for authors' surnames beginning with "M" of books and journals which I will probably refer to in my book but will remove later if I don't.
Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY.
Maloney, P.C., 1990, "The Current Status of Pollen Research and Prospects for the Future," ASSIST Newsletter, Vol. 2., No. 1, June, pp.1-7.
Maloney, P.C., 1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, 2002, pp.16-47.
Maloney, P.C., 1999, "A Contribution toward a History of Botanical Research on the Shroud of Turin," in Walsh, 2000, pp.241-266.
McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY.
McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, 1978.
Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC.
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.
Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin By an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia.
Morgan, R., 1983, "Shroud Guide," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia.
Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ.
PS: See `tagline' quotes below (bolded emphases mine) , from a cross-section of the above books and journals.
"A fortuitous event, the photographing of the Shroud in 1898, transformed this religious relic into an archaeological artifact that if not a forgery, profoundly affects our knowledge of the last days of Jesus on earth. For the past eighty-five years, this ancient strip of linen has probably been studied and tested to a greater degree than any art object or other archaeological artifact on record. Modern research on the Shroud began after an amateur Italian photographer, Secondo Pia, photographed the 14½ x 3½ foot Shroud of Turin for the first time, around the turn of the century. He made the startling discovery that the complete frontal and dorsal image of the nude man on the cloth is actually a negative image with photographic qualities. ... Since the taking of that first photograph, scientific and historical research have uncovered many facts that support the supposition that the Shroud could be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ" (Maher, R.W., "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, 1986, p.1).
"There is no longer any question but that the artist's rendition preserved in the Hungarian Pray Codex [1192- 95 AD] represents the cloth we now recognize as the Shroud of Turin. Moreover, by that rendition we know that this is the earliest firmly documented demonstrable viewpoint that the cloth we know as the Shroud of Turin was the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. In color photographs of the Codex even one set of the angular flows of blood down one of the arms is clearly visible-an observation I believe was first made by the Belgian scholar, Jef Leysen (personal communication, Spring, 1998). And here is shown-as already noted-a comparatively accurate portrayal of two different sets of holes that represent the pre-1516 burns at the two ends of the Shroud. Therefore, the pre-1516 burn marks are more accurately termed pre-1192 burn marks. But, most importantly, their existence some 65 years prior to the first bracket of the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date creates a problem for the 95 percent confidence level claimed by the three labs because one must conservatively add at least 100 years onto the above date to allow for the development of a tradition that the cloth portrayed by the artist was in fact the burial cloth of Christ. On the other hand it would be commensurate with a 68 percent level of confidence which expands the window to a 500 year opening that would encompass that date. Still, the labs have insisted that the 95 percent confidence level is the level achieved by their tests." (Maloney, P.C., "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, pp.33-34).
"On October 13, 1988, the results of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud were finally announced at press conferences in London and Turin. The age of the cloth was determined to be in the region of 1260-1390 A.D., thus seeming to prove beyond doubt that this object could not be the burial cloth of Jesus. With that announcement the Shroud of Turin morphed in the eyes of most people from being possibly the most important and fascinating archaeological object in the world to a forged medieval relic of little significance. That day back in 1988 is still very fresh in my memory, for it was the culmination of several years of effort, by me and many others, to have the Shroud dated. It was also the sad climax of several years of frustration over the faulty procedures, arrogance, Byzantine intrigues, machiavellian scheming and influence peddling that accompanied the planning of the test. The result was a disaster for the Shroud, and it truly marked the demise of the Shroud in the minds of millions of people who knew something of the fascinating image it held and the puzzle that it posed. The image and its puzzle are still there of course, but only a tiny percentage of those who formerly looked upon the Shroud with a sense of wonder do so today. For the vast majority, the C-14 result was the crowning and defining event in the encounter between the venerable relic and 20th century science. It was found to be medieval, a fake, maybe at best an icon of inexplicable realism, an oddity. But it was medieval, and thus could not possibly be the burial cloth of Christ. The tragedy was that these views were not warranted by the evidence. The dating was a fiasco; the result may well be incorrect. It has not been corroborated by any follow-up testing, which for some inexplicable reason has not been allowed by the Church. Research done in the last ten years has cast grave doubts on the validity of the date as an age for the cloth as a whole. It is quite possible that contamination and/or repair works are responsible for the aberrant age of the single sample selected. The decision to take only one sample, and the location chosen, may well go down in the history of the Shroud as one of the worst single events, behind only the fire of 1532 and the `restoration' of 2002. There is firm evidence available now that the sample taken was not representative of the cloth as a whole, and that it provided what archaeologists and geologists call a `rogue' or `fictitious' date, i.e. one that does not provide a true age of the object or context it purports to date." (Meacham, W., "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, 2005, p.53).
"In the real world, anything, including a miracle, is possible but in the realm of science we limit the possible by the use of the highly corroborated working hypotheses of materialism, naturalism, and actualism. We would say that all empirical evidence agrees with the hypothesis (that is, the hypothesis is always corroborated and never falsified) that the material universe exists, therefore its existence in fact is the most reasonable explanation. We would say that all empirical evidence agrees with the hypothesis that an artist produced the Shroud of Turin and that there is no good evidence that it was formed naturally, therefore, its identification as an artifact is the most reasonable explanation. Invariably, the most reasonable explanations are those which agree with most or all of the data and which do not contradict (falsify) other highly corroborated hypotheses or theories. This latter qualification is important; attributing the Shroud of Turin to a miracle (or the origin of life and species to special creation) is a possible explanation which will account for all of the empirical evidence; however, it is not the most reasonable explanation because it conflicts with the highly-corroborated hypothesis of naturalism. In a similar fashion, I will show that Max Frei's pollen data can be most reasonably explained by human fraud because the only other possible explanations are that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, that a miracle occurred, or both. Since we are pretty certain as scientists that the Shroud is not authentic and that miracles don't occur, human deception is the only explanation remaining. Proof is not necessary in this method, the scientific method, at all." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.301-302).
"Another reason why this relic, of all in the world, has been subjected to such unusual debate is, I suspect, because of the awe on the one hand and the fear an the other which it induces. Those who believe in it, like those who believe in God and Christ, are filled with awe at the prospect of the possible truth. Those who profess not to believe in it, who set out to prove its falsity, like those who are atheists and set out to prove the non-existence of God, are filled with an innate tear at the prospect of the possible truth. It is this which has led to the frenetic challenges to its authenticity: that fear by the unbeliever that perhaps the believer is right after all. All cynics and sceptics show that sense of insecurity, no matter what they argue about. When they go against the established tide of human opinion and development, particularly of innate concepts, they display fear. Thus the argument about the Shroud fails into a similar category of insecurity by the doubters and a calm serenity of security and persistent searching by the believers." (Morgan, R., "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, 1980, pp.30-31).
"Can the Man of the Shroud be identified? (Balance of Probabilities) A number of scholars of critical disposition, intent on solving this mystery, have wondered whether the image imprinted on the Shroud might be that of Jesus Christ. Obviously this enquiry too, for it to be of scientific value, must be based exclusively on objective considerations. Here then is a study on the balance of probabilities, made by Professor Bruno Barberis of the University of Turin, reviving and completing studies by Yves Delage, Paul De Gail and Tino Zeuli. The method of research, while of absolute scientific rigour, is based on extremely simple considerations. The thesis is this: `If you throw a coin up in the air, the odds are two to one (1/2) it will land on the side you have chosen; if you throw a die up in the air, the odds against your getting the face of the die with your selected number on it are six to one (1/6). If you throw coin and die up at the same time, since the two events are independent of each other, the odds of your getting the preselected side of coin and face of die at the same time will be twelve to one (1/2 x 1/6 = 1/12). Now let us examine the seven most significant characteristics common to Jesus of Nazareth (according to the Gospel narrative) and the Man of the Shroud, and see what the odds are against all these characteristics being found at the same time in the same man who had undergone the torment of crucifixion. 1. Both Jesus and the Man of the Shroud were wrapped in winding-sheets after death by crucifixion. Note that not many crucified men can have had a regular burial. (It was the most ignominious of punishments, reserved for slaves, brigands and murderers, and extended after death with contempt for the corpse): one chance in a hundred (1/100). 2. Both Jesus and the Man of the Shroud had a cap of thorns put on his head. No historical document mentions any such usage. Let us limit this very remote probability to one in five thousand (1/5000). 3. The patibulum weighed heavily on the shoulders of the Man of the Shroud as also on Jesus's. Only occasionally was the condemned man made to carry the horizontal beam of the cross to the place of execution: odds of two to one (1/2). 4. Same odds (1/2) on the way the hands and feet were fixed to the wood of the cross. They could be fastened with nails but a simpler and quicker method was to tie them on with ropes. 5. The Shroud displays a wound on the right side of the Man who was wrapped in it. John's Gospel (19:33-34) tells how in Jesus's case `instead of their breaking his legs, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance, and immediately out came blood and water.' Odds perhaps of ten to one (1/10). 6. The Man of the Shroud had been wrapped in the sheet as soon as he was lowered from the cross; no washing or anointing of the corpse took place. It was the same with Jesus, since the Jewish Passover was about to begin, during which no manual labour could be performed: odds of twenty to one (1/20). 7. The Shroud bears the imprint of a man's corpse, but no traces of putrefaction. Hence it wrapped a human body for a brief period though long enough for an imprint to be formed on it. And did not the corpse of Jesus rest in the tomb for little more than thirty hours, from Friday evening until dawn on Sunday? This is an extraordinary case of agreement which we may rate at odds of five hundred to one (1/500). From this analysis, Barberis then obtained the aggregate probability; this is given by the aggregate total of the individual probabilities considered, viz: 1/100 x 1/500 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/10 x 1/20 x 1/500 = 1/200,000,000,000. In line with the scholars preceding him, he was able to deduce that out of a hypothetical 200 billion victims of crucifixion ONE ALONE could have possessed the same identical characteristics common to Jesus and the Man of the Shroud and the Gospel tells us what his name is: JESUS CHRIST, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried and who on the third day rose again from the dead." (Moretto, G., "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, 1999, p.58. Italics & capitals original).