© Stephen E. Jones[1]
"D"
This is page "D" of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. For more information about this dictionary see the "Main index A-Z" and page "A."
[Index] [Previous: "C"] [Next: "E"]
[Above[2]: Dirt on the Shroud man's feet, particularly on his right heel (arrowed). See below.]
da Vinci (see "Leonardo").
Damon, Paul E. (1921-2005) was Professor of Geosciences at Arizona University, Director of the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory, and the lead author of the 1989 Nature paper on the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, which (wrongly-see future "hacking") claimed that: "... the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390." [1, 2, 3.]
Danin, Avinoam (1939-) is Professor Emeritus of Botany at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He is a world authority on the flora of Israel, being an editor of the "Flora Palaestina" and author of "Flora of Israel Online." In 1995 when Dr Alan Whanger visited Prof. Danin in Jerusalem and asked him to confirm from photographs Whanger's identification of flower images found on the Shroud, Danin immediately did so. And in 1997, when Danin visited Whanger's North Carolina home, Danin identified the images of more flowers and plant parts that Whanger had not noticed. From then on, Danin although a non-religious Jew, became a Shroud pro-authenticist. Danin later pointed out that the flowers he had identified on the Shroud bloom only in March-April in Palestine, which covers the date of Jesus' crucifixion in April AD30. Danin also discovered that three of those flower species Zygophyllum dumosum, Gundelia tournefortii and Cistus creticus, are only found together in a limited area, around Jerusalem. Danin initially supported the identification by Swiss pioneering criminologist Max Frei (1913-83) of pollen on the Shroud as Palestinian and Turkish, but due to problems in verifying Frei's work posthumously, Danin felt he had to withdraw that support (which does not mean that Frei was wrong). Prof. Danin is the author of two books on the Shroud: "Flora of the Shroud of Turin" (1999) and "Botany of the Shroud" (2010). See future "Flower images," "Frei," and "Pollen." [1, 2, 3.]
d'Arcis (see "Pierre").
de Charny (see "Geoffroy," etc).
de Savoie, di Savoia (see Amadeus IX, etc).
death.
decomposition.
Delage, Yves (1854 1920) was a French zoologist at the Sorbonne, Paris, specialising in comparative anatomy. Delage was also a self-declared agnostic, who rejected supernatural explanations. Yet, after studying the first photographs of the Shroud taken in 1898 by Secondo Pia, Delage found the image of the man on the Shroud was anatomically flawless. So in 1902 Delage read a paper by his protege Paul Vignon (1865-1943) to the French Academy of Sciences arguing that the Shroud was Christ's, estimating the probability that the image on the shroud was not caused by the body of Jesus Christ as 1 in 10 billion. While the Academy members heard Delage out and examined Vignon's photographs, the Secretary of the Academy, atheist Marcellin Berthelot (1827-1907), edited out all reference in Delage's paper to the Shroud and Christ and published it as mentioning only the vaporography of zinc. In protest, Delage sent an open letter to the editor of the Revue Scientifique, pointing out the double-standard (which continues to this day), "...if instead of Christ, there was a question of some person such as a Sargon, an Achilles or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making an objection..."!
directionality (see "non-directional").
dirt.There is dirt on the Shroud man's feet (see above), detected by the reflectance spectroscopy of husband and wife team Roger and Marty Gilbert, as part of STURP's 1978 examination of the Shroud in Turin. This is consistent with the man being Jesus, who wore sandals (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Acts 13:25) on the dusty unsealed roads of first century Palestine (Mt 10:14; Mk 6:11; Lk 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51). But it is inconsistent with the Shroud being a medieval forgery, because a forger would not likely add such realism, especially since the dirt was not noticed until 1978. Moreover, the dirt contains a rare form of limestone, travertine Aragonite, which is the type of limestone in the cave tombs around Jerusalem, in one of which Jesus was buried (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:52-53; Jn 19:41-42). Furthermore, the chemical signature of the limestone on the Shroud near the man's feet and its underside matches that of the Jerusalem cave tombs and nowhere else, as far as is yet known. [See 1.]
DNA.
doubled-in-four (see "tetradiplon").
Dukes of Savoy (including Princes and Kings) who owned the Shroud, were: Louis I (1413-1465); son Amadeus IX (1435-72); son Philibert I (1465 82); brother Charles I (1468-90); son Charles II (1489-96); granduncle Philip II (1438-97); son Philibert II (1480-1504); half-brother Charles III (1486-1553); son Emmanuel Philibert (1528-80). To be continued.
dye.
Notes:
1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "dirt," not the whole page "D"), provided a link and/or reference is provided back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return]
2. Based on Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical. [return]
Posted 30 March 2015. Updated 23 April 2026.
My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (10)
Introduction. This is part #10, Summary (10), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. See the Index below. This is the last post in that series. It will be continued in my concluding summary series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking." It is my emphasis below unless otherwise indicated.
[Index [#2] [#3][#4][#5][#6][#7][#8][#9][#10(1)][#10(2)][#10(3)][#10(4)][#10(5)][#10(6)][#10(7)][#10(8)][#10(9)]. See "My Hacker Theory in a nutshell."]
[Above: "Sergei [or Sergey] Markov in February 2012"[2]. The Soviet official who the German hackers (including Koch) sold their hacked secrets to was a "Sergei Markov":
"For both Dob [Dirk-Otto Brezinski] and Carl [Peter Carl] it became apparent after an hour or so of being questioned that Pengo [Hans Heinrich Hübner] and Hagbard [Karl Koch] had gone to the authorities. Eventually, both of them confessed to espionage. But they weren't to be accorded the same leniency that Markus Hess got. ... Both were taken into custody. ... prosecutor Kohlhaas ... saw his case strengthen when, during the search of Carl's apartment, a Casio pocket calculator was found. It contained the telephone number for one Sergei Markov"[3].
The Sergey Markov in the photo above has been described as "Putin's man"[4]. In 2009 this "Sergei Markov" admitted to being behind a hacking cyber-attack on Estonia [5, 6]. While I can as yet find no evidence that this Sergey (or Sergei) Markov was a former KGB agent (he need not have been), I assume that he is the "Sergei Markov" who was the Soviet Union's point of contact with the German "KGB hackers" which included Karl Koch[7].
10. THE SOVIET UNION HAD A MOTIVE TO DISCREDIT THE SHROUD AND THROUGH THE KGB KILL KOCH AND LINICK
• The Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse in the 1980s. By the mid-1980's the former Soviet Union (USSR) was on the verge of collapse:
"The prevailing mood of the Soviet leadership at the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982 was one of aversion to change. The long period of Brezhnev's rule had come to be dubbed one of "standstill", with an aging and ossified top political leadership. ... In 1988, the Soviet Union abandoned its nine-year war in Afghanistan and began to withdraw its forces. ... In the late 1980s, the constituent republics of the Soviet Union started legal moves towards potentially declaring sovereignty over their territories, citing Article 72 of the USSR constitution, which stated that any constituent republic was free to secede."[8].And in fact the USSR did collapse in late 1989, epitomised by the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989[9].
[Above: Germans on and around the Berlin Wall at the Brandenburg Gate, 10 November 1989[10].]
• A first century radiocarbon date of the Shroud would have been a threat to the atheist USSR. The Soviet Union was an atheist State[11]. Yet, despite its attempts to eradicate religion since the 1917 revolution, the USSR continued to have a large Christian population[12]. In the 1980s, three Christian denominations alone, had a total of about 56.5 million adherents:"According to both Soviet and Western sources, in the late 1980s the Russian Orthodox Church had over 50 million believers ... The Georgian Orthodox Church ... In the late 1980s ... had ... an estimated 2.5 million followers ... The Armenian Apostolic Church ... In the 1980s ... had about 4 million adherents ..." [13]
And that does not count the 5.5 million Roman Catholics mainly in the satellite republics:
"Catholics formed a substantial and active religious constituency in the Soviet Union ... The majority of the 5.5 million Roman Catholics in the Soviet Union lived in the Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Latvian republics, with a sprinkling in the Moldavian, Ukrainian, and Russian republics."[14].
Nor does that count the Roman Catholics in Poland, which were about 30 million in the late 1980s.
That totals about 92 million Christians in the Soviet Union in the 1980s. And if Protestants and other Christian denominations are included, that means there could have been about 100 million Christians in the crumbling, officially atheist, Soviet Union in the 1980s!
So a first-century radiocarbon date of the Shroud of Turin would have been perceived as a huge threat by the embattled Soviet leadership.
• If Timothy W. Linick had offered the Soviets a 14th century carbon-date of the Shroud they would have accepted it. So if Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist, Timothy W. Linick (see #10(7)) had approached the Soviet Union (through for example the Soviet consulate in San Francisco):
"Since most of what they [the Soviet Union] were interested in, especially technology for advanced computing, was on a list of highly restricted technologies maintained by a consortium of Western nations known as COCOM, the Soviets had long since resorted to extralegal means of procuring hardware and software. The FBI liked to maintain that Northern California's Silicon Valley, where much of American computer innovation resided, was crawling with KGB agents. The FBI claimed that one of the primary missions of the Soviet consulate in San Francisco was to funnel U.S. technology into the Soviet Union"[15].with an offer to guarantee that the Shroud would be radiocarbon-dated to about 25-30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in the 1350s (see #10(1)), the Soviets would certainly have accepted that offer.
• Linick was found dead of suspected suicide on 4 June 1989 Linick was found dead of suspected suicide in Tucson, Arizona on
[Right: Photograph of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances, shortly after the campaign of the Italian press reporting our [Bonnet-Eymard's] accusations" of fraud in the radiocarbon dating.]
4 June 1989. (see #10(7)).
• Koch had been murdered by the KGB (or East Germany's Stasi on the KGB's behalf) between 23 and 30 May 1989, i.e. between 12 and 6 days before Linick's `suicide.' The German police on 3 June publicly identified the charred body as that of Koch. So Linick's `suicide' was one day after the KGB would have learned that Koch's burned body had been found! (see #10(9)).
• Koch and Linick were allegedly killed by the KGB to prevent them confessing the Soviets Union's hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating. According to my theory, Koch and Linick were killed by the KGB (or the East German Stasi at the KGB's behest) to prevent them confessing their part in the Soviets Union's hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating. Koch's murder was disguised as suicide, presumably by the KGB (or East Germany's Stasi at the KGB's behest), since no one else is known to have had a motive to kill Koch. But that the KGB (or Stasi) had killed Koch seemed inexplicable because Koch had long since finished confessing his hacking for the KGB, as had his fellow hackers for the KGB, but none of them were killed (see #10(9)).
But it is explicable if the KGB/Stasi executed Koch (and then Linick) for fear they would betray the USSR's own secret, as hacking the Shroud of Turin's radiocarbon dating would have been. With the publication of the Nature paper of 16 February 1989, which claimed that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... 1260-1390"[16], Koch would (according to my theory) have realised what his hacking into the Oxford and Zurich university computers and running a program on them had done, as he had since "embrace[d] ... conventional religion" [17].
That Koch had started to talk about his hacking for the USSR of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating is supported by his fellow hacker Pengo (Hans Hübner), complaining that Koch was "talking of nothing but conspiracies and [was] having religious hallucinations"[18].
But if, according to my theory, the KGB had arranged for Koch to install Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories' AMS computers (see #10(9)), they would have realised what Koch was saying and silenced him permanently. And then also silenced Linick permanently because if he learned of Koch's `suicide,' out of fear/remorse Linick might confess his hacking for the Soviets to the USA authorities.
• Koch is not essential to my theory. Nevertheless, as I have previously stated many times, Karl Koch is not essential to my theory:
a) If Koch could not have travelled to Zurich and Oxford to hack into their AMS computers, it would not falsify my theory.
"... Koch's role is not essential to my theory. If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have personally travelled to Zurich and Oxford to access their radiocarbon laboratories computers, it would not falsify my theory."[#10(9)]b) Linick could have hacked Zurich and Oxford's AMS computer some other way:
"...Karl Koch is not essential to my theory, as Linick could have hacked Zurich and Oxford's AMS computer some other way, e.g. by issuing them with a program `update', or one of the KGB's own operatives could have entered those two laboratories clandestinely and installed Linick's program on their AMS control console computers"[#10(9)]c) Linick could have acted alone:
"If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have been involved, either directly or indirectly, in installing Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford laboratories' AMS control console computers, then my theory would not be falsified. In that case I would have to maintain that Linick's program was installed on those laboratories' computers by some other way. For example, Linick himself could have flown over to Zurich and Oxford, installed his program clandestinely on their computers, and returned to Arizona, in a few days. This is why my theory always has been `that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker' (singular)."[#10(9)]
"Koch is not essential to my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker, as Linick could have acted alone. But that both Linick and Koch (who need not have known each other) were involved in hacking the Shroud's radiocarbon date for the KGB is supported by the fact that Linick died of `suicide in mysterious circumstances' on 4 June 1989 and Koch's inexplicably burnt body which was made to look like suicide, had been publicly identified by the German police only a day earlier on 3 June 1989![19]d) It is not essential to my theory that Linick knew Koch or vice-versa:
"Also, as I have also previously stated, it is not essential to my theory that Linick knew Koch, or even about Koch (and vice-versa): `... I don't claim that the laboratories, or even Linick, knew about Koch'"[#10(9)]e) I have included Karl Koch in my theory because of the striking coincidence that Linick's `suicide' on 4 June 1989 was only one day after Koch burnt body was publicly identified by German police on 3 June 1989, and other reasons as follows:
"I have included Karl Koch in my theory, despite there being as yet no confirmed link between Koch and Linick, because of: 1) the striking coincidence that both Koch and Linick died of suspected suicide within days of each other (and indeed Linick's `suicide' on 4 June 1989 was only one day after Koch charred body was identified and publicly announced as his by German police on 3 June 1989 ...; 2) Koch's death was almost certainly the work of the KGB, or the East German Secret Police (Stasi) at the behest of the KGB; 3) the KGB had no reason to kill Koch unless he had been involved in an entirely different type of hacking for them which they did not want to become public knowledge; 4) Koch's expertise would have been useful in hacking into Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers; and 5) Koch's living in Germany would have made it comparatively easy for him to travel to Zurich and Oxford to install Linick's program on their computers (although that too is not necessary to my theory as Koch may have only provided expert advice on how to hack into those computers and a KGB operative may have entered the laboratories clandestinely and installed Linick's program on their AMS computers, or Linick himself may have installed it)."[#10(9)]f) So those who continue to dismiss my theory as merely a "conspiracy theory," knowing my above disclaimers, do so dishonestly:
"So, apart from the fact that the term `conspiracy theory' says NOTHING about whether a theory is TRUE or not, and indeed `the skepticism of conspiracy theorising ... is akin to a modern day SUPERSTITION' (!):"A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful. Although the term `conspiracy theory' has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies, it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate. ... [and] some thinkers, particularly philosophers, have argued that belief in conspiracy theories can be rational and that the skepticism of conspiracy theorising (the generation of conspiracy theories) is akin to a modern day superstition." ("Conspiracy theory," Wikipedia, 30 May 2015)my hacking theory, at its most basic, does not require `two or more persons, a group, or an organization,' as Linick COULD have acted alone." (capitals original)[20]
"So those who continue to dismiss my theory as merely a "conspiracy theory," in the full knowledge of my above disclaimers, do so dishonestly."[#10(9)]
To be concluded in "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking."
Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the heading and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. "Sergey Alexandrovich Markov," Wikipedia, 15 April 2015. [return]
3. Hafner, K. & Markoff, J., 1991, "Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier," Corgi: London, reprinted, 1993, pp.292-293. [return]
4. "Putin's Man Warns Finland About NATO Membership and Russophobia," Finbay, 9 June 2014. [return]
5. Coalson, R., 2009, "Russia admits to Cyber Attack on Estonia," La Russophobe, March 9. [return]
6. Leyden, J., 2009, "Russian politician: 'My assistant started Estonian cyberwar'," The Register, 10 March. [return]
7. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.293. [return]
8. "Soviet Union," Wikipedia, 30 June 2015. [return]
9. "Berlin Wall," Wikipedia, 27 June 2015. [return]
10. Ibid. [return]
11. "State atheism: Soviet Union," Wikipedia, 21 June 2015. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. "Religion in the Soviet Union," Wikipedia, 23 May 2015. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.226. [return]
16. Damon, 1989, p. 611. [return]
17. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.301-302. [return]
18. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.316. [return]
19. Jones, S.E., 2015, "Locations of the Shroud: Turin 1918-Present: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia," The Shroud of Turin blog, June 3. [return]
20. Jones, S.E., 2015, Comment under, "`Ga-Gm': Turin Shroud Dictionary," The Shroud of Turin blog, May 24. [return]
Posted 30 June 2015. Updated 16 April 2026.
Dimensions #3: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
DIMENSIONS #3
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]
This is "Dimensions," part #3, of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!"
[Main index #1] [Previous: A linen cloth #2] [Next: Weave #4]
- A linen cloth #2
- Dimensions #3
[Above (enlarge): Shroud Scope photo with my 8 x 2 grid overlay showing that the Shroud divides evenly into 16 squares, each 437/8 = ~54.6 cm (~21.5 in.) x 111/8 = ~55.5 cm (~21.8 in.) [See below that the Shroud's true dimensions are 437 x 111 cms. But see 08Apr20 that they are ~438 x ~113.35 cms.] And as we shall see, the length of each square, ~54.6 cm. or ~21.5 in., is only 0.3 cm. or 0.1 in. less than the standard Assyrian cubit of ~54.9 cm or ~21.6 in. And the width of each square is only ~0.6 cm. or ~0.2 in. more than that Assyrian cubit. But the width of the Shroud has probably been increased slightly more than 2 cubits by the cutting and rejoining of the sidestrip.]
Ian Dickinson: 14 ft 3 in. x 3 ft 7 in. = ~8 x 2 cubits! In 1989, an expert in early Syriac, Ian Dickinson, of Canterbury, England, realised that these measurements of the Shroud were approximately 8 x 2 of the Assyrian standard cubit of between 21.4 and 21.6 inches, which was the common unit of lineal measurement in Jesus' day:
"Along these same lines has been a study of the shroud's dimensions as recently made by an expert in early Syriac, Ian Dickinson, from Canterbury, England[4]. Curious at the shroud's, by British units of measurement, anomalous 14 foot 3 inch by 3 foot 7 inch overall size, Dickinson wondered if these dimensions might make more sense if converted to the cubit measure as prevailing in Jesus's time. Establishing that the first-century Jewish cubit was most likely to the Assyrian standard, reliably calculated at between 21.4 and 21.6 inches, Dickinson found that if he chose the lower of these measures there was an astonishing correlation, accurate to the nearest half-inch:
Length of Turin shroud 14 feet 3 inches 8 cubits at 21.4 inches 14 feet 3 inches Width of Turin shroud 3 feet 7 inches 2 cubits at 21.4 inches 3 feet 7 inches Such conformity to an exact 8 by 2 Jewish cubits is yet another piece of knowledge difficult to imagine of any medieval forger. It also correlates perfectly with the `doubled in four' arrangement by which we hypothesized the shroud to have been once folded and mounted as the `holy face' of Edessa [see Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin], for the exposed facial area of this latter would have been an exact 1 by 2 Jewish cubits"[5].
The Standard Assyrian cubit was 21.6 inches. During the 19th century the archaeological pioneer, Sir Flinders Petrie (1853–1942) and Assyriologist Julius Oppert (1825–1905), from many measurements of ancient buildings in Babylon, found the length of the Assyrian cubit to
[Above: Page 67 of "Inductive Metrology: Or, The Recovery of Ancient Measures from the Monuments," by William Matthew Flinders Petrie (1877)[6].]
be almost 21.5 inches, since refined by other archaeologists to be 21.6 ±0.2 inches[7]. According to page 67 of Petrie's book above, he himself accepted 21.60 inches as the mean length of the Assyrian cubit.
Mechthild Flury-Lemberg: 437 x 111 cms. In 1998, ancient textiles conservator, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, determined the true
[Right: From left to right: Swiss textiles expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, Sister Maria Clara Antonini of the Poor Clare nuns and Don Giuseppe Ghiberti, Turin diocesan official in charge of the 1998 Shroud exposition, finish preparing the Turin Shroud on April 16 for display to the public on Sunday April 19, 1998[8].]
dimensions of the Shroud to be 437 x 111 cms, i.e. 172 x 44 in. or 14 ft 4 in. x 3 ft 8 in.[3]:"The first speaker was Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, a former curator of the Abegg Foundation textile museum, Switzerland, whose theme was 'The Shroud fabric, its technical and archaeological characteristics'. It was Dr. Flury-Lemberg who, immediately prior to the 1998 exposition, had the task of preparing the Shroud for its display and housing in the new three ton Italgas container constructed for it, working side by side with Sister Maria Clara Antonini of the Poor Clares. Because the plate for the new container had been made slightly too small, Dr. Flury-Lemberg gained permission to remove the blue surround that had been sewed on in the 19th century. The intention behind this surround had been to save the Shroud from the repeated handling at the edges to which they had been subjected throughout the long centuries when it was the custom to hold it up before the populace. However, the surround had ever since prevented examination of the same edges, thereby hindering totally accurate calculation of its dimensions. Now the dimensions have been authoritatively determined by Dr. Flury-Lemberg as 437 cm long by 111 cm wide."[9]
The Shroud's 437 x 111 cms dimensions are exactly 8 x 2 cubits! The Shroud's 437 x 111 cms dimensions are, to the nearest centimetre, exactly 8 x 2 Assyrian standard cubits of 21.6 inches!
[Above: Table showing that the 1998 437 x 111 cms true dimensions of the Shroud are even more exactly 8 x 2 Assyrian standard cubits of 21.6 inches than the 14 ft 3 in. x 3 ft 7 in. pre-1998 measurements were.]
And again, the Assyrian standard cubit was the international measure of commerce prevailing in Jesus's time, including among the Jews:
"So there were cubits for Temple use, and various other applications, but it is a particular cubit of the market place that is connected with the Shroud, the cubit that is known as the Assyrian cubit: the widely used, indeed, international standard of that time for merchants of the Near East, and had been so for centuries. This cubit of commerce was carried with the lingua communis, the language of trade and diplomacy that stretched from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, the tongue that had become the common language of the Jew. Aramaic: the same language which Jesus spoke. Aramaic had been the communication medium of the Assyrian Empire and Israel had been a subject of Assyria."[10]
Dietz & Zaccone, 2002: 442 x 113 cms (average). During the Shroud's 2002 restoration, the Shroud was measured again by historians Karlheinz Dietz and Gian Maria Zaccone:
"During the 2002 restoration, various length measurements of the Shroud were taken by Karlheinz Dietz and Gian Maria Zaccone: 441.5 cm for the right length, and 442.5 cm for the left length. The bottom width is 113.0 cm and the top width is 113.7 cm. These values were reported in Sindone 2002, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, 2003, editor ODPF [Opera Diocesana Preservazione Della Fede] ... "[11]But despite this being claimed by non-/anti-authenticists as evidence against my statement in my post, "Dimensions of the Shroud: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia," that, "The Shroud measures 8 by 2 Assyrian cubits," Dietz & Zaccone's 2002 measurement does not materially (pun unintended) change the fact that, when right and left, top and bottom, sides of the Shroud are averaged, which is presumably what Flury-
[Above: As can be seen in the table above, when Dietz and Zaccone's separate right and left, top and bottom, dimensions of the Shroud are averaged, to the nearest centimetre, the Shroud's dimensions are still the equivalent of 8 x 2 (8.06 x 2.07) Assyrian cubits!]
Lemberg did, its average length is approximately (441.5 + 442.5) = 884 / 2 = 442 cm, and its average width is approximately (113.0 + 113.7) = 226.7 / 2 = 113.35 cm. That is 442 / 2.54 = 174.02 inches long by 113.35 / 2.54 = 44.6 inches wide. Dividing each by 21.6 inches, the length of the Assyrian standard cubit, results in length 174.02 / 21.6 = 8.05 cubits and width 44.6 / 21.6 = 2.07 cubits. So to the nearest centimetre, the Shroud still measures the equivalent of 8 x 2 Assyrian cubits!
Problem for the forgery theory. This is another (see #1) major problem for the medieval (or earlier) forgery theory since a medieval artist/forger would be most unlikely to know the length of the standard cubit of Jesus' day, as this was only discovered by archaeologists in the 19th century (see above). Although the Bible mentions cubits (e.g. Gn 6:15; Ex 25:10; Mt 6:27, etc) it does not say how long they were. For example, three of my pre-19th century Bible commentaries, written by very learned scholars, commenting on Genesis 6:15, the first mention of "cubit" in the Bible:
"And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits."evidently didn't know that a standard cubit was 21.6 inches. Adam Clarke (c.1760-1832) thought that "the cubit [was] ... 18 inches ..."[12]. Matthew Poole (1624–1679) also thought a cubit was a "foot and a half"[13]. And [John Calvin (1509–64) admitted, "But what was then the measure of the cubit I know not ..."[14].
And it is also unlikely that such a forger would bother trying to obtain a first century Syrian or Palestinian fine linen sheet of those dimensions, when his contemporaries would not appreciate his diligence and would be satisfied with far less:
"Also is it not rather incredible that this unknown individual [the medieval forger] should have gone to so much trouble and effort to deceive in an age in which, as twentieth-century journalists have reminded us, a large proportion of the populace would have been very easily duped by a feather of the Archangel Gabriel or a phial of the last breath of St Joseph?"[15]And that is assuming that a medieval forger could obtain an 8 by 2 cubit first-century Syrian-Palestinian fine linen sheet, with a rare and expensive three-to-one herringbone twill weave which the Shroud is (see future "Weave"). As Ian Wilson, with typical English understatement, noted above:
"Such conformity to an exact 8 by 2 Jewish cubits is yet another piece of knowledge difficult to imagine of any medieval forger."[16]And as Dr. Michael Clift, Acting Editor of the BSTS Newsletter also pointed out, the Palestinian (i.e. Assyrian) cubit "was not in general use in the fourteenth century" and while a side in one direction having an exact whole cubit measurement might be a coincidence, a side in the other direction also having an exact whole cubit measurement could not plausibly be:
"But let them not forget the cubit. As Ian Dickinson has shown us the Shroud measures exactly two by eight of the Palestinian cubit, which was not in general use in the fourteenth century. One might accept a coincidence if the whole number of cubits was in one direction, but surely not in both?"[17]
Moreover, to claim that a medieval forger forged the Shroud's image on a 1st century cloth would mean admitting that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was wrong in its claim that:
"... the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390 ..."[18].
So even the dimensions of the Shroud are evidence beyond reasonable doubt of its authenticity!
Continued in Weave part #4 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 link back to this post (if posted on the Internet). [return]
2. E.g. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, pp.22-23; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.21; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.11. [return]
3. "convert foot, inch to centimeters; centimeters to foot, inch," ManuelsWeb.com, 2009. [return]
4. Dickinson, I., 1990, "The Shroud and the Cubit Measure," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 24, January, pp.8-11. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.181. [return]
6. Petrie, W.M.F., 1877, "Inductive Metrology: Or, The Recovery of Ancient Measures from the Monuments," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Reprinted, 2013. Google books. [return]
7. Dickinson, 1990, p.10. [return]
8. Brkic, B., 2010, "Hitler had designs on the Shroud of Turin; Indiana Jones fans are not surprised," Daily Maverick, 8 April. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June. [return]
10. Dickinson, 1990, pp.10-11. [return]
11. Latendresse, M., 2005, "Length Measurements on the Shroud of Turin," 16 August. [return]
12. Clarke A. & Earle R., ed., "Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Entire Bible," [1826], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Single volume edition, 1967, p.28. [return]
13. Poole, M., "Commentary on the Holy Bible: Volume I: Genesis-Job," [1683], Banner of Truth: London, 1968, reprinted, p.18. [return]
14. Calvin, J., "A Commentary on Genesis," [1554], Banner of Truth: London, 1965, reprint, p.257. [return]
15. 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.59-60. [return]
16. Wilson, 1991, p.181. [return]
17. Clift, M., 1993, "Carbon dating - what some of us think now," BSTS Newsletter, No. 33, February, pp.5-6, p.6. [return]
18. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
Posted 10 July 2015. Updated 23 March 2025.
Weave #4: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]
This is "Weave," part #4 of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!"
[Main index] [Previous: Dimensions #3] [Next: Sidestrip #5]
- A linen cloth
- Weave
[Above (original): The Shroud's weave, showing the twill (diagonal parallel ribs) combined with regular offset reversals, creating a herringbone (zigzag) effect: [2].]
twill[3].
Herringbone. A herringbone weave has a v-shaped or chevron pattern formed by regularly reversing with offset the width-wise woof (or weft) thread as it is drawn through the lengthwise warp[4]. The result is a broken zigzag pattern which resembles the skeleton of a herring fish[5].
Twill. A twill weave has a pattern of diagonal parallel ribs (in contrast to a satin or plain weave)[6]. This is done by passing the weft thread over one or more warp threads and then under two or more warp threads and so on, with a step or offset between rows to create a diagonal pattern[7]
[Above[8]: Image side[9] of the undated and presumably not pre-treated Shroud sample, "split from one used in the radiocarbon dating study of 1988 at Arizona"[10] retained by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory.]
[Above: Non-image side of the above Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory piece of its Shroud sample.]
Both show the Shroud's combined herringbone and twill weave (see next). Note that this sub-sample, which presumably is as it was cut from the Shroud in 1988, is obviously not 60% or more contaminated with non-original carbon, as required by all contamination with younger carbon theories, including a bioplastic coating and cotton from an invisible repair, thus refuting them. Except for sample-switching fraud (which is highly implausible) and the neutron flux theory which entails a deceptive miracle by God, this leaves my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker [#10(1) & #1] as the only remaining viable explanation of how the 1st century Shroud had a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date. See "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail."]
The Shroud's herringbone 3:1 twill weave was formed by passing each weft thread alternately under three warp threads and over one[11].[Above: The Shroud's complex herringbone three-to-one twill weave (a) compared to a plain weave (b)[12].]
Each successive weft thread begins at an ascending point in the warp one thread earlier[13], the direction being reversed at regular intervals by repeating the process at a descending point, thus producing the diagonal "herringbone" pattern[14].
The Shroud's weave was expensive and rare. Because of its complexity, the Shroud would have been an expensive[15], and therefore rare[16], fabric. Especially so in the first century when fine linen ranked in value with gold and silver[17]. No example of herringbone twill weave in linen from first or early centuries has been found, although examples of that weave have been found in silk[18] and wool[19]. There are no examples of herringbone twill weave from France up to and including fourteenth century[20]. There is in fact only one known example of a medieval herringbone twill linen weave fabric, a fourteenth century, a block-painted linen fragment with a 3:1 chevron twill weave, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London[21].
[Above (enlarge): The only known example of a herringbone twill weave in linen from the mediaeval period. The grey part is a reconstruction. Victoria and Albert Museum ref. no. 8615-1863[22].]
Further evidence of the extreme rarity of medieval linen cloths with a Shroud-like herringbone twill weave, was the fact that the then British Museum's Dr. Michael Tite was unable to find any medieval linen with a weave that resembled the Shroud's, to use as a blind control sample for the 1988 radiocarbon dating[23].
The Shroud's expensive weave is consistent with it being the linen shroud bought by the "rich man" Joseph of Arimathea in which to bury Jesus' body. The Gospels record that Joseph of Arimathea, a "rich man," bought a linen shroud and wrapped Jesus' body in it (Mt 27:57-60; Mk 15:43-46; Lk 23:50-53; Jn 19:38-42). The Shroud's expensive herringbone three-to-one twill weave is consistent with it having been that linen shroud bought by the rich man Joseph of Arimathea in which to wrap and bury Jesus' body[24].
Problem for the forgery theory. That the Shroud's weave is expensive and rare is another (see previous #3) problem for the forgery theory. The primary motive of art and archaeological (including relic) forgery is financial gain[25]. According to Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Professor Edward Hall (1924-2001), that was the motive of the claimed forger of the Shroud, "There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century' so `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged [sold] it":
"Such total involvement got its reward especially in his [Hall's] participation in the dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 ... `There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century,' he bluntly told a British Museum press conference. `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it.'"[26].That the secular press shares Hall's view that the unknown, hypothetical, forger of the Shroud was motivated by money is evident in that it uncritically repeats Hall's uncritical assumption. And in a sense Hall was right! If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, then the forger, to maximise his profit, would have "just got a bit of linen." That is, he would have used the least expensive "bit of linen" he could find that would still deceive his prospective buyers (and that wouldn't require much-see #3). But the Shroud is not just any "bit of linen." As we have seen above the Shroud would have been expensive and rare in the first century. And it would have been even more expensive and rare in the 14th century, of which there is only one known other example, but in fragments as opposed to the ~4.4 x 1.1 metre Shroud. So the medieval forger would have been most unlikely to have obtained a fine linen herringbone twill sheet the size of the Shroud in the first place.
And if the forger did have the opportunity to obtain the 8 x 2 cubit (see "Dimensions #3") ancient Syrian or Palestinian fine linen sheet that the Shroud is (apart from that would mean the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud's linen was wrong - see part #3), he would not have bought it for the very high price it would have been, as that would have severely reduced the profit margin on his planned forgery of the Shroud image upon it. This is yet another of the many problems of the forgery theory which I will collect through this series and present them all together under the topic, "Problems of the forgery theory."
Continued with part #5, "Sidestrip".
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. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.69; 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.68; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.74-75. [return]
4. "Herringbone (cloth)," Wikipedia, 3 June 2015. [return]
5. Ibid. [return]
6. "Twill," Wikipedia, 7 July 2015. [return]
7. Ibid. [return]
8. Copied and cropped from Figure 1 in Schwortz, B.M., 2012, "Report on the STERA, Inc. - University of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Macro Photography - 30 August 2012," Shroud.com. [return]
9. Schwortz, B.M., 2015, "RE: Arizona Shroud sample: which is the image side?," email reply, 20 July 2015. [return]
10. Freer-Waters, R.A. & Jull, A.J.T., 2010, "Investigating a Dated [sic] Piece of the Shroud of Turin," Radiocarbon, Vol. 52, No. 4. [return]
11. Wilson, 1979, p.68; Wilson, 1998, p.68; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.108. [return]
12. Wilson, 2010, p.75. [return]
13. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.12. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, p.69; Wilson, 1998, p.68. [return]
15. Drews, 1984, p.12; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.98. [return]
16. Wilson, 2010, p.75; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.108-109. [return]
17. Dickinson, I., 1990, "The Shroud and the Cubit Measure," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 24, January, pp.8-11, p.11. [return]
18. Wilson, 1979, p.69; Drews, 1984, p.12; Antonacci, 2000, pp.98-99. [return]
19. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.108-109; Wilson, 1998, p.69; Wilson, 2010, p.76. [return]
20. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.110. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, pp.69-70. [return]
22. Extract from, "Printed Linen. ca. 1350-1400 (made), January 1895 (painted)," Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 7 February 2008 [return]
23. Wilson, 1998, p.68; Wilson, 2010, p.75. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, p.68; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.52; Iannone, J.C., 1998,"The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.12; Wilson, 2010, p.296. [return]
25. "Archaeological forgery," Wikipedia, 1 July 2015; "Art forgery," Wikipedia, 6 July 2015. [return]
26. "Obituaries: Professor Edward Hall," 16 August 2001; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.12; Wilson, 1998, p.7; Wilson, 2010, p.2. [return]
Posted 16 July 2015. Updated 23 March 2025.
Topic index: The Shroud of Turin blog: "A-G"
I have abandoned this Topic Index because it was too time-consuming.
This is page ("A-G") of a topic index in alphabetic order of my posts to 
[Right: Xrays of Dr. August Accetta after injecting himself with a radioactive isotope to show its similarities to the Shroud's image.]
this my The Shroud of Turin blog. It was formerly page "A-Z" and then "A-M" but it grew too large and so I split page "N-Z" and then page "H-M", etc, off from it. This topic index complements the date order "Index to this blog's posts." I will continue adding to these topic index pages in the background, working forwards from my first 30 June 2007 post, identifying topics and linking back to index posts where those topics occur. This index is complete up to and including 28 Mar 12 (partly). When this page becomes too long, I will split it, and subsequent topic index posts, into "A-D," "E-H," etc.
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H-M] [N-R] [S-Z]
A [top]
Abgar V: 08Dec09
Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS)-see "radiocarbon dating"
Accetta, August: 29Oct07, 10Oct08
Acts of Nicodemus: 11Jan11
Acts of Pilate: 11Jan11
ad hominem: 17Apr10
Adler, Alan: 15Feb08, 18Mar11
Akhenaton, pharaoh: toe: 07Feb12
Allen, Nicholas: 13Jul07, 14Jul09
anti-authenticists: self-deceived: 06Jan12
Antonacci, Mark: 13Jul07
Archbishops: of Turin: Ballestrero, Anastasio: 28Feb08; Poletto, Severino: 01Dec07, 02Jan08, 04Jun10
argument from silence: 11Jan11
Arizona C14 laboratory: 12Feb08, 28Feb08; sample (undated): 13Dec08
art: work of: 26Jun08
atheists' fallacy: 05Jan11, 11Jan11
authentic: Christianity: 06Jan12; could be: 22Dec11; evidence: enough: 16Nov10; overwhelming: 10Oct08, 13Dec08, 04Jun10, 04Oct10, 22Dec11, 06Jan12; is Jesus': 08Dec09; millions of visitors: 04Jun10; proof beyond reasonable doubt: 04Jun10
B [top]
Babinski, Ed: 05Jan11, 11Jan11
Baima-Bollone, Pierluigi: 18Mar11
Ball, Philip: 01Dec07
Ballabio, Gerardo: 03Apr08
Balossino, Nello: 03Apr08
Barberis, Bruno: 04Jun10
Barbet, Pierre: 02Jan08
Barclay, Jacob: 07Nov08
Baruch, Uri: 26Nov08
bas relief: 21Jul07, 01Nov08, 03Mar12; no powder: 01Nov08
Benford, Sue: 10Oct08
Benford & Marino: 13Dec08, 06Jan12, 15Jan12
Bernstein, Joel: lecture: 07Aug11
Besançon: Shroud of: 11Jan11
Bible: Shroud: 25Jun08, 08Dec09
Blanrue, Paul-Eric: 03Mar12
blood: 21Jul07, 16Nov10
- before image: 08Oct09, 18Mar11, 03Mar12
- clots: intact (see resurrection): 03Mar12
- real: 01Nov08, 08Oct09, 18Mar11
- type AB: 16Nov10, 18Mar11*; consistent with Jewish: 16Nov10, 18Mar11; Sudarium of Oviedo AB: 18Mar11; old blood AB?: 16Nov10, 18Mar11; old blood not AB: 07Feb12
bloodflows: arms: 25Apr09
bloodstains: arms: 22Nov11; back: 22Nov11, 14Dec11; chest: 14Dec11; feet: 22Nov11, 14Dec11; hands: 14Dec11; head: 22Nov11, 14Dec11; legs: 22Nov11, 14Dec11; side: 22Nov11, 14Dec11
bogus?: "Bogus: Shroud of Turin?": 08Aug07, 13Nov08, 19Nov08, 22Nov08, 21Jul09
book (my online): "The Shroud of Turin": 06Aug07, 09Aug07, 11Aug07, 30Oct07, 02Nov07, 06Nov07, 09Nov07, 14Nov07, 18Nov07, 24Nov07, 26Nov07, 04Dec07, 10Dec07, 19Dec07, 10Jan08
British Society for the Turin Shroud: Newsletter: 02Nov11
Bucklin, Robert: 21Jul09
burial: secondary: 17Dec09
burns: 22Nov11
Buso, Luciano: 04Feb12, 27Feb12
C [top]
Calvin, John: 05Jan11, 11Jan11, 06Jan12
camera obscura: 13Jul07, 14Jul09
carbon 14: 28Feb08
Carduus argentatus: 26Nov08
cathedrals: St John the Baptist: 04Oct10, 28Oct11, 14Nov11; Turin: 08Dec09
CED blog: 30Jun07, 18Mar11
cellulose: 06Jan12
Chevalier, Ulysse: 11Feb12
https://www.google.com/search?-b-d&q=Chinon+Parchment: 14Apr09
Chivers, Tom: 06Jan12
Christ: See "Jesus"
Christ Pantocrator: See "Pantocrator"
Christianity: 30Jun07; authenticity of Shroud: 06Jan12; extrabiblical evidence: 06Jan12; important first 1500 years: 07Oct11; not article of faith: 04Jun10
Christians: indifferent: 09Oct07, 07Oct11; oppose are "fighting against God": 07Oct11
Cistus creticus: 01Nov08, 22Nov08
cloth collapse theory: See "Jackson, John": 18Jan12
cloth: hand spun: 01Nov11; hand woven: 01Nov11
coins: Justinian II solidus: 23Feb12
coins over eyes: 01Dec07, 21Jul09
colour or color: image: : accelerated aging; laser: 22Dec11; yellow: 01Nov11
computer enhancement: 03Apr08
conferences: 2008 Ohio: 10Oct08, 01Nov08
Constantinople: 28Feb08, 10Oct08, 22Nov08, 11Jan10
copyright law: plagiarism: 11Feb12, first 30 June 2007 post, identifying topics and linking back to index posts where those topics occur. This index is complete up to and including 18Mar12
creases: 22Nov11
crucifixion: 06Nov07; cross: not stake: 25Apr09; wounds: 04Jun10
crown of thorns: 04Jun10
cubits (see "dimensions")
D [top]
d'Arcis, Pierre: 14Apr09, 04Jun1011Feb12
Danin, Avinoam: 08Aug07, 01Nov08, 22Nov08, 26Nov08
Dawkins, Richard: 06Jan12, 04Feb12
Dayvault, Philip: 09Oct07
Delage, Yves: 25Jul07, 25Jun08
de Charny, Geoffroy (Templar): 29Oct07, 14Apr09
de Charny, Marguerite: Shroud to Savoys 1453: 11Jan11, 07Oct11
de Molay, Jacques: 29Oct07, 14Apr09
de Poitiers, Henri: 14Apr09, 04Jun10
de Wesselow, Thomas: was Jesus' resurrection 28Mar12!
deposition: 06Aug07, 02Nov07, 11Jan10
della Rovere, Giovanni: 06Aug07, 11Jan11, 11Jan11
di Costanzo, Jacques: 01Nov08
di Lazzaro, Paolo: 22Dec11, 06Jan12, 07Feb12
Dickinson, Ian: 01Nov11
dilemma: authentic or artifice: 10Oct08, 08Dec09, 18Mar11, 06Jan12
dimensions: ~14ft 3in by 3ft 7in: 28Oct11; 8 x 2 cubits: 04Jun10, 01Nov11; ~4.4 x 1.1 m: 28Oct11, 01Nov11; 437 x 111 cms: 04Jun10, 04Oct10
DNA: 29Jul08, 16Nov10
documentaries: 29Jul07, 28Feb08, 13Dec08, 14Jul09
duplication: 01Nov08
E [top]
Edessa image: 08Dec09
ENEA: 22Dec11, 06Jan12, 15Jan12, 07Feb12
Enrie, Giuseppe: photos: 13Nov08
excimer laser: 22Dec11, 06Jan12; ten thousand: 06Jan12; 34 thousand billion watts: 22Dec11, 06Jan12
exhibitions: 29Jul07, 29Oct07, 01Dec07, 13Dec08, 07Feb12
expositions: 1998: 12Apr08: 2010: 01Dec07, 02Jan08, 07Jun08, 04Jun10
F [top]
fake?: 01Nov08, 06Jan12; not: 28Feb08, 03Apr08, 04Oct10
Filas, Francis: 21Jul09
fifth gospel: 04Feb12
fires: 1997: 08Oct09
flax: 13Dec08
flower images: 01Dec07, 01Nov08
fluorescence: 21Jul07
Flury-Lemberg, Mechthild: 29Sep07
Fontanille, Jean-P : 21Jul09
forensic science: 22Dec11; forensic evidence: 06Jan12
forger: 25Jul07
forgery: how? who? when? why?: 04Jun10; medieval: 26Jun08, 04Jun10; not: 28Feb08, 06Jan12; not possible with medieval technology: 06Jan12
forgery theory, problems: 08Jul15, 17Apr10; nails in coffin: 22Dec11
Frale, Barbara: 14Apr09
Frei-Sulzer, Max: 02Aug08, 26Nov08
FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy): 15Jan12
G [top]
Garlaschelli, Luigi: 08Oct09
Garza-Valdès, Leoncio: 18Mar11
Ghiberti, Giuseppe: 12Feb08, 10Oct08, 19Nov08, 04Jun10
Gibson, Shimon: 17Dec09
Giotto, di Bondone: 04Feb12, 27Feb12
Google: Translate: 22Dec11
Goska, Danusha: 09Oct07
Gospel of Gamaliel: 11Jan11
Gospel of Peter: 11Jan11
Gospel of the Hebrews: 11Jan11
Gospels: 03Apr08, 04Oct10
- matches Jesus': beatings: 14Dec11; 28Oct11: burial: 04Oct10, 10Jan12; crown of thorns: 14Dec11; crucifixion: 14Dec11; death: 04Oct10, 10Jan12; nailed: feet: 14Dec11; hands: 14Dec11; resurrection: 04Oct10; scourging: 14Dec11; speared in side: 14Dec11; suffering: 04Oct10; 14Dec11
- silence on image: not visible in NT era?: 06Jan12
- silence on Shroud saved: 05Jan11, 11Jan11
Gould, Stephen Jay: 06Jan12
Gove, Harry: 12Feb08, 25Aug11
Grail, Holy: 30Jan11
graveclothes: 11Jan11
Green, Maurus: 25Jul07
Guarini Chapel: 08Oct09
Gundelia tournefortii: 08Aug07, 01Nov08, 22Nov08, 26Nov08
Guscin, Mark: 08Aug07, 17Apr10
Posted 29 June 2015. Updated 6 August 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment