Tuesday, August 21, 2018

`Poker holes' #29: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

`POKER HOLES' #29
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #29, "Other marks and images: `Poker holes'," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. See also, "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (2): Poker holes ."

[Main index #1] [Previous: Water stains #28] [Next: Dirt #30]


    Other marks and images #26
    1. `Poker holes' #29

Introduction The Shroud has four sets of three small "L"-shaped' burn holes[2]. They are in two parallel groups located on the front image near the hands of the man on the Shroud and on the dorsal (back) image on each side of the man's thighs[3]. They are known (after Wilson[4]) as the "poker holes"[5].

[Right (enlarge)[6]: The poker holes outlined in yellow on the full-length Shroud.]

`Poker holes'. The holes match up exactly at the very centre of the cloth when it is folded in four once lengthwise and once widthwise[7]. Therefore they appear to be the result of a deliberate act[8], although they could have been the result of an accident in a ceremony (or even ceremonies [see below]) over the centre of the folded-in-four cloth[9]. It is not known when the holes were made[10], as there is no historical record of their origin[11].

Origin. Ian Wilson proposed that the holes were caused by repeated thrusts with a red hot poker[12] in a trial by fire[13]. But the holes are not circular (see below). And they also show a gradually diminishing degree of burning over the depth of only four folds[14]. According to Fr. Andre Dubarle (1910-2002) they were caused by burning coal sparks from a censer[15]. Markwardt proposed that the holes were caused by "a pitch-soaked firebrand" thrust four times into the Shroud to lift the 544 siege of Edessa by the Persian king Khosrow I (496-579)[16]. Pitch has been detected near the holes[17] and the charring of the edges of the holes is blacker than the burns from 1532 fire[18]. However STURP's Schwalbe and Rogers in 1982 considered the theory that the holes were burned through with a

[Above (enlarge)[19]: The four sets of `poker holes' on the Shroud in a clockwise descending order of damage. First (dorsal left side) top left; second (dorsal right side) top right; third (frontal right side) bottom right; and fourth (frontal left side) bottom left. Note the steep rate of reduction of hole size between the first and fourth set of holes, even though each hole would have been only about 1.3 mm above its counterpart when the theorised "red hot poker" (Wilson) or "pitch soaked firebrand" (Markwardt) was thrust through all four layers of the folded-in-four Shroud (see above).]

hot poker as "probably incorrect"[20]. It was them who pointed out that a close up inspection (see below) of the "peripheral areas reveals a foreign material there, resembling pitch"[21]. They proposed that the

[Above (enlarge)[22]: Close-up of the left dorsal `poker holes' which was `ground zero' of the proposed burning pitch that fell onto the Shroud from a flaming pitch-soaked torch in a regular (Easter Sunday?) ceremony. The charred edges and burnt spots were removed in the 2002 restoration[23].]

damage was more consistent with "burning pitch that ... fell onto the Shroud from a torch"[24]. I agree with this and that the minor pitch burns indicate that burning pitch from a flaming torch had fallen onto the Shroud at other times as part of a regular (Easter Sunday pre-dawn in the tomb resurrection re-enactment?) ceremony. In support of this, what English-speaking writers see as "L"-shaped in the pattern of the holes, may be the Greek capital letter gamma (Γ) which resembles an inverted "L"[25]. In the Byzantine era around the sixth century, when the Image of Edessa (i.e. the Shroud "doubled in four" = tetradiplon) made its appearance, the gamma marking was used on altar cloths which were known as gammadia to indicate their holiness[26].

Lier copy 1516. There is a painted copy of the Shroud dated 1516[27], attributed to Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528)[28], and kept in the Church of St. Gommaire, Lier, Belgium[29]. This Lier copy pre-dated the 1532 fire by about 16 years[30]. It has four sets of three L-shaped

[Left (enlarge)[31]: Painted copy of the Shroud, dated 1516, kept in the Church of St. Gommaire, Belgium, clearly depicting the four sets of L-shaped `poker holes' on the Shroud.]

`poker holes'[32], which shows that the poker holes damage occurred before 1516[33].

Pray Codex 1192-5. The Pray Codex is dated 1192-95[34]. In the lower half of one of its ink drawings (see 11Jan10) it depicts the scene in Mark 16:1-6 where the three women at the Tomb were told by an angel[35]:

"You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him."
The angel is pointing to an empty sarcophagus and its lid, representing the empty Tomb[36]. The sarcophagus and its lid have two sets of `poker holes' (very similar to those on the Shroud - see below)[37].

[Left (enlarge)[38]: Part of the Pray Codex (1192-95) depicting two set of `poker holes': one inverted "L"-shaped, and the other a five-hole shape, each very similar to one of the two basic shapes of the `poker holes' found on the Shroud (see above upper and lower).]

These are one of at least eight (and by my count twelve [see 27May12), telling correspondences between the Pray Codex and the Shroud[39]. Nobel prize-winning geneticist Jérôme Lejeune (1926-1994) who in 1993 was granted a rare private viewing of the Pray Codex in Budapest's National Széchenyi Library[40], wrote of the Codex in general and the `poker holes' in particular:

"Such precise details are not to be found on any other known [Christ] image - except the Shroud that is in Turin. One is therefore forced to conclude that the artist of the Pray Manuscript had before his eyes ... some model which possessed all the characteristics of the Shroud which is in Turin"[41].
Sceptics' explanations. Leading Shroud sceptic Joe Nickell in his book, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin" (1987), briefly covered the "small, round burn holes, as from a hot poker" without mentioning (dishonestly), either "Pray Codex" or "poker holes," so they don't appear in the book's index:
"Ian Wilson suggests that one of the earliest examinations of the shroud — not a scientific one, to be sure— may have been a `primitive "trial by fire"'1 ["1. Wilson, The Shroud of Turin, 25."] ... But Wilson's notion suffered a setback when the 1978 investigation found what appeared to be traces of pitch at the edges of the holes, suggesting rather that they resulted from burning pitch falling on the cloth from a torch.3 ["3. Schwalbe and Rogers (see note 21, Chapter 3), 47, note 7."]"[42].
Note also that Nickell, by his references "1" and "3" is well aware of the Pray Codex and the `poker holes' which are covered there, but again, (dishonestly), Nickell concealed that from his sceptic readers. Also, a Google search of "Joe Nickell" and "Pray Codex" returned no hits (apart from two of my posts). "impostors... deceiving and being deceived" (2Tim 3:13)!

Wikipedia's article, "Pray Codex," after:

"... the four tiny circles on the lower image, which appear to form a letter L, "perfectly reproduce four apparent "poker holes" on the Turin Shroud", which likewise appear to form a letter L. The Codex Pray illustration may serve as evidence for the existence of the Shroud of Turin prior to 1260–1390 AD, the alleged fabrication date established in the radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988"[43].
does give the response of leading Italian Shroud sceptic and "CICAP consultant," Gian Marco Rinaldi, to the Pray Codex and its `poker holes':
"Critics of this idea point out, that the item that is sometimes identified as the Shroud is probably a rectangular tombstone as seen on other sacred images. The alleged holes may just be decorative elements, as seen, for example, on the angel's wing. Moreover, the alleged shroud in the Pray codex does not contain any image"[44].
I refuted these sceptics' explanations in my 2012 post, "My critique of `The Pray Codex,' Wikipedia, 1 May 2011," and as can be seen some of them have been withdrawn. Here is my refutation of what remains (bold) in Wikipedia's current, "Pray Codex" of 12 April 2017:

Critics of this idea point out, There is only one critic referenced, Gian Marco Rinaldi. Where are the others?

... that the item that is sometimes identified as the Shroud is probably a rectangular tombstone as seen on other sacred images. In the upper burial scene (Berkovits, 1969, plate III. See below), Jesus is about to be wrapped in a double body length shroud (coloured green by me). So there could not be an image in that.

[Above (enlarge): Jesus is about to be wrapped in a double body length shroud (highlighted green) in the Pray Codex Entombment scene (see 11Jan10 upper ).]

In the lower half (below) of Berkovits, 1969, plate III (see 11Jan10 lower), the visit of the three women disciples, it is a rectangular

[Above (enlarge): Visit of the three women to the empty tomb in Berkovits, 1969, plate III (lower). The scene depicts Mark 16:1-6 where an angel tells the women that "Jesus ... is not here. See the place where they laid him," and points to a sarcophagus and its lid to represent the empty Tomb. As mentioned above The lid has an inverted "L"-shaped pattern of four tiny circles and the sarcophagus itself has a pattern of five tiny circles which are each very similar to one of the two basic shapes of the `poker holes' found on the Shroud (see above).].

sarcophagus and its lid representing, not the Shroud, but the empty Tomb, which the angel is pointing to (as in Mark 16:1-6 above). The Shroud is there, but represented symbolically (see below).

The alleged holes may just be decorative elements, as seen, for example, on the angel's wing. No. The decorative elements on the angel's wings are a simple repeating pattern of circles [Left] which don't resemble anything else. But the inverted "L" four circles and the five hole shaped circles patterns on the sarcophagus lid and the sarcophagus, respectively, are each different and they do resemble something else: the two basic patterns of 'poker holes' on the Shroud. Moreover they are together only one of the eight (and by my count twelve - see again above) telling correspondences between these four ink drawings in the 1192-5 Pray Codex and the Shroud.

Moreover, the alleged shroud in the Pray codex does not contain any image. In the upper drawing of Berkovits plate III (above), the double body length Shroud is depicted before Jesus is wrapped in it, so there would not be any image of Jesus on it. And in the lower drawing the image is depicted symbolically:

"The realization that the Pray Codex contains a depiction of the Shroud begs an obvious question: why did the artist not depict the cloth's figure? There are several likely reasons. As someone privileged to view the relic, the artist may have been bound by the same code of secrecy as Nicholas Mesarites. He may have wanted to provide himself with a vivid portrayal of the events of Good Friday and Easter morning, focusing on the Shroud, but without revealing the secret to others. Knowledge of the 'miraculous' image was not to be divulged to all and sundry. Moreover, he would have found the Shroud figure virtually impossible to draw. It could be defined, as we have seen, by its lack of outline (aperilepton), but, like every other draughtsman of the age, the Pray Codex artist depended on outline. If he had simply ignored this problem and drawn the figure in anyway, it would have looked as if the body of Christ was still lying in the tomb - a heretical idea. Fortunately, he had a much better solution. Instead of representing the Shroud figuratively, he could represent it symbolically"[45].

The image itself is depicted symbolically in the Pray Codex. In Berkovits plate III (upper) (see above), as on the Shroudman's image: 1. Jesus is nude[46]; 2. His hands are crossed awkwardly at the wrists, right over left, covering His genitals[47]; 3. Thumbs are not visible on Jesus' hands[48]; 4. His fingers are unnaturally long (see "X-Rays #22")[49]; 5. Red marks on Jesus' scalp and forehead are in the same position as the bloodstains (including the "reversed 3") on the Shroud (see below)[50].

[Above: The Shroud Man's face (left)[51] compared with that of the Pray Codex (right) (Berkovits plate III upper-see above - rotated right 90 degrees). Note the faintly tinged red mark on Jesus' right forehead, exactly where the `reversed 3' bloodstain is on the Shroud and, like it, slightly angled in a `northeast-southwest' direction! Note also the crown of thorns bloodstains in Jesus' hair, corresponding with those on the Shroud.]

In the lower half of Berkovits plate III (see above): 6. Red zigzags match the inverted V-shaped blood trickles down the Shroud man's arms[52].

On Berkovits plate IV (below), 7. The nail in the wrist of the right hand (as it appears on the Shroud) is in Jesus' wrist (see below).

[Above (enlarge): Extract of plate IV in Berkovits (1969), showing the nail wound in the wrist of Jesus' right hand [Right] (as it appears on the Shroud-it is actually the left hand because the image is a photographic negative-see Negative #19), while the nail wound in the other hand (which is covered on the Shroud) is shown as traditionally in the palm. So the artist, knowing the traditional, but wrong, view that the nails were in Jesus' palms, deliberately chose to depict the nail in Jesus' wrist because that is what he saw on the Shroud!]

So the "Critics" (Gian Marco Rinaldi) were wrong on every point! If this is the best that sceptics can do in explaining away the `poker holes' in the Pray Codex as not being depictions of the original burn holes in the Shroud (not to mention the other telling correspondences between the Pray Codex and the Shroud!), then they have utterly failed! In which case, what agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow, in the context of the Pray Codex, wrote is true:

"The Shroud existed and was already damaged, then, by 1192-5, when the illustrations in the Pray Codex were drawn. Given the close links at the time between Hungary and Byzantium, it can hardly be doubted that the artist saw the relic in Constantinople. The Shroud was the Byzantine Sindon ... Historical records show that the Sindon was kept in the Pharos Chapel as part of the imperial relic collection, being first documented there in 958 [see "958"], 400 years before it was put on show in the small French village of Lirey"[53]!
Radiocarbon dating. The Pray Codex, with its at least eight (and by my count twelve - see above) telling correspondences (including the `poker holes') between it and the Shroud, dating from at least 1195, proves that Shroud existed at least 65 years before[54] its earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[55]. And then conservatively at least 100 years would have to be subtracted from 1195 to allow for the development of a tradition that the cloth portrayed by the artist was in fact the burial cloth of Christ[56]. But then the Shroud would have been in Constantinople when the Pray codex artist saw and drew it[57]. And since the Shroud, as the Image of Edessa "four-doubled" (tetradiplon), came to Constantinople from Edessa in 944 [see "944b"], it must be more than three centuries older than its earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[58]. But then the Image of Edessa/Shroud was continuously in Edessa from 544 to 944[see "544"], so the Shroud must be at least seven centuries older than its earliest 1260 radiocarbon date! Therefore the "poker-hole patterns represented in the Pray Codex drawing ... are the final nail in the coffin of the carbon-dating result"[59]!

Problem for the forgery theory. (see previous three: #25, #27 and #28). Even 65 years (let alone seven centuries) before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date, 1195, would be a total refutation of the claim by a Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395), that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" by an unnamed artist who had lived in the time of one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370), in about 1355[60]. See also 11Jul16 that the Shroudman's image is not painted, and 03Jul18 that there is no evidence that Bishop de Poitiers had a problem with the Shroud.

Just as the no later than 1195 Pray Codex refutes the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud (see above), so it also further refutes the `Medieval photography' theory of Prof. Nicholas Allen (see 07Aug16). That is because Allen bases his theory on the 1988 radiocarbon dating's 1260-1390 date range of the Shroud's creation[61].

Allen confirmed that the Pray Codex was a problem for his theory. When a Br. Michael Buttigieg (c.1916-99) of Malta challenged a 1994 Times article outlining Allen's `medieval photograph' Shroud theory[62]:

"Prof J Lejeune (who died only a few months ago) when interviewed by the same magazine [30 Days], had shown that 'historically' the Turin Shroud existed before 1192. `This', he emphasised, `is a definite historic certainty. There can be no further discussion on that point"[63].
Allen responded by dismissing Lejeune's Pray codex evidence as merely his "views" and "irrelevant":
"Prof J Le Jeune's views concerning the pedigree of the Shroud are irrelevant to my argument. I have deduced that iconographically the Shroud must date from sometime after the beginning of the 13th century. Due to the documented references of the Shroud's existence by the mid-fourteenth century together with the 1988 carbon-dating, I feel safe in stating that the Shroud was most likely produced sometime between 1280-1320"[64].
But then a Paul R. Smith of Australia responded to Allen:
"Dr Allen states that Prof. J. Lejeune's views concerning the pedigree of the Shroud are irrelevant to his argument. The contrary is true. Lejeune's showed that the Shroud was in existence between 1100 AD and 1200 AD (Shroud News 80). Once this was established it was possible to show that the piece of cloth now housed in Turin was in existence before 944 AD [see above]. Dr Allen gives no reason for dismissing Lejeune's claim, but to admit that Lejeune was right would bring into question the carbon dating tests"[65].

The no later than 1195 Pray Codex also further refutes Picknett and Prince's `Leonardo da Vinci replaced the original Shroud with a photograph in 1492' theory[66]. For starters Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) would not have known about the Pray codex which was written in Old Hungarian and was unknown even in Hungary until it was discovered by György Pray (1723-1801) in 1770, presumably in the archives of the University of Nagy-Szombat in Slovakia (which was then part of Hungary), where Pray was a professor of theology from 1750 to 1777.

Picknett and Prince also confirmed that the Pray Codex was a problem for their theory, by dismissing it on the fallacious grounds that because there are other 12th century artworks which show Jesus naked with his hands crossed awkwardly in front, as on the Shroud (e.g. a 12th century fresco depiction of the martyrdom of St Vincent of Saragossa (d. c.304) (see below) which has those Shroud features in common with the Pray Codex), that therefore means the Pray Codex was depicting St Vincent:

"Other researchers look for characteristics that are different from artistic convention, arguing that these show that the Shroud image was genuine. One such is the nakedness of the man on the Shroud and the unusual and unnatural way in which his hands are crossed. Wilson cites examples to underline this, such as an illustration in a late-twelfth-century manuscript in Budapest — known as the Pray Manuscript ... [which shows] Jesus' hands crossed as on the Shroud, and ... completely naked. The trouble with this argument is that there are also paintings showing people other than Jesus with these characteristics. In a church at Berze-la-Ville in southeast France, for example, a wall painting dating from 1110 shows Saint Vincent naked and in a pose exactly like that on the Shroud. Using Shroudies' logic, this proves that the man on the Shroud is in fact Saint Vincent"[67].
But Picknett and Prince have `shot themselves in the foot' on this one. I hadn't heard of this early 12th century Shroud-like depiction (albeit of a saint instead of Jesus). It is obviously a non sequitur fallacy that just

[Above (enlarge)[68]: Martyrdom of St Vincent of Saragossa in c. 304, depicted in a c. 1100 fresco in the Chapel of the Monks of Berzé-la-Ville, France.]

because a medieval artist depicted the martyrdom of an ancient saint, St Vincent, whose actual appearance is unknown, in terms of the burial scene of Jesus in the Pray Codex, that the artist is thereby claiming "the man on the Shroud is in fact Saint Vincent"!

This fresco joins 11th-12th century Shroud-like depictions of Jesus, naked, with hands crossed awkwardly in front: Nicholas of Verdun's Klosterneuburg Monastery altar panel, an ivory panel in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, and the Pray Codex. It and other frescoes were discovered in 1887 under whitewash in the Chapel of the monks of Berzé-la-Ville[69]. They were painted under the direction of Hugues de Semur, abbot of Cluny (1049-1109), who significantly "was an active diplomat to Germany and Hungary on behalf of the church"[70]. So he could have seen the Pray Codex drawings in Hungary before 1100, which were later incorporated into the Pray Codex in 1192-95. If so, that would date those drawings earlier than 1100! So thank you Picknett and Prince!

Conclusion. As we saw above, there are at least eight (8), and by my count a further four (4), making a total of at least twelve (12), telling correspondences between two ink drawings in the 1192-95 Pray Codex (Berkovitz, 1969, plates III and IV) and the Shroud. Those two ink drawings are therefore at least 65 years older than the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud. And then we saw above that the Shroud original must be at least a 100 years older than the Pray Codex drawings of it. Which means that the Shroud is at least 165 years older than the earliest 1260 radiocarbon dating of it. That is, dated at least 1095. But as we saw, in 1095 the Shroud, as the Image of Edessa "four-doubled" (tetradiplon) was in Constantinople, having arrived there from Edessa in 944. That makes the Shroud at least 316 years older than its earliest 1260 radiocarbon dating. But then the Image of Edessa/Shroud had been continuously in Edessa since 544, that is at least 716 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud! So the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is hopelessly wrong!

In 2008 the Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, admitted that:

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow ..."[71].
Prof. Ramsey, who was a member of Oxford's team which radiocarbon dated the Shroud in 1988, and was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper, must be aware that the Pray Codex is part of that "lot of other evidence."

Archaeologist William Meacham confirmed that it is "common" for archeologists to reject as "rogue" radiocarbon dates which are in conflict with well-established other evidence:

"As an archaeologist, I had used C-14 dating many dozens of times on excavated samples, and found that it does generally but not always give accurate results. Most other archaeologists and geologists that I know have the same view; a few are more skeptical of its reliability ... Rogue results were normally discarded without any follow-up research, when it was abundantly clear that something was amiss ... Such rogue dates are common in archaeology and geology and they are usually not subjected to any further detailed study ... Such has been my experience as an archaeologist: I have excavated, submitted and interpreted around one hundred fifty C-14 samples from Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Historical sites. Of these dates obtained, about 110 were considered credible, 30 were rejected as unreliable and 10 were problematic. I mention this merely to inform the non-specialist that rogue dates are quite common in the general application of C-14 in archaeology. As fate would have it, I had dealt with more rogue samples than most other archaeologists, and furthermore had been involved with several C-14 labs in investigating why some of these samples yielded results which simply could not be correct in terms of their real calendar date"[72].
Prof. Ramsey must be aware of this, as must Arizona laboratory's Director Dr. Timothy Jull, who also was a member of his laboratory's team which dated the Shroud in 1988 and also was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper. So Prof. Ramsey and Dr Jull should write to Nature asking that the paper be retracted, due to it being in conflict with well-established other evidence, including the 1192-95 Pray Codex. Their continued failure to do this can only be to avoid the embarrassment of that high-profile paper having been wrong for nearly 30 years and having mislead a very great many.

I will therefore write an open letter to Prof. Ramsey, posted here and emailed (as well as snail mailed) to him, providing him with the above evidence that the 1192-95 Pray Codex alone proves that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was hopelessly wrong and calling on him to write to Nature requesting that the 1989 Nature paper be retracted.

Continued in the next part #30 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.25; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.78; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.34; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.13; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.4; Markwardt, J.J., 1998, "The Fire and the Portrait," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.320-334, 320; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.4; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.13, 180. [return]
3. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.162; Markwardt, 1998, p.320; Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," in Minor, Adler, & Piczek, 2002, pp.58-70, 64; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.105; Oxley, 2010, p.4 [return]
4. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
5. 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.66; 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, p.60; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.115; Oxley, 2010, p.5; de Wesselow, 2012, p.13. [return]
6. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal: Overlays: Poker Holes" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Wilson, 1986, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Markwardt, 1998, p.320; Wilson, 1998, p.66; Oxley, 2010, pp.4, 24. [return]
8. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Wilson, 1986, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Markwardt, 1998, p.321. [return]
9. Morgan, R., 1986, "New Information on the 'Poker Marks'," Shroud News, No 36, August, pp.16-19,16-17; Markwardt, 1998, p.321. [return]
10. Wilson, 1986, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Oxley, 2010, p.25. [return]
11. Wilson, 1998, p.66; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.10-27, 13. [return]
12. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Wilson, 1986, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Wilson, 1998, p.66; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Wilson, 1986, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Iannone, 1998, p.4; Markwardt, 1998, p.320; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Markwardt, 1998, p.320; Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
15. Morgan, 1986, pp.16-17; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
16. Markwardt, 1998, p.324; Oxley, 2010, p.24. [return]
17. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, p.46 n.7; Wilson, 1986, pp.78, 128; Guerrera, 2001, p.106; Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
18. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
19. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
20. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.46 n.7. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
22. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
23. Oxley, 2010, p.263. [return]
24. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.46 n.7. [return]
25. Oxley, 2010, p.25. [return]
26. Oxley, 2010, p.25. [return]
27. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
28. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.11; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.37; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.4. [return]
29. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Wilson, 1998, p.66; Oxley, 2010, pp.4, 76. [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Markwardt, 1998, p.320; Guerrera, 2001, p.106; Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
31. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.18. [return]
32. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Scavone, 1998, p.64; Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Wilson, 1986, p.78; Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
34. Wilson, 1979, p.160; Wilson, 1986, pp.114-115; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.154; Markwardt, 1998, pp.320-321; Scavone, 1998, p.64; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.115-116; Whiting, 2006, p.92; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178, 180; "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. [return]
35. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.160; Iannone, 1998, pp.154-155; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.115; Oxley, 2010, p.37; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
36. Scavone, D., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, p.321; Wilson, 1991, pp.160-161; Iannone, 1998, pp.154-155; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.116; Oxley, 2010, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
37. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Oxley, 2010, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
38. Extract from Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, plate III. [return]
39. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
40. Lejeune, J., in Pacl, S.M., 1993, "All those carbon 14 errors," 30 Days, No 9, 1993, in Shroud News, No 80, December, pp.3-8, 6. [return]
41. Wilson, 1998, p.147; Oxley, 2010, p.38. [return]
42. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.107, 174. [return]
43. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. [return]
44. Ibid. [return]
45. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.180-181. [return]
46. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Oxley, 2010, p.37; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
47. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.91; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
48. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Scavone, 1998, p.63; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Ruffin, 1999, pp.59-60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Whiting, 2006, p.91; Oxley, 2010, p.37; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
49. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Whiting, 2006, p.91. [return]
50. Wilson, 1998, p.146; Ruffin, 1999, p.60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Oxley, 2010, p.38; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
51. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical". [return]
52. Maloney, P.C., 1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, Adler, & Piczek, 2002, pp.16-47, 33; Scavone, 1998, p.64. [return]
53. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.180-181. [return]
54. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 613. [return]
55. Wilson, 1991, p.161; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.115; Marino, J.G., 2011, "Wrapped up in the Shroud: Chronicle of a Passion," Cradle Press: St. Louis MO, p.53. [return]
56. Maloney, 1998, p.33. [return]
57. Scavone, 1998, pp.63-64; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178, 180-181. [return]
58. de Wesselow, 2012, p.183. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, p.267; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.17; Wilson, 1998, p.126; Ruffin, 1999, p.65; Wilson, 2010, p.303. [return]
61. Allen, N.P.L., 1993, "Is the Shroud of Turin the first recorded photograph?," The South African Journal of Art History, 11, November, pp.23-32; Allen, N.P.L., 1995, "Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photonegative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin," De Arte, 51, Pretoria, UNISA, pp.21-35; Allen, N.P.L., 1998, "The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens: Testament to a Lost Technology," Empowerment Technologies: Port Elizabeth, South Africa, pp.xiii, 33, 40; Allen, N.P.L., 2009, "How Leonardo did not fake the Shroud of Turin," Unisa Press: South Africa. [return]
62. "New findings on Turin shroud," The Times, 16 September, 1994, in Shroud News, No. 87, February 1995, p.14. [return]
63. Buttigieg, M., 1995, "Challenge to Allen's findings," Shroud News, No 87, February, pp.15-17, 16. [return]
64. Allen, N., 1995, "Letter from Dr Nicholas Allen," Shroud News, No. 92, October, pp.20-23, 23. [return]
65. Smith, P.R., 1996, "A scientific appraisal of the Allen hypothesis for the formation of the image on the Shroud of Turin," Shroud News, No. 94, April, pp.10-14, 11. [return]
66. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 1994, "Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?: The Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.68, 107, 115, 188; Scavone, D.C., 1996, "Book Review of `The Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?'", Shroud.com; Markwardt, 1998, p.321; Wilson, 1998, p.211; Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, pp.91, 131, 135, 138, 210; Oxley, 2010, p.75; de Wesselow, 2012, p.139. [return]
67. Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.59. Footnotes omitted. [return]
68. "File:Berze la Ville Maertyrer.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 31 August 2010. [return]
69. "Chapel of the monks of Berzé-la-Ville," Wikipedia, 11 July 2018 (translated by Google). [return]
70. "Hugh of Cluny: Political influence," Wikipedia, 27 November 2017. [return]
71. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March, Version 152, Issued 16 June 2015. [return]
72. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, pp.53-54. [return]

Posted: 21 August 2018. Updated: 2 January 2019.

Monday, August 20, 2018

Date index 2012: The Shroud of Turin blog

The Shroud of Turin blog
DATE INDEX 2012
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the date index to my 2012 posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. The posts are listed in reverse date order (more recent uppermost). For further information on this date index series see the Main Date Index.

[Main index] [Previous: 2011] [Next: 2013]


2012

[Above (enlarge): Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin illustrated: The full-length Shroud of Turin (1), is doubled four times (2 through 5), resulting in Jesus' face within a rectangle, in landscape aspect (5), exactly as depicted in the earliest copies of the Image of Edessa, the 11th century Sakli church, Turkey (6) and the 10th century icon of King Abgar V of Edessa holding the Image of Edessa, St. Catherine's monastery, Sinai (7). The above is from my post of 15-Sep-12. My other posts on tetradiplon, "four-doubled" are at: 28Mar12, 10Jul12, 23Aug12, 11Sep12, 15Sep12*, 18May14, 08Sep14, 04Feb15, 20Jan17, 24Jan17, 13May17 & 18Mar18. There were many other other posts where I briefly mentioned "tetradiplon."]

22-Nov-12: The Shroud of Turin: 2.3. The man on the Shroud [part 9]
05-Nov-12: The Shroud of Turin: 2.2. The Shroud's location [part 8]
31-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 2.1. A linen sheet [part 7]
21-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 2. What is the Shroud of Turin? [part 6]
19-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 1.3 The central dilemma of the Shroud [part 5]
15-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 1.2 The Shroud and me [part 4]
15-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 1.1 Overview [part 3]
12-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 1. Introduction [part 2]
11-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: Contents [part 1]
22-Sep-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 10: "The Image of Edessa" (6)
15-Sep-12: Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin
11-Sep-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 9: "The Image of Edessa" (5)
04-Sep-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 8: "The Image of Edessa" (4)
03-Sep-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 7: "The Image of Edessa" (3)
23-Aug-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 6: "The Image of Edessa" (2)
07-Aug-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 5: "The Image of Edessa" (1)
28-Jul-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 4: "The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo" (2)
22-Jul-12: Shooting the fox is not killing the fox!
17-Jul-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 3: "The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo" (1)
14-Jul-12: Old blood does not always degenerate to type AB, so the Shroud of Turin's and the Sudarium of Oviedo's AB blood group is significant!
11-Jul-12: `according to John chapter 20, Jesus was wrapped in linen cloths (plural) ... If Scripture is correct ... lets throw out the shroud'
10-Jul-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 2: "First Century Relics in Medieval Europe"
04-Jul-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 1: "Introduction"
15-Jun-12: `The Turin Shroud is a fake ... and it's one of 40': Antonio Lombatti
19-May-12: My critique of "The Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 May 2011
19-May-12: `Or the artist of the fake shroud knew of the Pray Manuscript and incorporated these signs into his forgery?'
10-May-12: You state that `there is no paint, dye or pigment on the Shroud that forms its image' but it is claimed that `the Shroud contains red ochre and other paint pigments'
01-May-12: Combined Review of: "The Sign" by Thomas de Wesselow and "Resurrected or Revived?" by Helmut Felzmann
23-Apr-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (5)
10-Apr-12: `De Wesselow fails to answer the reasons why rational people accept the Shroud is a fake'
09-Apr-12: Proceedings of the 1986 Hong Kong Shroud Conference now online
29-Mar-12: My comments on a Telegraph article about Thomas de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic but Jesus was not resurrected #2
28-Mar-12: My comments on a Telegraph article about Thomas de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic but Jesus was not resurrected #1
18-Mar-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (4)
03-Mar-12: `I heard the Shroud image was made by a bas-relief metal sculpture heated'
27-Feb-12: Luciano Buso - an artist who cracked Giotto Code?
23-Feb-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (3)
16-Feb-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (2)
12-Feb-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (1)
07-Feb-12: Shroud of Turin News, February 2012
04-Feb-12: Shroud of Turin News, January 2012
18-Jan-12: John P. Jackson, "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image" (1991)
15-Jan-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud has to be wrong!: #1 Introduction
10-Jan-12: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #10 His death and burial matches the Gospels' description of that of Jesus Christ
06-Jan-12: My response to: "The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it," by Tom Chivers, The Telegraph, 20 December 2011


Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Posted: 20 August 2018. Updated: 13 October 2018.

Monday, August 13, 2018

My critique of Borrini, M. & Garlaschelli, L., 2018, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Forensic Sciences, 10 July

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is my promised critique of the paper, Borrini, M. & Garlaschelli, L., 2018, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Forensic Sciences, 10 July. As previously mentioned, I have decided to not waste my time responding to sycophantic news articles in support of this paper, their similarity of wording indicating they are based on a press release from Borrini and/or Garlaschelli, but instead critique the paper itself. The paper's words are bold to distinguish them from mine. Emphases are minew unless otherwise indicated.

Matteo Borrini,1 Ph.D.; and Luigi Garlaschelli,2 M.Sc.

"The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17)!

Borrini and Garlaschelli are not neutral on the Shroud's authenticity (to put it mildly). Both are members of CICAP, "an Italian ... skeptic ... organization ... [its] main goals are the promotion of the scientific analysis of alleged paranormal and pseudoscientific phenomena":

"CICAP (Comitato Italiano per il Controllo delle Affermazioni sulle Pseudoscienze; in English Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Pseudosciences) is an Italian, non-profit, skeptic educational organization, founded in 1989. CICAP's main goals are the promotion of the scientific analysis of alleged paranormal and pseudoscientific phenomena. It is a member of the European Council of Skeptical Organisations"[2].
And it is a CICAP article of naturalistic (nature is all there is - there is no supernatural) faith that the Shroud is an example of "pseudoscientific phenomena":
"Italian group claims to debunk Shroud of Turin ... Scientists have reproduced the Shroud of Turin - revered as the cloth that covered Jesus in the tomb - and say the experiment proves the relic was man-made, a group of Italian debunkers claimed Monday. The shroud bears the figure of a crucified man, complete with blood seeping out of nailed hands and feet, and believers say Christ's image was recorded on the linen fibers at the time of his resurrection. Scientists have reproduced the shroud using materials and methods that were available in the 14th century, the Italian Committee for Checking Claims on the Paranormal [CICAP] said. The group said in a statement this is further evidence the shroud is a medieval forgery ... Many still believe that the shroud `has unexplainable characteristics that cannot be reproduced by human means,' lead scientist Luigi Garlaschelli said in the statement. `The result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure.' The research was funded by the debunking group and by an Italian organization of atheists and agnostics, he said"[3].
See my demolition of Garlaschelli's `Shroud' at "Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin" (8 October 2009).

Garlaschelli [Right[4].] is one of CICAP's founders:

"CICAP was started by the Italian science journalist Piero Angela together with a group of scientists including Luigi Garlaschelli"[5].
Indeed reference "2" above in "Luigi Garlaschelli,2" is not to Garlaschelli's current academic position, but to "CICAP":
"2CICAP – Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Pseudosciences, via Pascoli, 1, 35125 Padova, Italy (Formerly: Department of Chemistry, University of Pavia, Via Taramelli 10, 27100 Pavia, Italy)"!
Matteo Borrini [Left[6].] is likewise a member of CICAP:
"CICAP ... Technical and scientific consultants ... Matteo Borrini ..."[7].
A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin*

"BPA" stands for "Bloodstain pattern analysis," which "... has drawn more skeptical scrutiny since 2000 ... BPA is done by crime investigators using subjective hunches ... The National Academy of Sciences in 2009 ... questioned the reliability of their methods in the courtroom":

"Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA), one of several specialties in the field of forensic science, involves the study and analysis of bloodstains at a known or suspected violent crime scene with the goal of helping investigators draw conclusions about the nature, timing and other details of the crime. The use of bloodstains as evidence is not new; however, new experts have claimed to be able to use fluid dynamics, physics, and other calculations to determine with accuracy previous events at a crime scene. For example, the shape of blood droplets might be used to draw conclusions as to how far away the victim was from a gun when they were shot. This technique of forensic science has drawn more skeptical scrutiny since 2000; large amounts of the body of work in BPA is done by crime investigators using subjective hunches rather than scientists from other disciplines. A report released by The National Academy of Sciences in 2009 highlighted several incidents of blood spatter analysts to overstate their qualifications as well as questioned the reliability of their methods in the courtroom"[8].
As we shall see "subjective hunches" play a decisive role in this attempt by Borrini and Garlaschelli to discredit the Shroud!

Their paper is not new. The asterisk * above is to a footnote:

"*Presented at the 66th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 17-22, 2014, in Seattle, WA; and the 67th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 16-21, 2015, in Orlando, FL."
so it may not have been peer-reviewed. I doubt if any Shroud pro-authenticists (who are the true experts in the Shroud) have reviewed the paper, because of the many errors in it (as we shall see). Also it has taken more than four years from the paper's first presentation in February 2014 to appear on the Journal of Forensic Science's website, and it still has not been included in an issue. Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!

In fact Borrini and Garlaschelli's 2014 presentation was reported in an article in New Scientist: "Shroud of Turin depicts Y-shaped crucifixion," New Scientist, Linda Geddes, 2 April 2014, and I responded to it in a post of April 2014, "Shroud of Turin depicts a Y-shaped cross?" This has added significance (see below).

ABSTRACT: An investigation into the arm and body position required to obtain the blood pattern visible in the image of the Shroud of Turin was performed using a living volunteer. Here Borrini and Garlaschelli set up a strawman 'crucifixion victim' and then refuted that:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent"[9]
That is because a "living volunteer" is not a valid substitute for a living Roman crucifixion victim as Jesus, the Man on the Shroud (accordingly to the overwhelming weight of the evidence) was. Borrini and Garlaschelli's "living volunteer" (who actually may have been Garlaschelli) was not beaten about the face (Mt 26:67; 27:30; Mk 14:65; 15:19; Lk 22:63; Jn 19:3), scourged with a Roman flagrum (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Jn 19:1), crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2), carried a heavy wooden crossbeam part of the way to the site of his crucifixion (Jn 19:17), nailed through his hands and feet (Jn 20:25-27; Col 2:14), hung on a cross affixed by nails for ~6 hours (Mk 15:25, 33-34, 37; Mt 27:45-46, 50; Lk 23:44,46), died on that cross (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30), and was speared in the side to make sure he was dead (Jn 19:34), as Jesus (the Man on the Shroud) was. See my 06Aug13, 08Sep13 and 02Dec13. Therefore, it is impossible to experimentally simulate legally a first century Roman crucifixion, which Jesus underwent.

The two short rivulets on the back of the left hand of the Shroud are only consistent with a standing subject with arms at a ca 45° angle. This angle is different from that necessary for the forearm stains, which require nearly vertical arms for a standing subject. This is simply false! As illustrated by Wilson in 1978, over 40 years ago (below), based on the investigations of

[Above (enlarge): "The angle of the arms at crucifixion, deducible from the Shroud by determining the path of the blood flows in following the course of gravity. The main angle appears to have been 65 degrees, but there is evidence that at some stages the forearms were at 55 degrees, indicating that the man of the Shroud sought to raise himself, probably continually, during crucifixion"[10].]

surgeon Dr Pierre Barbet (1884–1961)[11], and supported by medical examiner Dr Robert Bucklin (1916-2001)[12] and forensic pathologist Prof. James Cameron (1930–2003)[13], the two slightly different angles of 55° and 65° of the blood trickles on the Shroudman's hand and forearms are consistent with blood dripping from nail wounds vertically under gravity, as the crucifixion victim (Jesus) alternatively raised himself on the nail in his feet to inhale and then slumped down on the nails in his hands to exhale[14]. By contrast neither Borrini (an anthropologist) nor Garlaschelli (a chemist) has any medical or surgical qualifications or expertise to contradict (directly or indirectly) these eminent medical and surgical authorities.

When I was studying for my Science degree (2000-4), we were told that the first step in writing a scientific journal paper was to thoroughly research the topic of our paper for at least a year. Apart from Borrini and Garlaschelli should be aware of Wilson's 40 year-old illustration above and its explanation in his 1978 classic book, "The Turin Shroud," if Borrini/Garlaschelli had Googled "Shroud Turin angle arms crucifixion" (without the quotes) they would have found my posts, "Re: The Shroud of Turin: Evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross, not a stake" of 25 April 2009 and "Shroud of Turin depicts a Y-shaped cross?" of 6 April 2014, especially the latter which mentions Borrini and Garlaschelli's names, both of which have the above illustration by Wilson with the explanation of the two slightly different angles of the blood trickles on the Shroudman's hand and arms. If Borrini/Garlaschelli didn't do that, they are guilty of scholarly incompetence. If they did do it but are concealing it, they are guilty of scholarly dishonesty!

The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) It is indeed a lance wound, matching the leaf-like shape of a Roman lancea (see below):

"Then we turn to the Roman lancea, in Greek lonche, the very weapon described in St. John's Gospel [Jn 19:34] as having been used to check that Jesus was dead. This was a spear of varied length, with a long, leaflike tip, thickening and rounding off toward the shaft. Whereas the other versions were intended to break inside the body of the victim, making it impossible for the enemy to reuse them against the Romans, the lancea was designed for continuous use. As such it is quite typical of what we would expect to have been standard issue for the soldiers of the military garrisons guarding Jerusalem at the time of Christ. From excavated examples, the shape of the lancea's blade corresponds exactly to the shape of the elliptical wound visible on the Shroud. It is another strikingly authentic, and Roman, detail"[15].

[Above (enlarge): The wound on the right side of the man on the Shroud[16] (on our left because the Shroud is, like a plaster cast, a mirror image). Note the wound (circled in red) which corresponds to the incision of a Roman lancea[17] and the light and dark stains corresponding to blood mixed with lung and heart sac fluid[18], i.e. "blood and water" as the Apostle John saw it (Jn 19:34). The dark border to the right is the remains of a burn from a fire in 1532.]

A medieval forger would be unlikely to know the shape of a Roman lancea, because as the above quote by Wilson says, its shape is known only from comparatively modern "excavated examples". Nor would a medieval forger be able to deduce the shape of a Roman lancea from the New Testament Greek word lonche, because (apart from the fact that there was no published Greek New Testament until 1516), contrary to Wilson's quote above, the Greek word lonche does not specifically mean a lance, but:

"The point of a weapon. A lance or spear, specifically the iron tip which reaches an enemy (Jn 19:34)"[19].
shows that the Shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position Borrini and Garlaschelli's `lance wound in the side' strawman 'experiment' was not even on a human body but a plastic "mannequin" [Right[20].]! Moreover they did not use post-mortem blood mixed with lung and heart sac fluid (as is on the Shroud - see above) but "synthetic blood"[21]! They also did not understand, or care, that the lance wound in Jesus' side occurred after He was dead (Jn 19:34), so the only blood from that wound would have come from the punctured right atrium (aka auricle) of the heart where blood accumulates after the heart's last beat at death had emptied its left ventricle[22]. They also did not consider or care that a dead crucifixion victim (Jesus) would have been slumped forward [Left[23].] held by the nails in his wrists. So any blood that did not adhere to the immediate vicinity of the wound would not have flowed down the body but dripped off onto the ground.

while the stains at the back—of a supposed postmortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine corpse—are totally unrealistic. Below is the bloodstain from the spear wound in the side of the man on the Shroud compared with the pool of blood across the small of his back from that wound. As can be

[Above (enlarge)[24]: Spear wound in the side (upper) compared to pool of blood from that wound in the small of the back (lower), flipped vertically and horizontally to match and outlined in red.]

seen it is totally realistic! Now compare it with the "totally unrealistic" (their own words!) strawman '`simulation' of Borrini and Garlaschelli below. But either they don't know the explanation in Shroud literature

[Above: Borrini and Garlaschelli's "totally unrealistic" (their words!) strawman `simulation' of how the pool of blood across the small of the back came from the spear wound in the side[25].]

that the pool of blood drained out of the head and upper body through the spear wound when the man was taken down from the cross and laid on the Shroud hours later[26], in which case they would be guilty of scholarly incompetence; or they do know that explanation but are concealing it from their readers, in which case they would be guilty of scholarly dishonesty! See also above.

Simulation of bleeding from the nail wounds contacting wood surfaces yielded unclear results. This is yet another strawman by Borrini and Garlaschelli, since the Shroud does not contain an imprint of the wood of the cross. They assumed that the bloodstain on the back of the hand (which is the side visible on the Shroud and that only of the left hand which largely covers the right

[Above (enlarge)[27]: Bloodflows down the left hand and arm of the Shroudman, flipped horizontally and then rotated 90 degrees, showing how the blood dripped off the hand and arm vertically under gravity. Because of the limitations of my software, the main bloodflows are not exactly vertical, as they would have been in reality. As can be seen, the blood from the nail wound flowed freely, so therefore the back of the hand was not in contact with the crossbeam.]

hand) would be altered by its contact with the crossbeam to which it was nailed [right[28]. But this ignores that a crucifixion victim (Jesus) would hang away from the crossbeam (see above) and so blood from the nail exit wounds on the back of the hands would not be altered by the crossbeam.

This is the end of this post. I originally intended to critique Borrini and Garlaschelli's entire 7-page paper, but by critiquing only the abstract, with photographs from the paper, I have refuted the paper's main points. I have shown that Borrini and Garlaschelli in their paper set up a strawman of the Shroud and refuted only that. And that they are guilty of either scholarly incompetence, in not being aware of the relevant Shroud literature, or scholarly dishonesty, in being aware of that literature but concealing it from their readers. Or both. They are an example of `the blind leading the blind' (Mt 15:14; Lk 6:39):

[Above (enlarge)[29]: "The Blind Leading the Blind," 1568, by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c.1525-1569).]

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "CICAP," Wikipedia, 12 March 2018. [return]
3. "Italian group claims to debunk Shroud of Turin (Update)," PhysOrg, October 5, 2009. [return]
4. "Luigi Garlaschelli," Wikipedia, 17 July 2018 (translated by Google). [return]
5. "CICAP: History," Wikipedia, 12 March 2018. [return]
6. "XIV Convegno Nazionale CICAP - teaser: Matteo Borrini," YouTube, 20 August 2017. [return]
7. "CICAP: Organization chart," Wikipedia, 17 July 2018 (translated by Google). [return]
8. "Bloodstain pattern analysis," Wikipedia, 28 July 2018. [return]
9. "Straw man," Wikipedia, 29 July 2018. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, pp.50L; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.22. [return]
11. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, pp.82-83ff; Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, pp.44-45. [return]
12. Bucklin, R., 1982, "The Shroud of Turin: Viewpoint of a Forensic Pathologist," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 5, December, pp.3-10; Bucklin, R, 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: A Pathologist's Viewpoint," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.271-279, 273. [return]
13. Cameron, J. M., "The Pathologist and the Shroud," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.58. [return]
14. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.25; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.94. [return]
15. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.48-49. [return]
16. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
17. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 290; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.62-63; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.120; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.33-34; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.174. [return]
18. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 26; Iannone, 1998, p.63. [return]
19. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.926. Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. & Jones, H.S., 1883, "A Greek-English Lexicon," [1871], Seventh edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford, Reprinted 1935, p.417; Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, p.271; Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.382; Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. & Danker, F.W., 1979, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, p.479. [return]
20. Borrini, M. & Garlaschelli, L., 2018, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Forensic Sciences, 10 July, pp.1-7, 5, Fig. 7. [return]
21. Borrini & Garlaschelli, 2018, p.5. [return]
22. Barbet, 1953, p.206; Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.46; Wilson, 1979, p.44; Antonacci, 2000, p.31; Oxley, 2010, p.167. [return]
23. Ricci, G., 1978, "The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1982, p.61. [return]
24. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
25. Borrini & Garlaschelli, 2018, p.6, Figs. 8a & 8b. [return]
26. Wilson, 1979, p.23; Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.3; Wilson, 1986, pp.26, 28; 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.38; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.64; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, p.3. [return]
27. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
28. Borrini & Garlaschelli, 2018, p.2, Fig. 2b. [return]
29. "File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1568) The Blind Leading the Blind.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 29 March 2018. [return]

Posted: 13 August 2018. Updated: 16 October 2018.

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Date index 2011: The Shroud of Turin blog

The Shroud of Turin blog
DATE INDEX 2011
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the date index to my 2011 posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. The posts are listed in reverse date order (more recent uppermost). For further information on this date index series see the Main Date Index.

[Main index] [Previous: 2010] [Next: 2012]


2011
02-Dec-11: Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe

[Above (enlarge): ENEA's Hercules-L XeCl excimer laser[2]. The above is from my post of 02-Dec-11. My other posts on ENEA's excimer laser replicating the Shroud image's color and extremely superficial characteristics are: 06Jan12, 15Jun12, 23Jun15, 11Aug15, 19May16, 05Sept16, 05Feb17 & 08May18.]. The ENEA report found that the depth of the image on the cloth is only "one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter" (0.0002 mm) which is the thickness of the primary cell wall of a linen fiber:

"Furthermore, the color of the image resides on the outer surface of the fibrils that make up the threads of the cloth, and recent measurements of fragments of the Shroud show that the thickness of staining is extremely thin, around 200 nm = 200 billionths of a meter, or one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter, which corresponds to the thickness of the primary cell wall of the so-called single linen fiber"[3].
While the ENEA scientists did not use the word "supernatural," that is the only explanation of how a dead body generated the equivalent of "34 thousand billion watts" of light-energy to "reproduce the entire Shroud image":"
"However, ENEA scientists warn, `it should be noted that the total power of VUV [vacuum ultraviolet] radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts"[4]

14-Dec-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #9 The man has wounds and bloodstains matching the Gospels' description of the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus Christ
22-Nov-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #8 Bears the faint image, front and back, head to head, of a naked man
14-Nov-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #7 Kept in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Turin, Italy, since 1578
02-Nov-11: Earlier issues of the BSTS Newsletter now online
01-Nov-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #6 An old, yellowed, rectangular, linen sheet about 4.4 x 1.1 metres
28-Oct-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #5 What is the Shroud of Turin?
18-Oct-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #4 The Shroud's image is a photographic negative!
10-Oct-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus! #3 About me
08-Oct-11: Re: `your own reasons for believing why the Shroud is important to Christians'
05-Oct-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus! #2 Contents
04-Oct-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus! #1 Title page
25-Aug-11: Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud debunked in an Australian high school textbook!
07-Aug-11: Prof. Joel Bernstein's lecture, "The Shroud of Turin: What science can tell us" #1
19-Mar-11: Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear
30-Jan-11: Re: Why couldn't Joseph of Arimathea have taken the Shroud?
11-Jan-11: Re: John Calvin on the Shroud #2
05-Jan-11: Re: John Calvin on the Shroud #1


Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "ENEA FIS-ACC Excimer Laboratory Annual Report 2000-2001," National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Frascati, Italy, 3 July 2007. [return]
3. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
4. Tosatti, 2011. [return]

Posted: 12 August 2018. Updated: 20 August 2018.