on 09Mar14 and later Farey had added Ramsey's response as a comment under that same post. But as I had previously pointed out, e.g. 29Mar16, the very fact that Profs Jull and Ramsey responded to my anonymous (to them-Farey said he did not include my name) blog post is itself evidence that Jull and Ramsey knew, or suspected, that Linick had hacked Arizona's dating of the Shroud. Since when do Professors of Physics, let alone Directors of two of the world's leading radiocarbon dating laboratories, Arizona and Oxford, deign to respond to a mere blogger's post? If Jull and Ramsey knew that there was no truth in my hacker theory, they would have simply ignored it.

— Prof. Jull's response [see 13Mar14, 05Jul14, 27Apr15 & 29Mar16] was self-contradictory, misleading and false. In it Jull stated: "the software for the calculations is offline," yet in the very next sentence Jull contradicted himself by stating "the calculation does NOT require software" (his emphasis)!

Jull's "In any case, the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph" is false. What was "plotted on a graph" was what Sox, describing the same first Arizona Shroud dating, called "the dendrochronological correction" (see above), i.e. annual tree growth rings, and is merely the calibration of a carbon dating calculation for past variations in the atmospheric ratio of carbon-14 to carbon 12.. So it was false of Jull to call what was "plotted on a graph" a "calculation" because it is what I did on the calibration graph provided in Fig. 2 of the 1989 Nature article (see 13Jun14, 11Feb15 & 18Nov15) and there is no "calculation" involved in that.

Jull's downplaying of the importance of "software" in the Shroud's dating was misleading and significant, because, as Gove, a co-inventor of AMS radiocarbon dating, who was also there with Jull at Arizona's first dating of the Shroud, wrote:

"All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen."[29]
And since a computer does only what its "software" directs, it means that the AMS dating was all under "software" control, and "software" is hackable! Since Jull must know this, his misleading and even false attempt to deny that it was "software" behind the AMS computer's dating "calculations" of the Shroud, is consistent with the actions of someone who knows, or at least suspects, that Arizona's radiocarbon dating had been hacked by Linick.

This together with Jull's, "Indeed, in 1988 the internet (as we know it today) didn't exist – there was a pre-existing network run by the US government which was quite restricted," sounds like the words of one of those who, even if they knew or suspected that Linick had hacked Arizona's dating, could not see how he could have hacked Zurich and Oxford's dating, so it didn't materially change the overall result that the Shroud was medieval, and therefore it was best to cover it up!

— Prof. Ramsey's response [see 13Mar14, 05Jul14, 27Apr15 & 29Mar16] was fallacious, misleading and false. He began with "Yes – I agree with all that Tim says" which means that either Farey sent Jull's response to Ramsey, or Jull had contacted Ramsey to present a united front in their responses. That Ramsey agrees with "all" that Jull said, means that Ramsey agrees with Jull's self-contradictory, misleading and false response (see above)! Therefore, surprising for an Oxford Professor, Ramsey is more concerned with presenting a defensive united front with Jull than the truth.

Ramsey's next, "This would seem to be a suggestion from someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s" is an ad hominem, 'shoot the messenger', personal attack on me. And what's more it is completely false! As I have previously stated [13Mar14, 05Jul14, 27Apr15 & 29Mar16]: 1) I bought my first computer in 1980; 2) I pioneered the introduction of computers into Western Australian rural hospitals in the 1980s; and 3) in the late 1980s/early 1990s I was the System Administrator of a wide area network of 7 rural hospital UNIX computers which each served a local area network of computers at those hospitals. Moreover, Prof. Ramsey knew that the AMS computers were powerful "DEC computer system[s]" [see 05Jul14], i.e. Digital Equipment Corporation PDP-11 [right] or VAX-11 mini- computers. So Ramsey had no point in claiming I was "someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s" and can only have been attempting to deliberately downplay the power of the AMS computers in order to deny that Arizona's AMS computer (at least) had been hacked. But in doing so, Ramsey has provided more evidence that Arizona's computer (at least) was hacked by Linick, and the laboratories knew that (or at least suspected it), and have covered it up!

Ramsey's, "In the case of Oxford the AMS had no connection to any network (and indeed even today our AMS control computers have no network connections)," and Jull's same point about Arizona (above) leaves open the possibility that Zurich's AMS computer was online. Nevertheless, I had accepted Jull's and Ramsey's assurances that their AMS computers were never on line and had early modified my theory, that the hacking program would have to have been installed "manually and locally in each of the three laboratories" [07Mar14]. And a few weeks later I discovered that Arizona physicist Timothy W. Linick and German hacker Karl Koch had been found dead of presumed suicide within days of each other and so I included them in my "manually and locally" hacker theory [31Mar14].

Ramsey (like Jull above) downplayed the "software" as "very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured." But as I pointed out [see 13Mar14, 27Apr15 & 29Mar16], it was software and therefore could have been hacked by simply modifying the program to output bogus "counts of 14C" for the Shroud samples at all three laboratories:

"Nevertheless, it WAS `software' on each lab’s AMS control computer, which outputted `counts of 14C' which were, according to Gove’s eyewitness account, displayed on the AMS control computer’s screen ... It is those `calculations produced by the computer' which when calibrated, yielded a date of `1350 AD'. So all that a hacker would have to do is modify the program which displayed those `counts of 14C', to replace those coming from the Shroud samples, with bogus `counts of 14C' ..."
which when combined and averaged across the three laboratories, yielded a bogus calibrated date range of 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 of the Shroud [see 30Jan15, 31Mar15, 22Sep15, 30Dec15 & 22Feb16].

Ramsey also (like Jull above) downplayed the "Age calculation" as having been "done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS." This also is both false and misleading. It is false because, as we saw above, the only age "calculation" was that which was done by the AMS computer, and what was done "offline" was calibration for past variations of atmospheric carbon-14, as Ramsey well knows being the author of the "OxCal" radiocarbon dating calibration program [see 31Mar14, 05Jul14, 27Apr15 & 29Mar16]. Indeed, Ramsey's own words state that "the numbers [were] from the AMS" and calibration of those numbers was not done by "a calculator, or by a simple program" but as Prof. Jull stated above they were "plotted on a graph" which involved no calculation. Ramsey's downplaying of the AMS computer's role in the "age calculations" was also misleading, and in fact some on Porter's blog were mislead by it and gained the impression that the AMS computer was little more than a calculator, and Porter himself questioned whether it was even programmable[31Mar14, 05Jul14, 27Apr15]! When as we saw above, the AMS computers were very powerful DEC minicomputers, which Ramsey, like Jull well knew.

To be concluded in the eleventh installment of this part #11 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 post. [return]
2. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
3. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
4. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 30 August 2016. [return]
5. Extract from, "Dr. Harry Gove Co-developer, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," El carbono 14, por Manuel Carreira, Sabana Santa, 2013. [return]
6. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.279. [return]
7. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147. [return]
8. Sox, 1988, p.6; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.95. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1988, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.19. [return]
10. Ibid. [return]
11. 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]
12. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
13. Ibid. [return]
14. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
15. Wilson, I., 1988b, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [return]
16. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
17. Wilson, 1998, p.310. [return]
18. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.109; Paci, S.M., 1990, "The case is not closed!," Shroud News, No 60, August, pp.4-11, 8; Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
19. Sox, 1988, p.160. [return]
20. Sox, 1988, pp.146-147. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
22. Gove, 1996, p.265. [return]
23. Gove, 1996, p.176H. [return]
24. The 1989 Nature article in footnote 9 acknowledges that Linick wrote the paper which described in detail the AMS radiocarbon system at Arizona: Linick, T.W., et al., 1986, "Operation of the NSF-Arizona accelerator facility for radioisotope analysis and results from selected collaborative research projects," Radiocarbon, Vol. 28, No. 2a, pp.522-533. That Linick is standing in front of his laboratory leaders and colleagues in this historic group photograph (above) of the first dating of the Shroud at Arizona laboratory, is evidence that Linick was in charge of the actual AMS computerised dating process at Arizona laboratory and those present were acknowledging that. [return]
25. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
26. Gove, 1996, pp.276-277. [return]
27. Gove, 1996, pp.278-279. [return]
28. Gove, 1996, pp.279-280. [return]
29. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]

Posted: 22 November 2016. Updated: 3 December 2016.

Friday, November 11, 2016

Superficial #18: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The man on the Shroud
SUPERFICIAL #18
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the tenth and final (and an update of the ninth) installment of part #18, "The man on the Shroud: Superficial," of my series, "Evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" See the Main index for more information about this series. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Non-directional. #17] [Next: Negative #19]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Superficial #18

Introduction. The image of the man on the Shroud is superficial[2].

[Right (enlarge): STURP's Barrie Schwortz' 1978 transmitted light photograph of the ventral (front) half of the Shroud[3], in which the light source is behind the suspended cloth so only the light transmitted through it is seen[4]. The scorches[5] and waterstains from the 1532 fire, and the bloodstains, have penetrated the thickness of the cloth[6] and so can be clearly seen[7]. But the body image has almost completely disappeared, demonstrating that the image of the man on the Shroud is superficial, only one fibre deep[8].]

Superficial By "superficial" is meant that the Shroud image occurs only on the top surface fibrils on the crowns of the linen fibres[9]. The image cannot be seen on the reverse side of the cloth[10] (as we saw above). It is a surface phenomenon with no penetration of the image into the sub-surface fibres[11] (see below).

[Above: Photomicrographs at X32 magnification of image area over the right eye (upper - enlarge) and image and blood of chest wound area (lower - enlarge)[12]:

"The top photo, a closeup of an image area, shows that the image is composed of tiny linen fibrils which are discolored yellow in contrast to the whiter threads of the Shroud itself. The photo beneath is taken from an area containing both bloodstains and image. These photos show that the image is superficial - that is, the yellow fibrils are on the topmost layers of the cloth."[13]]

Extremely superficial Moreover, the body image is extremely superficial[14], being only one fibre deep[15]. Indeed scientists using the facilities of National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) in Frascati, Italy measured the thickness of the image and found it was that of "the primary cell wall" (see diagram below) of a "single linen fiber" which is about "one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter" (0.0002 mm):

"... the image ... is extremely thin, around 200 nm = 200 billionths of a meter, or one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter, which corresponds to the thickness of the primary cell wall of the so-called single linen fiber. We recall that a single linen thread is made up of about 200 fibrils."[16]
See below (enlarge) a diagram of a cotton cellulose fibril and its place within the primary cell wall of a cotton fibre cell[17]. The Shroud image resides on the surface of analogous fibrils of a flax fibre, which had been spun into linen threads and then woven to form the linen cloth which became the Shroud.

Not vaporograph The Vaporograph Theory was proposed by Paul Vignon (1865-1943), that ammonia gases from residual sweat on Jesus' dead body had reacted with the spices (assumed to be myrrh and aloes) that had been bound by strips of linen to the body of Jesus (Jn 19:40) and had stained the linen with its imprint[18]. But in addition to its other problems, ammonia vapours would permeate the cloth and would not imprint an image only on the surface fibrils[19].

Not Maillard reaction The Mailard reaction is a chemical reaction between amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and carbohydrates[20]. It is what causes the browning of food in cooking[21]. STURP chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005) proposed the theory that the image on the Shroud was the result of a Maillard reaction between a carbohydrate, Saponaria officinalis, or soapwort, which was used by the ancients in the production of linen[22], and both ammonia and amino acids which were given off by Jesus' (supposedly) decomposing body[23]. However, in addition to the other problems of Rogers' Maillard reaction theory (including that there is no evidence of decomposition on the Shroud man's body)[24] (see future "No decomposition #20"), Rogers' admitted that the extreme superficiality of the Shroud image, "the discontinuous distribution of the color on the topmost parts of the weave," was a "perplexing" problem for his theory[25]. That is because, as the agnostic Thomas de Wesselow, a proponent of Rogers' theory, acknowledges, the Mailard reaction theory is an update of Vignon's vaporograph theory[26], with its same ammonia gas permeation problems, which de Wesselow (perhaps not realising it) concedes[27]. In 2013 Barrie Schwortz experimentally tested Rogers' Maillard reaction theory on a decomposing pig but the theory failed the test![28]!

Radiation STURP leader Prof. John P. Jackson in his "cloth collapse theory" (see below) had proposed in 1991 that the image was produced by "shortwave ultraviolet radiation":

"Electromagnetic radiation that is absorbed strongly in air consists of photons in the ultraviolet or soft x-ray region. It happens that these photons are also sufficiently energetic to photochemically modify cellulose. Such photons are strongly absorbed in cellulose over fibril-like distances. Experiments performed by the author have shown that ... shortwave ultraviolet radiation produces a yellow-browned pattern like the Shroud body image composed of chemically altered cellulose. Thus, I posit that radiation from the body initially photosensitized the body image onto the Shroud. This pattern would have appeared, if the radiation was ultraviolet, as a white (bleached) image on a less white cloth. With time, natural aging would have reversed the relative shading of the image to its presently observed state where it appears darker than the surrounding cloth"[29].

"Dr Jackson proposed the hypothesis that, at the time that the image on the Shroud was formed, the cloth collapsed into and through the underlying structure of the body in the Shroud. He did admit that, as a physicist, he had his own difficulties with this concept. Based on his observations of the image he further proposed that, as the body became mechanically transparent to its physical surroundings, it emitted radiation from all points within and on the surface of the body. This radiation interacted with the cloth as it fell into the mechanically transparent body, forming the body image. He also suggested that the radiation would have had to have been strongly absorbed in air. This, he suggested, could have been electromagnetic radiation in the shortwave ultraviolet region of the spectrum, which would have caused a chemical alteration of the cellulose in the cloth fibres."[30]
Significantly the ENEA scientists (see above) found in 2011 that only "a short and intense burst of VUV [vaccuum ultraviolet] ... radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including ... the surface [i.e. "the uppermost fibres of the threads of the cloth"[31]] color of the fibrils":
"...a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence"[32]
Cloth collapse theory The extreme superficiality of the Shroud man's image (amongst all its other major features) is explained by Prof. John P. Jackson's "cloth collapse theory":
"Superficial Penetration of Image. Once the cloth enters the body region, radiation emitted from within the body volume interacts with each cloth fibril throughout the bulk of the cloth from all directions. However, fibrils on both surfaces of the cloth receive a greater dose than those inside because they are unobstructed by overlying fibril layers. These fibrils would probably be highly absorbing to the radiation because the air, which is less dense by nearly three orders of magnitude than cellulose, is assumed to be highly absorbing to account for image resolution ... The net result is an exaggerated dose accumulation of the surface fibrils over those inside the cloth."[33].

"According to Jackson, this hypothesis would explain each of the image characteristics of the Shroud. Because radiation effects on the cloth cannot begin until it intersects with the body surface, one-to-one mapping between a given point on the body with a point on the cloth is achieved; in other words, the image is well resolved. As the cloth enters the body region, the fibrils on the surfaces of the cloth receive a greater dose of radiation than those inside, leading to a superficial body image. Also as the cloth collapses, internal stresses cause it to bulge away from the sides of the body and at the top of the head; hence, no image. is visible there. The effect of the radiation thus described would explain the chemical nature of the image. The blood, however, would have been transferred naturally to the Shroud by direct contact, during the initial draping of the body covered with blood. Finally, as the Shroud collapses into the body region, each cloth point falls vertically downwards, explaining why the image features tend to align vertically over their corresponding body part."[34]

Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #15, #16 & #17). That the Shroud body image is extremely superficial alone (but it is not alone - see also "No paint, etc. #15"), proves that it is not a painting[35]. A paint, pigment, dye, or other liquid colouring medium would not remain on the topmost fibrils of the Shroud but would, and did in tests, soak down through the cloth[36]. Neither can the image be a dry powder rubbing as proposed by Joe Nickell[37]. A powder would, and did in tests, work its way down from the surface of the cloth (but there is no powder even on the surface of the Shroud-see again "No paint, etc. #15") through the spaces in the weave[38]. Nor is the image a scorch from the cloth having been draped over a heated statue or bas-relief, as first demonstrated in 1966 by British historian Geoffrey Ashe (1923-), that a damp linen cloth placed over a heated brass bas-relief of a horse ornament for a few seconds did scorch a negative image of the horse on the cloth[39]. However, Ashe is a Christian and a Shroud pro-authenticist, so he was not proposing that the Shroud man's image was forged using a heated statue or bas-relief[40]. Rather, Ashe proposed that the resurrection of Jesus "released a brief and violent burst of some other radiation than heat ... which scorched the cloth" and imprinted on it "a quasi-photograph of Christ returning to life"!:
"The Shroud is explicable if it once enwrapped a human body to which something extraordinary happened. It is not explicable otherwise. The Christian Creed has always affirmed that Our Lord underwent an unparalleled transformation in the tomb. His case is exceptional and perhaps here is the key. It is at least intelligible (and has been suggested several times) that the physical change of the body at the Resurrection may have released a brief and violent burst of some other radiation than heat, perhaps scientifically identifiable, perhaps not, which scorched the cloth. In this case the Shroud image is a quasi-photograph of Christ returning to life, produced by a kind of radiance or `incandescence' partially analogous to heat in its effects."[41].
But an actual scorch from a cloth draped over hot statue or bas-relief, as well as its other problems, would discolour not only the surface of the cloth, but did in tests, continue discolouring the cloth down through its thickness[42]. And as we saw in "Medieval photography: Nicholas Allen," the Shroud image is not a medieval photograph.

So the extreme superficiality of the Shroud body image, alone "very clearly refutes the hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin might be the work of a medieval forger"[43]!

Conclusion. The Shroud is either a forgery (i.e. a work of human art that purports to be of Jesus' burial shroud, bearing the image of His crucified body) or it is authentic. This was pointed out in 1963 by pro-authenticist John E. Walsh (1927-2015):

"Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground."[44]
But that had already been conceded sixty years earlier in 1903, by then leading Shroud anti-authenticist, English Roman Catholic priest Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939), who admitted, "If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression":
"As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head, can still be clearly distinguished ... If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other person since the world began could these details be verified"[45]
More recently, leading Shroud sceptic Steven Schafersman (quoted approvingly by Joe Nickell) admitted that either the Shroud is "a product of human artifice" or "the image is that of Jesus" and there is no "possible third hypothesis":
"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[46] and Stevenson and Habermas[47] 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)[48]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'"[49]
Therefore, since the extreme superficiality of the Shroud man's image alone refutes all forgery theories, the only alternative, as admitted by leading Shroud anti-authenticists Thurston, Schafersman and Nickell, is that the Shroud is authentic! And that the Man on the Shroud is Jesus!!

[Above (enlarge): The Face of the Man on the Shroud[50]

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'"[51].]

To be continued in the next part #19 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 post. [return]
2. 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, p.66; 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, pp.3-49, 31; Habermas G.R., "Discussion: Antony G. N. Flew, Gary R. Habermas, Terry L. Miethe, and W. David Beck," in Habermas G.R., Flew A.G.N. & Miethe T.L., ed., 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.119; Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, p.325-344, 332; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.216; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.114; Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," 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.113-127, 113; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.36; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.74. [return]
3. Van Haelst, R., 1997, "The Red Stains on the Lier and Other Shroud Copies," Shroud.com. [return]
4. Adler, 2000a, p.116; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.11-27, 16-17. [return]
5. Jackson, 1991, p.332. [return]
6. Antonacci, 2000, p.206. [return]
7. Adler, 2000a, p.117. [return]
8. Adler, 2000c, pp.16-17. [return]
9. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, pp.8,9; Adler, 2000a, p.113; Adler, 2000c, pp.16-17. [return]
10. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.32. [return]
11. Jumper, E.J., "Considerations of Molecular Diffusion and Radiation as an Image Formation Process on the Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, p.183; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.4. [return]
12. Lavoie, G.R., 2000, "Resurrected: Tangible Evidence That Jesus Rose from the Dead," [1998], Thomas More: Allen TX, pp.57-58. [return]
13. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.76J. [return]
14. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.217; Danin, et al., 1999, p.8; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.74. [return]
15. Adler, 2000c, pp.16-17. [return]
16. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," The Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
17. "Polysaccharides," General Biology Hub: Learning Resource 3, 2010. [return]
18. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.57-58; Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.32; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.4; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.218; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.124; Iannone, 1998, p.181. [return]
19. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.60,70; Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.35; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.125; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.218; Antonacci, 2000, p.61. [return]
20. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.100; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.155. [return]
21. Rogers, 2008, pp.100-101; de Wesselow, 2012, p.155. [return]
22. Rogers, 2008, p.102; de Wesselow, 2012, p.155. [return]
23. Rogers, 2008, pp.100-102; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.155-156. [return]
24. Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.27. [return]
25. Rogers, 2008, p.102. [return]
26. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.153-154. [return]
27. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.156-157. [return]
28. Jones, S.E., 2013, "Shroud on SBS 1 Australia at 7:30 pm tonight Sunday 24 March," The Shroud of Turin blog, 24 March. [return]
29. Jackson, 1991, p.341; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.240. [return]
30. Oxley, 2010, pp.240-241. [return]
31. "Events: Advances in the Turin Shroud investigation," 4 & 5 September, Bari, Italy, in British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter No. 80, December 2014. [return]
32. Tosatti, 2011. [return]
33. Jackson, 1991, p.340. [return]
34. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.167. [return]
35. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.76J, 106; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.53; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.44; Danin, et al., 1999, p.8; Adler, 2000a, pp.116-117; Adler, 2000c, pp.16-17. [return]
36. Habermas, 1987, p.119; Antonacci, 2000, p.36; Lavoie, 2000, p.64. [return]
37. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.106; Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.30; Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.102-103; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.122; Antonacci, 2000, p.75; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.255; de Wesselow, 2012, p.137. [return]
38. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.31; Antonacci, 2000, pp.74-75; de Wesselow, 2012, p.138. [return]
39. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, pp.123-126; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, pp.197-198; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.247; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.75; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.126; 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.203; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.128; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.74; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, pp.100-101; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, pp.138-139.[return]
40. Wilcox, 1977, pp.123,125; Humber, 1978, p.198; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.70; Wilson, 1998, p.259; Whiting, 2006, p.100; Wilcox, 2010, p.138. [return]
41. Humber, 1978, p.198; Wilcox, 1977, p.126; Ruffin, 1999, p.150; Wilcox, 2010, p.138-139. [return]
42. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.217; Antonacci, 2000, pp.78-79. [return]
43. Tosatti, 2011. [return]
44. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.x-xii. [return]
45. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19, in Wilson, 1979, p.52. [return]
46. Wilson, 1979, pp.51-53. [return]
47. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.121-129. [return]
48. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
49. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42; in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
50. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA. [return]
51. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189. [return]

Posted: 11 November 2016. Updated: 21 November 2016.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fifth century

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
FIFTH CENTURY
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is part #5, "Fifth century," of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. See part #1, "First century" and index, for more information about this series. Updates: "c. 490."

[Index #1] [Previous: 4th century #4] [Next: 6th century #6]


5th century (401-500)

c.410 St. Augustine (354–430) wrote in his De Trinitate (c.400-17) of Jesus, "We do not know of his external appearance, nor that of his mother."[2]

c.432 Carving of the earliest known Christian representation of the

[Above (enlarge): "Depiction of the crucifixion on the wooden door of Santa Sabina. This is one of the earliest surviving depiction of the crucifixion of Christ"[3].]

crucifixion of Jesus on a panel of the wooden door of Santa Sabina in Rome[4]. This shows a bearded Christ, unlike almost all the other beardless depictions of Jesus at that time[5]. As with the c. 400 fresco on the catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter, also in Rome, "this type of representation of Christ, at least in the basic features ... shows a ... similarity to" the "Cloth of Turin."[6].

451 The Council of Chalcedon, the fourth ecumenical council of the Christian Church, confirmed that Christ had two natures, fully human and fully God[7]. This is orthodox Christology, accepted by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants. The Council rejected as heretical, Arianism which holds that the Son was created by the Father and Monophysitism, which holds that Christ had only one divine nature[8] and so denied the reality of His humanity[9]. Since Monophysitism remained dominant in the far east of the Byzantine Empire, including Antioch and Edessa[10], and would have been theologically opposed to the display of a physical representation of Jesus[11], that and their persecution by the Orthodox[12], might partly explain why the Mandylion/Shroud [see "60"] remained hidden until 544[13] [see future "544"].

476 Fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, whose capital was Constantinople, continued for nearly a further thousand years until 1453 [see future "1453"].

c. 490 The Gelasian Decree, attributed to Pope Gelasius I (r.492-496), dismissed the correspondence between Edessa's King Abgar V and Jesus [see "50"] as apocryphal.

To be continued in part #6, Sixth century, of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.101, 305n.5. [return]
3. "Santa Sabina," Wikipedia, 17 August 2016. [return]
4. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, pp.28-29. [return]
5. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.190. [return]
6. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.41. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.139. [return]
8. Wilson, 1979, pp.139-140; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.3; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.22. [return]
9. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, p.236. [return]
10. Wilson, 1979, p.140; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.136; Guerrera, 2001, p.3; Oxley, 2010, p.22; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.149. [return]
11. Antonacci, 2000, p.136; Guerrera, 2001, p.3. [return]
12. Markwardt, J., 2008, "Ancient Edessa and the Shroud: History Concealed by the Discipline of the Secret," in Fanti, G., ed., 2009, "The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, pp.382-407, 393 n.9 [return]
13. Markwardt, J., "Antioch and the Shroud," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 1999, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, 2000, pp.94-108, 100-101. [return]

Posted: 11 November 2016. Updated: 21 November 2016.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

"Did you ask radiocarbon dating experts their opinion on this?"

This is my response in this separate post to an anonymous comment under my post, "My radiocarbon dating hacker theory mentioned in Joe Marino's `The Politics of Radiocarbon Dating'!"

Anonymous

>Did you ask radiocarbon dating experts their opinion on this?

The short answer is "no" (although see below on Arizona's Prof. Douglas Donahue).

The long answer is, in early 2014, when I was still only asking the

[Above (enlarge): Dan Porter's blog page of March 9, 2014 in which he promoted a comment by Hugh Farey, the anti-authenticist editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, quoting the response of Prof. Timothy Jull, the Director of the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory, followed by the response of Prof. Christopher Ramsey, the Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, to my early "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" post(s) which Farey had sent them. This was before I had made the connection on 31 March 2014 that Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy Linick and a German hacker Karl Koch, having both died of suspected suicide within days of each other, may have been the hackers. Note the `open minded' Porter's question, "Does this put an end to it, once and for all?"!]

question, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" [18Feb14, 20Feb14, 22Feb14 & 07Mar14], I was considering whether, after I had presented my evidence, I would write an open letter, posted to my blog, and emailed (as well as snail-mailed) to the Directors of the three Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories, Arizona, Oxford and Zurich, for their response to that evidence.

But before I could do that, I learned on Dan Porter's now closed blog that Hugh Farey had emailed extracts from one or more of those posts (I now assume it was only from my post, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Summary" of 7 March 2014), without mentioning my name or where they came from (but they could have Googled and found out), to Arizona's Prof. Timothy Jull and Oxford's Prof. Christopher Ramsey for their response.

Jull and Ramsey were involved in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud at the same laboratories they now lead and they were signatories of the 1989 Nature paper, which claimed that "... the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[1]

In summary, my response in my post "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey" of 13 March 2014 was:

I was surprised that two Professors and Directors of major radiocarbon dating laboratories would deign to respond, let alone promptly, to a mere blogger's posts.

■ Both Jull's and especially Ramsey' responses were surprisingly defensive as though they had something to hide.

■ Neither responded to the core issues in my post, that: • the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic. • since the Shroud is authentic, and the

[For example, The Pray Codex [right (enlarge)[2]] is dated 1192-95, i.e. 65 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud, yet it depicts at least eight features which are uniquely found on the Shroud, including four sets of L-shaped `poker' burn holes-see 11Jan10.]

probability that the 1st century Shroud had a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date is "about one in a thousand trillion," therefore some kind of fraud must be responsible for the Shroud's 1260-1390 = 1325 ± 65 years radiocarbon date. • the AMS system at all three laboratories was fully computerised and therefore hackable. • as Clifford Stoll recounted in his 1989 book, "The Cuckoo's Egg" [left], in the 1980s university computers were poorly secured and hackers could, and did, break into them. • Stoll had himself caught a German hacker, Markus Hess, who was being paid by the KGB to hack into university, and through them military, computers.

■ I did not then know about Karl Koch, (or Linick) and that Koch and Hess were in the same German KGB hacker ring. But on the basis that Hess had been hacking for the KGB, that the KGB then had a "disinformation campaign ... to discredit the moral authority of the Vatican," and that "a 1st or early century C-14 date of the Shroud would increase enormously the moral authority of the Vatican and Christianity in general," I submitted the first embryonic statement of what later became my theory, that:

"...it is not an unreasonable proposition that a KGB agent hacked into the AMS ... computer at each of the three C-14 labs and inserted a program which, when each test was run, replaced the Shroud's 1st or early century C-14 date, with dates which when calibrated, would yield years clustering around AD 1325, just before the Shroud's appearance in undisputed history in the 1350s."
■ Prof. Ramsey's response was both false and misleading. • He claimed that I was "... someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s," which is false. In fact, "I was one of the first to have a personal computer in 1980," "I pioneered the introduction of computers into Health Department of WA [Western Australia] hospitals in the mid-to late 1980s and in the late 1980s/early 1990s, I was the Systems Administrator of a network of 7 hospitals' UNIX systems." • Also misleading was Prof. Ramsey's attempt to downplay the role of the AMS computers:
"... The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured. Age calculation was done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS."
This misled some on Porter's blog to think that an AMS computer was little more than a calculator and Porter himself questioned whether it was even "programmable"! But according to Ramsey's own words above, it was still "software" (and therefore hackable) which output "the numbers from the AMS" to the control console terminal screen, from which only the final calibration calculations are "done offline ... with a calculator." • Ramsey knew, but he evidently hoped that his readers didn't, that the AMS computers, far from being little more than calculators, were in fact the very powerful DEC PDP-11 [right] or VAX-11 minicomputers (i.e. mini- mainframe computers)! [See 29Mar16]. • So, knowing that the AMS computers at the three laboratories were DEC minicomputers, what was Ramsey's point in downplaying their role and claiming, falsely, that I was "someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s"? If it was not to hide that after Linick's name was found in Sox's 1988 book, followed by Linick's assumed suicide on 4 June 1989, the laboratories had discovered, or suspected, that Arizona laboratory's (if not also Zurich and Oxford's) radiocarbon dating of the Shroud had been hacked? [See 29Mar16].

Because of the above defensive responses by Profs. Jull and Ramsey, and the misleading and even false response by Prof. Ramsey, to my early question "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" sent to them by Farey, I concluded it would be a waste of time for me to ask Jull or Ramsey what their opinion is of my hacker theory. They are aware of my theory, thanks to Farey, and they could have responded to it anytime, but haven't to date. Since they both responded promptly to Farey, their failure to respond directly to me, particularly as my theory advanced only weeks later to include evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the hacker, aided by Karl Koch, cannot be attributed to a refusal on principle to comment on a mere blogger's allegations. Prof. Jull and Ramsey are in a perfect position to refute my theory if it is false, having been involved in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, and being signatories of the 1989 Nature paper, at the same laboratories that they now lead, so their failure to do so is itself evidence that my theory is true!

Nevertheless, in consultation with a leading Shroud pro-authenticist, on 17 May 2014 I emailed Professor Emeritus Douglas J. Donahue (left[3]), a co-founder of the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory and a signatory of the 1989 Nature paper. I had read that Donahue was a Roman Catholic[4], who before the test had hoped that the Shroud was first century[5], and that his face became pale after the calculations produced by the AMS computer were displayed on the control console terminal's screen, indicating that the Shroud's date was AD 1350[6]. I therefore thought that when presented with the evidence that Arizona laboratory's radiocarbon dating of the Shroud had been hacked, Donahue might at least admit that was a possibility. So on 17 May 2014 I emailed Prof. Donahue at his Arizona University email address. I stated upfront who I was, the name of my blog with a link to it, and asked him the following questions:

"Have you any information that you would be prepared to share with me for me to publish on my blog about:

1) The circumstances of [Timothy W.] Linick's death?
2) The possibility of Linick being the leaker of Arizona's 1350 date?
3) The possibility of Arizona's C14 date of 1350 being the result of its AMS computer having been hacked?
4) The possibility of Linick being the hacker?

I don't want to receive information from you that I cannot publish on my blog as that will give me an insoluble ethical dilemma. However, if you ask me preliminary questions in reply I won't publish those.

If you wish to remain anonymous I would respect that and not publish, or tell anyone, your name, even my wife. I would just write, `someone who was there at Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory on 6 May 1988 when the Shroud of Turin was dated 1350 emailed me under the condition of strict confidentiality and anonymity that ...'"[7]
However, I have never received a reply from Prof. Donahue. And since if my theory was false, Donahue, like Jull and Ramsey (see above), would be in the perfect position to show that it was false, I can only conclude that Donahue's silence (as well as Jull's and Ramsey's), is itself evidence that my theory is true!

Notes
1. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
2. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 14 March 2015. [return]
3. "Douglas J Donahue," UA Science: Physics, University of Arizona, 2016. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.8; 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.11, 188. [return]
5. Wilson, 1991, p.8; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
6. Gove, 1996, p.264; Wilson, 1998, p.10; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.9. [return]
7. Jones, S.E., 2014, "Re: Timothy W. Linick," Email to Dr. Douglas J. Donahue, 17 May, 10:48 PM. [return]

Posted: 3 November 2016. Updated: 24 November 2016.

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, October 2016

Shroud of Turin News - October 2016
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: September 2016, part #2] [Next: October 2016, part #2]

This is my "Editorial and Contents," part #1 of the October 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related October 2016 news articles (if any) in separate posts, linked back to this post, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine. Click on a link below to go to that article. Articles not yet linked are planned to be commented on in this issue.

Contents:
Editorial


Editorial

Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word- processing of issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz for him to convert to PDFs and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in October up to issue #60, August 1990 [Right (enlarge)]. Issues in that archive are now up to #57, February 1990.



Posts: In October I blogged 5 new posts (latest uppermost): "Non-directional #17: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Oct 29, 2016; "My radiocarbon dating hacker theory mentioned in Joe Marino's "The Politics of Radiocarbon Dating"!," Oct 24, 2016; "`The Shroud of Turin as the Burial Cloth of Jesus - Answers for Critics,' Shroud of Turin News, September 2016 ," Oct 8, 2016; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourth century," Oct 4, 2016 and "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, September 2016," Oct 3, 2016.

Updates to my posts in the background in October included: "`Fn-Fz': Turin Shroud Dictionary," May 16, 2015. Following an email from ASSIST's (Association of Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin) Paul Maloney I corrected a statement I had made:

"But Frei's Shroud pollens that he had had extracted, cleaned and examined, were evidently never handed over to ASSIST by Frei's widow and now cannot be found."
with the following:
"...ASSIST never received the 1973 tapes ... However, ASSIST probably did acquire the 1973 pollen grains extracted from those tapes."

Comments: In October I also invoked my, "I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts" policy in the case of a commenter who requested that I provide him with "more support" for statements I made in one of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourth century " post. But as I stated in the first post of that series: "To save space I won't normally have references but rely mostly on links." I had already replied to that commenter's request: "Can you elaborate on the details of crucifixion that are present on the shroud but are not mentioned in the Bible?":

"Sorry, but I don't have the time to answer readers' questions on the Shroud that they could answer themselves. For example, by Googling "Shroud Stephen Jones crucifixion Bible" without the quotes."
In October I also deleted a comment by permanently banned commmenter Colin Berry / Sciencebod who was responding to a comment I made about him. I then realised that it was unfair of me to comment on Berry yet not allow him to comment on my blog in reply, so I retrospectively deleted that comment about Berry. In future I will try to be more consistent and make no more comments about Berry, and will delete all comments by others about him. So I intend this to be the last comment about Berry on my blog.

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, in October I blogged one post about my hacker theory: "My radiocarbon dating hacker theory mentioned in Joe Marino's `The Politics of Radiocarbon Dating'!," Oct 24, 2016. In particular, I commented on Marino's recounting of:

"A prominent Shroud researcher, who does not want to be identified" who had received "a curious phone call ... at about 1:30 in the morning" ...not long after the C-14 dating results were announced in October 1988 and sometime in the spring," [March-June 1989] ... the researcher ... `Harry' ... indicated the (male) person ... sounded distraught [and] told Harry he had been involved in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating. Harry thought the accent might have been German ... The person would not reveal his name ... or from where he was calling. He kept asking Harry if he would forgive him for having done a disservice to humanity. The person even mentioned the word `espionage' in relation to the event. The only detail he gave about the procedure was saying that the real Shroud sample was thrown in the trash. Harry tried repeatedly to get the man to identify himself and when he (Harry) tried to get more details, the man said he couldn’t say more as he could get in some real trouble. Harry said the person said he also planned to call other Shroud researchers ..."
As I had stated [01Jun16, 02Jun16 and now 24Oct16]:
"I regard as highly significant this evidence which supports that part of my theory which alleges that Koch, working for the KGB, installed Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers [see again 02Jun16]. This in turn supports my theory that both Koch and Linick were silenced permanently by the KGB to cover up their part in the KGB's hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating [see 30Jul16]."

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 October, Google Analytics [below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 609,349 and "Pageviews last month" as 15,349. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month as: "The Shroud of Turin as the Burial Cloth of Jesus...," Oct 8, 2016 - 141; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified," Dec 2, 2013 - 122; "How my radiocarbon dating hacker theory started," Sep 3, 2016 - 103; "My radiocarbon dating hacker theory mentioned in Joe Marino's...," Oct 24, 2016 - 73; and "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourth century," Oct 4, 2016 - 69.


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]

Posted: 2 November 2016. Updated: 2 November 2016.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Non-directional #17: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The man on the Shroud
NON-DIRECTIONAL #17
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #17, "The man on the Shroud: Non-directional," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" See the Main index for more information about this series.

[Main index #1] [Previous: No style. #16] [Next: Superficial #18]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Non-directional #17

Introduction. The image of the man on the Shroud is non-directional[2].

[Above (enlarge): Extract of the Shroud man's face on Shroud Scope at maximum enlargement[3]. As can be seen, even at extreme close range, "every thread is visible, and no trace of solid extraneous colouring matter can be detected even by microscopic examination"[4]. Hence there are no brush marks (see below) and therefore the image has no directionality[5]. The same is true of any other part of the image as readers can confirm for themselves using Shroud Scope.]

Directionality is up and down, or side to side[6], linear movement[7]. There is no such directionality on the shroud image[8], with the exception of the scourge marks which were delivered by a flagrum wielded from one side and then the other[9]. Other than that, the Shroud image's only directionality is vertical (see below)[10], that is vertically collimated, going straight up and down from the body[11].

Brush strokes There are no signs of brush strokes[12], finger strokes, or any other methods of artificial application[13]; nor any directional pattern that there would have been if the Shroud image had been produced by a human hand[14].

Computer analysis. In 1976, STURP members Don Lynn and Jean Lorre, working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, used a microdensitometer to scan black and white photos of the Shroud[15]. When the resultant grey scale information was fed into a computer and then progressively removed at each level of shade intensity, the pixels disappeared randomly, showing there is no evidence of a directional pattern, and therefore no evidence for brush marks as would be expected for a painting[16]. Further computer analysis by the late Prof. Giovanni Tamburelli (1923-90) in 1981 confirmed this[17]. In fact the only directional feature found on the Shroud image was in the weave of the cloth[18].

Painting has direction One cannot apply paint without directionality[19]. All paintings and drawings have directionality[20] as an artist moves his/her brush, pen or pencil from one side to another[21]. Even with Pointillism, the "technique of painting in which small, distinct dots of color are applied in patterns to form an image"[22], each dot betrays a slight directional movement[23]. The lack of directionality of the Shroud image is further evidence that the Shroud is not a painting[24].

Radiation That there is no directionality in the image indicates that the image must have been formed by a release of radiation[25]. Radiation would not cause any any directionality across the width and length of the image[26].

Vertical That the Shroud image is vertical (see above) is consistent with STURP's John Jackson's "Cloth Collapse Theory"[27].

Evidence for authenticity That the Shroud image is consistent with having been caused by some form of radiation through space and was vertically directional is evidence for it having been the result of the resurrection of Jesus[28].

Problem for the forgery theory That the Shroud image is non-directional is yet another problem (see previous three: #14, #15 & #16) for the forgery theory. In particular, the lack of brush strokes or any directional pattern rules out any production by the hand of an artist[29]. Not only forgery by painting is ruled out (see above); also is Joe Nickell's powder rubbed on a cloth over a bas relief method[30], because (amongst its many problems) the application of powder is directional[31]. And as we saw in 07Aug16, directionality of sunlight is a fatal problem of Prof. Nicholas Allen's medieval photograph forgery theory[32]. Indeed all naturalistic attempts to account for non-directional nature of the Shroud image have failed[33]!

Continued in part #18 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 post. [return]
2. 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, p.108; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.53; Habermas G.R., "Discussion: Antony G. N. Flew, Gary R. Habermas, Terry L. Miethe, and W. David Beck," in Habermas G.R., Flew A.G.N. & Miethe T.L., ed., 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.119; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.37; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.137. [return]
3. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
4. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.14 [return]
5. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.16. [return]
6. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.122. [return]
7. Habermas, 1987, p.120; Antonacci, 2000, p.38. [return]
8. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.150; Habermas, 1987, p.120. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.232. [return]
10. Wilson, 1979, p.234; Antonacci, 2000, p.234. [return]
11. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.184-189, 188; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.118; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.35, 130. [return]
12. Heller, 1983, p.150; Drews, 1984, p.16; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.4,156,176; de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
13. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.106. [return]
14. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.196; Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.134; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.66; Cruz, 1984, p.53. [return]
15. Heller, 1983, p.137; Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
16. Heller, 1983, p.137; Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," 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.113-127, 116-117; Adler, 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.11-27, 17-18. [return]
17. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 288; Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, pp.12-13. [return]
18. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.106; Cruz, 1984, p.53; Antonacci, 2000, p.38. [return]
19. Habermas, 1987, p.120. [return]
20. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.213. [return]
21. 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.195. [return]
22. "Pointillism," Wikipedia, 21 October 2016. [return]
23. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.26. [return]
24. Heller, 1983, p.138. [return]
25. Morgan, 1980, pp.76-77. [return]
26. Antonacci, 2000, p.212. [return]
27. Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, p.325-344, 330-331. [return]
28. Antonacci, 2000, p.234. [return]
29. Cruz, 1984, p.53. [return]
30. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.101-102. [return]
31. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.108. [return]
32. Schwortz, B.M., 2000, "Is The Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph?: A Critical Examination of the Theory," Shroud.com; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.124; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.263. [return]
33. Habermas, G.R., 1984, "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.158. [return]

Posted: 29 October 2016. Updated: 11 November 2016.