© Stephen E. Jones[1]
This is part #3 of the January 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. See part #1, Editorial and Contents, for other items as they are posted in this issue. I had decided to add fully referenced footnotes to my statements in this and other posts, in place of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia and Turin Shroud Dictionary, which are `on the backburner,' because I found them to be time-consuming duplications. I had a self-imposed deadline of midnight 20 February to complete this post and series, which I didn't meet(!), so I will complete it in the background [since updated to footnote 42].
[Previous: January 2016, part #2] [Next: February 2016, part #1]
"Is The Shroud Of Turin Genuine?" Hiding the Truth, January 21, 2016, WhoReallyKnows. This organisation which calls itself "Hiding the Truth" and claims to be against those "who don't want us to know something":
"How many times have your wondered what truths are being hidden from you? How many times have you felt that punctuated feeling of doubt or emptiness because you know something just doesn't feel or seem right? The truth may lie within all of us; however there are many people, agencies and organizations that make it their job to deny us of just that! Hiding the truth liberally unveils the lies, deceptions, schemes and plots that are put into motion by people who don't want us to know something."[2]is hiding the truth about the
Shroud, because it doesn't even have a photograph of it in this article. Instead it has an off-topic photograph of a statue of Jesus carrying His cross, when they could at least have provided this public domain Wikipedia photograph of the Shroud:[Right (enlarge): "Full-length image of the Turin Shroud before the 2002 restoration"[3].]
Few relics provoke more passion than the Shroud Of Turin. None do! At the last 2015 exposition of the Shroud in Turin, "more than two million visitors came to Turin from around the world to view the Shroud" (my emphasis). No other Christian relic comes anywhere near that.
Lovingly cared for and stored by the Roman Catholic church in the Cathedral of St. John at Turin, the 14-1/2 x 3-1/2 foot The Shroud's dimensions are 437 x 111 cms[4] which equates to 14ft 4in. x 3ft 8in. linen cloth is claimed to be the actual burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, also called the Christ. It is not just "claimed to be the actual burial shroud of Jesus" - it is "the actual burial shroud of Jesus"! See my ongoing series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!"
A blood-colored image on its surface is purported to be the image of Christ, This journalist (if even that because he/she hides the truth of his/her identity behind a pseudonym) evidently knows little about the topic he/she is writing about. The Shroud's image is not "blood-colored." The most common descriptor of the colour of the image is "straw-yellow":
"Yet another of the surprises arising from viewing the Shroud directly rather than via a photograph is discovering just how pale and subtle the two body imprints appear. First-hand assessments of their colouring range from straw-yellow to sepia, much depending on the prevailing light conditions."[5]burned into the cloth at the moment of the Resurrection. Although "burned" is an understandable term to describe how Jesus' image was imprinted on the Shroud "at the moment of the Resurrection," the Shroud image does not fluoresce under ultraviolet
light (left), unlike heat scorches[6],[Left (enlarge): "The Shroud face, as seen in fluorescent light."[7]. This STURP ultraviolet photograph shows shows that while the Shroud's bloodstains fluoresce, as blood does, the image does not fluoresce, as all heat scorches do [8].]
so it cannot have been literally "burned" onto the cloth.
There are those who revere the cloth as a Sacred Object, and an equal number of skeptics who insist that it is a fake. It is not true that there are "an equal number of [Shroud] skeptics." There are only a comparative handful of published Shroud anti-authenticists, compared to many hundreds (if not thousands) of their pro-authenticist counterparts. What the pro-authenticist archaeologist William Meacham wrote in 1983 is even more true today:
"The skeptics are certainly out in full array among the commentators - out of all proportion, I might add, to either their real numbers or the force of their case." (my emphasis)[9]The controversy has been raging for over 700 years, despite any and all evidence either way. Presumably he/she means the ~627 years since Bishop d'Arcis' 1389 memorandum (see part #2)? Because there was no known controversy about the Shroud before then. And the writer gives the erroneous impression, that there is an equal amount of "evidence either way," when again the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic, whereas what evidence there was on the anti-authenticist side either has been discredited (the d'Arcis memorandum - again see part #2) or is in the process of being discredited (the "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" radiocarbon date of the Shroud (see part #2 again).
You would think that in this day of high technology and very sophisticated forensic investigative methods that this would be an easy job, proving its pedigree one way or another. Yes and no. It "would be an easy job" to disprove the Shroud's "pedigree" (e.g. show that the Shroud is a medieval work of art and how it was done), and it is itself evidence for the Shroud's authenticity that that hasn't been done (see the Copi quote in part #2). It was by contrast not "an easy job" to prove the Shroud's "pedigree", that it really is Jesus' burial Shroud. However, that has now been done, beyond reasonable doubt.
In 1349, the Hundred Years War was raging between France and England, and the Black Death had finished ravaging Europe. A returning French knight, Geoffery de Charny, His name was Geoffroy I de Charny (see this copy of the brass effigy over the tomb of his son, Geoffroy II de Charny on which he spelled his name "Geoffroy" - see below). who had been an English Prisoner Of War, was in possession of the Shroud, which he acquired in Constantinople by unknown means. Ludicrous! The Shroud disappeared in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, i.e. 145 years before. The Shroud was probably taken from Constantinople to Athens by a Fourth Crusade Burgundian leader Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234). The Shroud was probably given to Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300-56) in 1341-43 by the French King Philip VI (1293–1350), who in turn was given it by the Besançon descendants of Othon de la Roche. See my "Lirey (1): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia."
He built a church at Lirey, France, and the Shroud was exhibited there as Christ's Burial Linen. It draws the faithful from all over Europe to view it. That was in c.1355. Ironically, until the mid-19th century the only historical reference to that first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France in c.1355 was Bishop d'Arcis' memorandum of 1389, in which he wrote that the Shroud had been first exhibited at Lirey "thirty-four years or thereabouts" before "the 
present year"[10], i.e. c. 1355. In 1855 a pilgrim's badge [Right (enlarge)[11].] was recovered from the mud under a bridge of the Seine river in Paris[12]. It clearly depicts the Shroud's front and back, head to head, double body image[13], and bore the coats of arms of Geoffroy I de Charny and his wife, Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332-1428)[14].
In 1355, Geoffery de Charny was once again sent into battle, and was killed in action at the Battle of Poitiers. It was in 1356. It seems that `near enough is good enough' for this pseudonymous writer. His estate, including the church, and Shroud was passed down to his son, Geoffery II. Again, it was Geoffroy II de 
Charny (c.1352-98), as can be seen on the drawn copy [Left[15] (enlarge)] of the brass effigy over his tomb at Froidmont, Belgium, which was destroyed in WWI[16].
In 1389, the Shroud was seized by the Bailiff of Troye, pursuant to a direct order from King Charles VI. It is Troyes. And the Shroud was not "seized." The Dean and canons of Lirey church refused to hand the Shroud over to King Charles VI's Bailiff:
"The bishop [d'Arcis] ... complained to Charles VI, and on August 4, 1389, the king withdrew the permission to expose the Shroud that he had previously granted. Furthermore, Charles wrote to the bailiff of Troyes, Jean de Venderesse, instructing him to confiscate the Shroud in the name of the crown. The bailiff's visit to Lirey is commemorated in a memorandum drawn up and signed by him on August 15 ... At Lirey, the good bailiff was met with a bewildering mass of sophisms, with appeals to the authority of Geoffroy [II] de Charny and of Clement VII, and finally with a flat refusal to surrender the Shroud"[17]It was allowed to be kept in the church at Lirey, but no further exhibitions were allowed. No. This is doubly contradictory. First, if the Shroud had been "seized" by the King's bailiff, it would not have remained "in the church at Lirey" but would have been taken by the bailiff to the King in Paris. Second, if "no further exhibitions were allowed" then why would Bishop d'Arcis have "appealed to Pope Clement VII" about the Shroud being exhibited (see next)?
Bishop Pierre d' Arcis of Tryes appealed to Pope Clement VII at Avignon, describing the shroud as having the very image of Christ on it. The Pope ordered to Bishop to keep silent on the Shroud, under the threat of ex-communication. After a series of letter to Geoffery de Charny II, the Pope allows the exhibitions to resume under agreed upon conditions. This was in January 1390:
"Next, sent from Avignon on 5 January 1390, arrived a stern letter from Pope Clement VII, ordering d'Arcis to keep silent about the Shroud, under threat of excommunication. On the same date Clement sent a letter to Geoffrey [II de Charny] stating that he could continue to hold the Shroud expositions, though he should limit the lavishness of the accompanying ceremonial. There was not even any mention that Geoffrey was required to describe the Shroud as a 'figure or representation' of Jesus's shroud."[18]This attracted many pilgrims to view the Shroud. In 1390, a Papal Bull was issued granting Indulgences for anyone visiting the church at Lirey, and viewing its artifacts. That was in June 1390[19]. Geoffery II died in 1398, and his daughter Margaret took the Shroud on a tour of Europe until her death in 1460. No. Marguerite de Charny (c.1392-1460) transferred the Shroud to the House of Savoy in 1453[20]. The Shroud wound up in the custody of Duke Louis I of Savoy, and was transferred to storage in the Sainte Chapelle at Chambréy. It was and is Chambéry. In 1473, the Shroud was transferred to Turin. No. This is more than a century too early! It was in 1578 that the Shroud was transferred to Turin, Italy from Chambéry, France. Over the ensuing years, the shroud was carried around Europe and displayed. No. After the Shroud was taken to Turin in 1578, it has never left Italy.
[Right (enlarge): Extract from Ian Wilson's "Travels of the Shroud" map[21]. As can be seen, from 1578 the Shroud has never left Italy.]
The Shroud has survived two fires, and several wars. The first fire was in 1532, in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, when a drop of molten silver on the Shroud's casket burned through one corner of all 48 folds of the cloth[22]. The Shroud was rescued from the burning chapel by the the heroism of the village blacksmith, Guglielmo Pussod, and others[23]. Miraculously (literally!) the Man's image was only slightly affected[24]. In 1534 the burns were removed by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns[25] and the triangular patches they sewed over the burn holes into the Shroud's backing cloth[26] can be seen in the pre-2002 restoration photograph of the Shroud (above). The second fire was in 1997, when the Turin Royal Chapel which had housed the Shroud since 1694 was extensively damaged[27]. In a repeat of history, the Shroud was rescued from the burning chapel through the heroism of a layman: fireman Mario Trematore[28]. But this
[Left (enlarge): Fireman Mario Trematore on the night of 11 April 1997, breaking through the Shroud reliquary's `unbreakable' glass (watch video)[29]]
time the Shroud was not affected at all[30].
Wars the Shroud has survived include the French invasion of Savoy in 1535[31]. As the map above partly shows, the Shroud was taken from Chambéry to Savoy properties in Italy, including Turin, Milan, Vercelli, Aosta and Nice and didn't return to Chambéry until 1561[32]. In World War II (as the map above shows) the Shroud was moved from Turin to the Abbey of Montevergine located near Avellino in southern Italy from 1939 to 1946[33].
In the late 1980s, ownership of the Shroud was transferred from the Dukes of Savoy to the Roman Catholic Church. It was in 1983 when ex-King Umberto II (1904–83) of Savoy died and in his will left the Shroud to "the Pope and his successors" as its Owner, but the Shroud was to remain in Turin with the Archbishop of Turin the Shroud's Custodian[34]
Many attempts to date the Shroud were attempted, using the best technology of the times, They were not "attempts." Before the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in 1988 as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390," the Shroud had already been reliably dated by various methods including:
1) The Iconographic Theory[35] was proposed by artist/biologist Paul Vignon (1865-1943)[36] in 1938[37]. From a study of hundreds of depictions of Christ's face in churches, libraries and museums[38], Vignon discovered a common core of 20 oddities, later refined down by Ian Wilson to 15[39] and called "Vignon markings"[40]). Most (but
[Right (enlarge): "The Vignon markings-how Byzantine artists created a living likeness from the Shroud image. (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"[41].]
not all[42]) of these 15-20 oddities were present in any of these depictions of Christ's face[43] but most were in all of then, and all are found on the Shroud face[44]. Since they served no artistic purpose[45] and some were flaws in the Shroud's weave[46] or wrinkles in its cloth[47], and others were evidently attempts to render a negative dead face into a positive[48] living one[49], Vignon proposed what was the simplest explanation[50] (as per Ockham's Razor), that they all were ultimately derived from the Shroud face original[51]. And since these 15-20 Vignon markings are found in Byzantine artworks dating from the fifth century[52], this is evidence (if not proof beyond reasonable doubt[53]) that the Shroud was in existence from at least the fifth century[54].
2) Pontius Pilate coins over the Man's eyes[55]. In 1977 STURP's Jackson, Jumper and Mottern[56], discovered that a VP-8 Image Analyser[57] uniquely displayed an Enrie 1931 photograph of the Shroud in three-dimensional relief[58]. They noticed that over each eye was an object resembling a small button[59]. They theorised that these might be coins to keep the eyelids closed[60] and they realised that this would be a way of determining the date of the Shroud[61]. Ian Wilson confirmed that the `buttons' were the same size as Jewish coins called leptons[62] which were struck only during the rule of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judaea from AD 26–36[63] who sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixions[64] in AD 30[65]. Wilson pointed out that the lepton, since it bore no image of the Emperor Tiberius (r. 42 BC–37 AD), was acceptable to the Jews for Temple offerings (Mk 12:42; Lk 21:2)[66]. Jackson, et al., while they could not determine any letters on the `buttons,' significantly (see below) they did observe what appeared to be a "backward question mark" on the object over the right eye[67]. In 1982 Fr Francis Filas (1915-85) discovered on a high-quality enlargement of an Enrie 1931 photograph of the Shroud face[68], over the right eye[69] the letters "U CAI" and a lituus (astrologer's staff)[70]. These were in the same relative location and angular rotation[71] as a variant of the Greek inscription "TIBERIOU KAISAROS" = "Of Tiberius Caesar"[72] on a Pontius Pilate lepton struck in AD 29-31[73]. Later it was found that the letters were actually "U KAI" and matched those on a Pontius Pilate
[Above (enlarge): Letters "KAI" and lituus on an enlargement by me of an Enrie 1931 sepia photograph of the Shroud face[74] (left) compared to a Pontius Pilate lepton coin (right) with its lituus cut, reversed and pasted to simulate the reversed question mark on a Pontius Pilate dilepton[75] (left) compared to a Pontius Pilate lepton coin with lituus cut, reversed and pasted to simulate the reversed question mark on a Pontius Pilate dilepton.]
dilepton struck in AD 29-31[76]. Filas was unable to determine any letters or design on the `button' over the left eye[77] but later computer enhancement revealed part of the inscription letters and a simpulum (ladle)[78] which were on a Pontius Pilate Julia lepton coin which was struck only in AD 29 to mark the death of Tiberius' mother in that year[79]. This is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Man on the Shroud was crucified under Pontius Pilate no earlier than AD 29[80] and adds to the already overwhelming evidence that He was Jesus[81]
but it wasn't until the advent of radiocarbon dating in the late 1960s that reliable dating was possible. Radiocarbon dating is not necessarily "reliable". Archaeologist William Meacham pointed out that "even in the best of circumstances rogue [radiocarbon] dates are common in archaeology[82] and of the 115 samples he had submitted for radiocarbon dating, 78 he considered credible, 26 he rejected as unreliable and a further 11 he regarded as problematic[83].In 1977, a committee of scientists was formed, called the Shroud Of Turin Research Project (STURP). So far so good ... ! Development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) technique in 1977 allowed more precise dating, No. In 1977, Richard A. Muller at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory wrote a paper in Science showing how particle accelerators "could be used for detection of ... radiocarbon"[84]and was selected as the best way to date the Shroud. That was ten years later in 1987[85]. After years of study and examination, the STURP released it's findings in 1988. Incredibly, this writer thinks that STURP did the 1988 radiocarbon dating! Nothing could be further from the truth. STURP scientists, who knew more about the Shroud than anyone, were deliberately excluded from the 1988 radiocarbon dating by the machinations of the arrogant, anti-Christian, Prof. Harry Gove[86].
[To be completed in the background]
The Shroud was created between 1260 AD, and 1390 AD. This coincides with the time of it's first appearance. Also, exhausting testing of the ‘blood-stains' proved them to be red ochre, a common reddish pigment used in the Middle Ages. As to be expected, the results of the tests were immediately attacked. Detractors came up with all sorts of reasons why the proven scientific tests were inaccurate, including a type of fungus present on the cloth (that no one had ever heard of before, and must only exist on the Shroud, and not the hundreds of other things the method was tested on first…) that made the shroud appear younger than it actually was. Others say that there is pollen on the Shroud that could only come from Jerusalem, and that the pollen dates from the Crucifixion (but no one ever states when the pollen was tested, and by whom, and what methods…). Other accusations are that the Shroud had been repaired after one of the fires, and that the samples had been taken from the repaired area (but this would still not account for the date, since the first fire was at a much later date…). The majority of the scientific community is satisfied that the dating of the Shroud is accurate, as are all the other tests preformed on it . No further tests have been proposed, and the Shroud is still put on display periodically. It remains to this day as one of the most persistent forgeries in history.
This concludes the January 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News.
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]
2. "Hiding the Truth: About us," n.d. [return]
3. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 6 February 2016. [return]
4. 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]
5. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.7. [return]
6. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.204; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, pp.14-15,22; Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.103-112, 104-105. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.14G. [return]
8. Wilson, 1986, pp.66, 126. [return]
9. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 305-306. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.267. [return]
11. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
12. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.20-21; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.126-127. [return]
13. Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.103; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, p.194; Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.13; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.42-43; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.49, 52-53; Wilson, 2010, pp.221-222. [return]
15. "Geoffroi de Charny: Brass effigy of his son Geoffroi II de Charny," Wikipedia, 30 December 2015. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 2007, "The Tombstone of Geoffrey II de Charny at Froidmont," BSTS Newsletter, No. 66, December. [return]
17. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.98. Also 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.102; Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.53-54; Crispino, D.C., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, #28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, 35-36; Wilson, 2010, pp.231-231. [return]
18. Wilson, 2010, pp.234-235. [return]
19. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.13; Wilson, 1998, p.280; Oxley, 2010, p.59. [return]
20. Wilson, 1979, pp.214-215; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, pp.44-45; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.130; Wilson, 1998, pp.117-118, 283; Guerrera, 2001, p.16; Scott, 2003, p.13; Wilson, 2010, pp.241,244. [return]
21. Wilson, I. 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Gollancz: London, inside cover. [return]
22. Humber, 1978, p.105; Wilson, 1979, p.24; Iannone, 1998, p.3; Wilson, 1998, pp.64-65; Oxley, 2010, p.4; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
23. Humber, 1978, p.105; Wilson, 1998, pp.65, 289; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, pp.67-68; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.16; Wilson, 2010, p.252. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Wilson, 1998, p.65; Oxley, 2010, p.4; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.162; Iannone, 1998, p.142; Wilson, 1998, pp.65, 289-290; Tribbe, 2006, p.49; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
26. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.22; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
27. Iannone, 1998, p.142; Wilson, 1998, pp.111-112. [return]
28. Iannone, 1998, p.142; Wilson, 1998, pp.2, 111-112; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, pp.175-176; Wilson, 2010, pp.14, 283. [return]
29. de la Piedra, R.G., 2006, "Shroud 1997," YouTube, November 26. [return]
30. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.3; Whiting, 2006, p.176; Wilson, 2010, pp.2, 283 [return]
31. Wilson, 1979, p.263; Iannone, 1998, p.143; Wilson, 1998, pp.116, 290; Scott, 2003, p.53). [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, pp.116, 290-291. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.265; Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.32; Guerrera, 2001, p.20; Wilson, 2010, p.307. [return]
34. Wilson, 1986, p.125; Wilson, 1998, p.112; Tribbe, 2006, p.5; Whiting, 2006, p.128; Wilson, 2010, p.308. [return]
35. Walsh, 1963, pp.154-155; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.15; Adams, 1982, p.85; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.124. [return]
36. Shepard, L., "New Foreword," in Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.vii; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.15, 57, 89. [return]
37. Walsh, 1963, p.155; Adams, 1982, p.84. In Vignon's 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," Wilson, 1991, pp.161-162. [return]
38. Walsh, 1963, p.157; Adams, 1982, p.20; Scavone, 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.23. [return]
39. Walsh, 1963, p.157-158; Wilson, 1979, pp.104-105; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.15-16; Tribbe, 2006, pp.249-250. [return]
40. Wilson, 1979, p.103-106, 116, 160H, 192A-C,E; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, pp.76-87; Wilson, 1986, pp.105-110; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.58; Scavone, 1989, pp.24-25; Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, 1991, pp.171-204, 185-189; Wilson, 1991, pp.46H, 159-169; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.110-111; Wilson, 2010, p.142-143. [return]
41. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82E. [return]
42. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.58; Maher, 1986, p.77; Scavone, in Berard, 1991, p.189. [return]
43. Reference to be provided. [return]
44. Reference to be provided. [return]
45. Reference to be provided. [return]
46. Reference to be provided. [return]
47. Reference to be provided. [return]
48. Reference to be provided. [return]
49. Reference to be provided. [return]
50. Reference to be provided. [return]
51. Reference to be provided. [return]
52. Reference to be provided. [return]
53. Reference to be provided. [return]
54. Reference to be provided. [return]
55. Reference to be provided. [return]
56. Reference to be provided. [return]
57. Reference to be provided. [return]
58. Reference to be provided. [return]
59. Reference to be provided. [return]
60. Reference to be provided. [return]
61. Reference to be provided. [return]
62. Reference to be provided. [return]
63. Reference to be provided. [return]
64. Reference to be provided. [return]
65. Reference to be provided. [return]
66. Reference to be provided. [return]
67. Reference to be provided. [return]
68. Reference to be provided. [return]
69. Reference to be provided. [return]
70. Reference to be provided. [return]
71. Reference to be provided. [return]
72. Reference to be provided. [return]
73. Reference to be provided. [return]
74. Reference to be provided. [return]
75. Reference to be provided. [return]
76. Reference to be provided. [return]
77. Reference to be provided. [return]
78. Reference to be provided. [return]
79. Reference to be provided. [return]
80. Reference to be provided. [return]
81. Reference to be provided. [return]
82. Wilson, 2000; Wilson, 2010, p.84. [return]
83. Ibid. [return]
84. "Accelerator mass spectrometry: History," Wikipedia, 11 December 2015. [return]
85. Reference to be provided. [return]
86. Reference to be provided. [return]
Posted: 15 February 2016. Updated: 15 August 2021.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment