Continuing from part "#1 Introduction"of this series, "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!",
[Above (enlarge): "The Vignon markings: (1) Transverse streak across forehead, (2) three-sided `square' between brows, (3) V shape at bridge of nose, (4) second V within marking 2, (5) raised right eyebrow, (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, (10) heavy line under lower lip, (11) hairless area between lower lip and beard, (12) forked beard, (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair." ]
with this part #2 "The Vignon markings" (1).
Because of the amount of material, and its complexity, I have decided to split my originally single post into two or more.
1. The Vignon markings. The New Testament contains no description of Jesus' appearance . Early Christian art depicted Jesus like a youthful, beardless pagan god Apollo.  Yet suddenly in the early sixth century, Jesus began to be depicted as a long-haired, bearded man. 
Paul Vignon (1865-1943) was a French Professor of Biology  and an artist . He discovered there were twenty unique features of the Shroud that were found in these depictions of Christ from the sixth century onwards . But Wilson reduced these to a more definite fifteen.  Some of these features are merely wrinkles and imperfections of the fabric of the Shroud and artistically make no sense.  Yet the artists slavishly copied these features found on the Shroud, including the imperfections. 
Vignon, in his 1939 book, Le Saint Suaire de Turin devant la Science, l'Archeologie, l'Histoire, l'Iconographie, la Logique ("The Holy Shroud of Turin in the light of Science, Archaeology, History, Iconography and Logic" , proposed his "Iconographic Theory" of the Shroud of Turin.  Vignon's theory proposed that those artistic representations of Christ's face, which contain, to varying degrees these "Vignon markings," were based, directly or indirectly, on the face image of the Shroud itself . 
As we shall see, Vignon's theory has proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.  There is simply no reasonable alternative explanation why flaws in the Shroud's linen fabric are present in artistic representations of Christ from the sixth to the twelfth century, except that the artists faithfully copied those flaws, directly or indirectly, from the Shroud itself.
Law courts determing cases of plagiarism have recognised this principle, that of two otherwise identical texts, which both claim to be the original, if a physical flaw in the paper of one of the texts (e.g. "a scrap of straw") has a meaningless counterpart (e.g. "an intrusive colon within a phrase") in the other text, then the original source is that which has the physical flaw in its paper:
"An interesting argument is that in the law courts (where proof `beyond reasonable doubt' is required), cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original. Similarly, in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies one from another or from the same original is when both contain the same errors. A charming example is an intrusive colon within a phrase in two fourteenth-century texts of Euripides: one colon turned out to be a scrap of straw embedded in the paper, proving that the other text was a later copy." 
Therefore, as we shall see, it is an unanswered (and unanswerable) fact that the Shroud of Turin existed from at least the sixth century AD, and those critics of Vignon's day, such as Canon Ulysse Chevalier (1841-1923) and Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856-1939), who uncritically accepted Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (1377–1395) unsubstantiated claim that the Shroud was "cunningly painted" in 1355,  were wrong. And therefore, in our day, the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "medieval ... AD 1260-1390" , also has to be wrong!
Continued in #2, part (2).
 Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82e. [return]
 Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.16. [return]
 Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.73. [return]
 Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.83. [return]
 McNair, P., in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.28. [return]
 Shepard, L., 1970, in Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, p.ix. [return]
 Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, p.157. [return]
 Wilson, 1978, p.85. [return]
 Walsh, 1963, p.157. [return]
 Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, pp.58-60. [return]
 Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places Doubleday: New York NY, pp.161-162. [return]
 Shepard, 1970, p.ix. [return]
 Adams, 1982, p.20. [return]
 Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.142. [return]
 Patterson, C., 1999, "Evolution," Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, p.117. [return]
 Wilson, 1978, pp.230-231. [return]
 Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
Posted: 11 February 2012. Updated: 4 August 2016