© Stephen E. Jones[1]
This is the final part #5 of my obituary of Dr. Alan D. Whanger (1930-2017). Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. Previous parts in this series are part #1, part #2, part #3 and part #4. See also 20Apr17 and 10Dec15.
Introduction The image of the man on the Shroud includes under-
[Above (enlarge)[2]: Composite photograph of Dr Alan Whanger's three-dimensional superimposed positive and negative photographs of the Shroud face (left), compared with an x-ray image of a human skull (right)[3]. As can be seen, this part of the Shroudman's image contains teeth and skull bones that are beneath the man's skin, which are only seen in x-ray radiographs or other modern imaging techniques. This alone is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroudman's image is of Jesus at the moment of His resurrection (see below)!]
the-skin x-ray like images of his finger bones[4], hand bones[5], thumbs[6], teeth[7], skull[8], cheekbones[9], leg bones[10] and spine[11].
Fingers and hand bones In 1992 Whanger superimposed positive and negative photographic slides of the hand area of the Shroud[12]. He was aware of the controversy over why the man's fingers appear to be so long[13]. Whanger found that when the positive and negative photographs of the hand area were aligned one on top of the other, and then one of the photographs was moved slightly upward, it created a three-dimensional effect[14]. Whanger realized that he was seeing the skeletal structures of the hands and the wrist[15] and that the reason the fingers look too long is because the bones in the hand (metacarpals and carpals) were visible, as well as the bones in the fingers (phalanges)[16] (see below). Whanger, who was then a professor of 
[Above: Positive (upper-enlarge)[17] and negative (lower-enlarge)[18] photographs of the hand area of the Shroud. As can be seen, like the skull (above), the man's under-the-skin finger and hand bones are visible as in a modern x-ray!]
psychiatry at Duke University[19], photographed the three-dimens-ional image on the screen and showed it to the head of skeletal radiology at the university, who agreed that the photograph did indeed look like an x-ray of hands and wrist[20]. Whanger was evidently then unaware[21] that in 1982, Giles F. Carter (1930-2010), a professor of chemistry at Eastern Michigan University, and a specialist in x-ray fluorescence analysis[22], had proposed that parts of the Shroud man's image were the result of:
"... x-rays emanating from the bones of the man in the Shroud ... absorbed by elements (e.g., sodium, silicon, phosphorus, potassium, calcium) at the surface of the body, which would then fluoresce and emit secondary x-rays of relatively long wavelength"[23].
Skull Whanger next superimposed positive and negative photographs of the Shroudman's head, and again by slightly moving one of the photographs a three-dimensional effect emerged (see above left)[24].
[Above: Positive (upper-enlarge)[25] and negative (lower-enlarge)[26] photographs of the head of the man on the Shroud. As can be seen, the man's under-the-skin skull bones: forehead, eye sockets (supraorbital or brow ridge), cheekbones and teeth (see also below) are visible as in a modern x-ray!]
The under-the-skin bony structures of the orbits of the eyes became apparent, as well as the nasal and sinus cavity bones and and rows of teeth with their roots (see below)[27]!
Teeth As already mentioned (
above), under-the-skin x-ray like skull features discovered by Whanger included two rows of teeth with their roots[
28] (see
below)!
[Above (enlarge)[29]: Extract of a close-up positive photograph of the Shroudman's mouth area. As can be seen, under the skin of the man's lips are at least 4 pairs of upper and lower teeth with a bite line between them.]
The equivalent Shroud Scope negative photograph at maximum enlargement also shows upper and lower rows of under-the-skin teeth with a bite line between them [Above right (enlarge)[30].], but it is too small for a direct comparison.]
From his Polarized Image Overlay work on the sixth-century Christ Pantocrator icon at St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai [see 18Dec17], Whanger realised out these beneath-the-skin x-ray images of the Shroud man's teeth explained why the artist who painted that icon depicted Jesus' lips as chapped[31] (see below). Which is further
[Above (enlarge)[32]: Close-up of the lips of Jesus depicted in the Shroud-like sixth-century Christ Pantocrator icon at St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai. As can be seen the artist depicted Jesus' lips as chapped, which is inexplicable unless the artist saw the x-ray images of Jesus' teeth on the Image of Edessa/Shroud and interpreted them as chapped lips (since x-rays were unknown until 1891/1895).]
evidence that the Shroud existed in the sixth century [see "c.550"], as the Image of Edessa, doubled-in-four (tetradiplon) - seven centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud!
Thumbs It was John P. Jackson and Dr August Accetta who discovered the x-ray images of the man's left and possibly right thumbs flexed under the palms of the hands[33] (see below), but the Whangers agreed with it[34].
[Above: Positive (upper-enlarge)[35] and negative (lower-enlarge)[36] photographs of the hands of the Shroudman. As can be seen (pointed to by red arrows), at least one of the man's thumbs is visible, curved under the skin and bones of the left hand, again as in an x-ray!]
Spine and femur Whanger also did not discover, nor comment on, Giles Carter's discovery[37], confirmed by Accetta and Jackson[38], of x-ray images of the man's spinal column [see 20Apr17a] and his left femur [see 20Apr17b].
Anti-authenticist explanations Anti-authenticists had long claimed it as evidence against the Shroud's authenticity, that the man's fingers and hands were too long:
"The striking resemblance of the image of the man on the shroud to French Gothic art has not gone unnoticed by previous commentators. But none of all the shroud articles or books appearing in recent months has pointed out that the ... fingers on the right hand are unnaturally extended. Was Jesus deformed?"[39].
"And how shall we explain the strange anatomy of the figure on the Shroud? Again, a mere glance indicates that ... the hands and fingers [are] long and spidery"[40].
"In 1982, I was the first to point out that the image of Jesus on the Shroud had a number of physical abnormalities. Jesus' ... fingers were unnaturally thin and elongated ... Either Jesus was ... deformed, or the image of Jesus was characteristic of medieval Gothic art"[41].
But as far as I am aware, anti-authenticists have simply
ignored this x-ray evidence, which explains why Jesus' fingers and hands
appeared to be too long. Leading Shroud sceptic
Joe Nickell in his book, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin" (1987), does consider "X-rays" in the formation of the Shroudman's image:
"The two classes of radiation are electromagnetic and particle. The properties of the former vary with wavelength over a mind-boggling range from gamma rays and X-rays at the short end of the spectrum; through ultraviolet, visible, and infrared in the middle; and to microwaves and radio waves at the long end"[42].
But Nickell then rejects
all forms of radiation as an explanation of the image, despite one (Jackson's "
cloth collapse" theory) being the best explanation of the evidence, on the grounds that it "necessarily invokes the
supernatural":
"There is one last, desperate [sic] conceptual solution: Posit that, as in a laser, the radiation emitted from each element of body (and hair) surface is collimated (that is, emitted only in parallel directions, in this case vertical). Then an image would be formed, independent of distance, without the use of an array of pinholes. In effect, the body surface would be composed of millions of lasers aligned more or less vertically. In principle, the resultant image could be of much better quality than the half-centimeter resolution of the shroud image. The problem is that this conceptual solution necessarily invokes the supernatural"[43].
This is naturalistic (
nature is all there is - there is no supernatural)
invincible ignorance:
"There does remain, nonetheless, a cast of mind which seems peculiarly closed to evidence. When confronted with such a mind, one feels helpless, for no amount of evidence seems to be clinching. Frequently the facts are simply ignored or brushed aside as somehow deceptive, and the principles [naturalism] are reaffirmed in unshakable conviction. One seems confronted with what has been called `invincible ignorance'"[44].
where a
false naturalistic explanation is always preferred to a
true supernaturalistic explanation!
Jesus' resurrection As we saw above, chemistry professor Giles Carter proposed that the Shroudman's bones emitted high-energy x-rays, which caused elements near the surface of the body to fluoresce and produce secondary, low-energy x-rays, which projected over the short distance from the body to the cloth and created the image of those bones on the Shroud[45]. To the question:
"But how did a dead body wrapped in a burial cloth emit strong Xrays? Carter suggested three options. Perhaps the person buried in the Shroud had lived in a cave that had radioactive walls due to the effects of certain materials. Or maybe this person had eaten food that was grown in naturally radioactive soil. Or, according to Carter, `There is a possibility of the unknown, a supernatural cause, if in fact this is the burial shroud of Jesus Christ'[46]. Concerning the likelihood of the last option, Carter held that if the Shroud turned out to date from Jesus' time, this would `provide proof of the resurrection,' which would `make some atheists awfully mad'"[47].
Another pro-authenticist chemistry professor,
Alan D. Adler (1931-2000), dismissed Carter's x-ray theory as:
"... fine chemically, fine physically, yet bizarre biologically ... the man would have been so radioactive that he glowed in the dark. Not to mention he would have been dead long ago from the radioactivity"[48].
But the latter "radioactive" part of Adler's rejection only applies to Carter's first two options, which Carter himself rejected[
49].
Nickell confirmed that "corpses do not emit any of these radiations" including "X-rays":
"The two classes of radiation are electromagnetic and particle. The properties of the former vary with wavelength over a mind-boggling range from gamma rays and X-rays at the short end of the spectrum ... However, needless to say, corpses do not emit any of these radiations..."[50].
But the man on the Shroud
was a corpse (certified by medical examiners/pathologists
Robert Bucklin[
51],
Frederick Zugibe[
52] and
James Cameron[
53]), and his dead body
did emit x-rays (as we saw above).
Then given that: 1) "the odds [are conservatively] ... 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ" [11Nov16]; 2) Jesus' apostles and over 500 of His disciples saw and heard the Jesus they knew resurrected after His death (1Cor 15:3-8; Mt 28:16-20, etc); and 3) it is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus that the image of the man on the Shroud has no style (05Sep16); is non-directional (29Oct16); is superficial (11Nov16); a negative (22Dec16); is three-dimensional (05Feb17); there was no decomposition (14Mar17); contains X-ray images (20Apr17); its blood clots are intact (04Sep17) and the blood was before the image (05Nov17); the only viable explanation remaining is that the Man on the Shroud is Jesus and His body emitted x-rays at the instant of His resurrection[54]!
Conclusion In part #1 we saw that Dr Alan Whanger invented a technique he called "Polarized Image Overlay" in which he compared a Shroud-like icon, coin or other image with the Shroudman's image. This seems to have been a genuine achievement by Whanger, but it is unclear if anyone else has used that technique.
In part #2 we saw that the Whangers' "Points of Congruence (PC)" claims have major flaws, including: 1) it is subjective; 2) their `14 points of congruence in a court of law' argument is both unsupported and fallacious; 3) their assumption that more is better (e.g. 145 points of congruence is better than 14 Vignon markings) is fallacious. It would have been better if Whanger had identified and published a smaller number of more definite comparative photographs of claimed points of congruence between images (icons, coins, etc) and the Shroudman's image. 4) many of the Whangers' PC claims lack realism and some are self-evidently false.
We saw in part #3 the Whangers' application of their points of congruence argument to the coins over the Shroudman's eyes. While I agree that there are images of coins over the eyes of the man on the Shroud (see 10May13), it is not clear that Whanger added anything of significance to the original findings of Fr. Francis L. Filas (1915-85). In fact, according to pro-authenticist numismatist Mario Moroni (1933-2017) (with whom I agree) both Filas and Whanger misinterpreted which Pontius Pilate lepton it was that they based their findings on. This was a especially a problem for the Whangers because they claimed to have found 74 points of congruence using the wrong coin!
In part #4 we saw Alan Whanger's most original contribution to pro-authenticist Shroud studies, namely his discovery of the images of 28 species of Jerusalem plants on the Shroud. This helped confirm the pollen findings of Max Frei (1913-83). They also built on the initial approach by Paul Maloney (1936-2018) (unacknowledged) to Israel's leading botanist Prof. Avinoam Danin (1939–2015), who confirmed the Whangers' Jerusalem flower identifications and identified many of his own!
Lastly, in this part #5 of Dr Alan Whanger's obituary, we saw Whanger's most important contribution to Shroud pro-authenticist studies, namely his confirming the original proposal of Prof. Giles F. Carter (1930-2010), that the Shroudman's image contains x-rays of some of the man's bones and teeth! The importance of this is that it added to the proofs beyond reasonable doubt that the Man on the Shroud is Jesus and His image is a "a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection":
"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... its image ... becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection"[54]!
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. Prather, J., 2018, "Autoradiography," Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin, 22 July; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998a, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.117. [return]
3. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.116-117. [return]
4. Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp.425-446, 433; 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.29; Accetta, A.D., Lyons, K. & Jackson, J., 1999, "Nuclear Medicine and its Relevance to the Shroud Of Turin," in Walsh, B.J., ed., "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, 2000, pp.3-8, 3; 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.151; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.213. [return]
5. Carter, 1982, p.433; Whanger, 1998a, p.112; Whanger, A.D., 1998b, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," 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.184-189, 187; Wilson, 1998, p.29; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.38; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.241. [return]
6. Whanger, 1998b, p.187; Accetta, Lyons, & Jackson, 1999, p.3; Antonacci, 2000, p.214; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
7. Carter, 1982, p.433; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.117; Accetta, Lyons, & Jackson, 1999, p.3; Antonacci, 2000, p.214; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.37-38; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
8. Carter, 1982, p.433; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.117; Wilson, 1998, Antonacci, 2000, pp.213-214; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.38; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
9. Carter, 1982, p.433; Wilson, 1998, p.29; Accetta, Lyons, & Jackson, 1999, p.3. [return]
10. Accetta, Lyons, & Jackson, 1999, p.3; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
11. Carter, 1982, p.433; Antonacci, 2000, p.214. [return]
12. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.111-112; Whanger, 1998b, p.187. [return]
13. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.111-112. [return]
14. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.112, 115; Whanger, 1998b, p.187. [return]
15. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.112. [return]
16. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.112. [return]
17. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
18. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," (flipped horizontally), Sindonology.org. [return]
19. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.144. [return]
20. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.112-113; Whanger, 1998b, p.187. [return]
21. Whanger, 1998b, pp.184-185. [return]
22. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.131. [return]
23. Carter, 1982, pp.425, 433; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 42; Ruffin, 1999, p.151; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.74-75; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
24. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.116-117. [return]
25. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
26. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
27. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.117; Borkan, 1995, p.42; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38. [return]
28. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.117; Borkan, 1995, p.42; Accetta, Lyons, & Jackson, 1999, p.3; Antonacci, 2000, p.214; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38. [return]
29. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
30. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," (flipped horizontally), Sindonology.org. [return]
31. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.117. [return]
32. "Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)," Wikipedia, 12 September 2018. [return]
33. Accetta, Lyons, & Jackson, 1999, p.3; Antonacci, 2000, p.214; Oxley, 2010, p.24. [return]
34. Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M., 1994, "The Shroud of Turin - New Evidence," Shroud News, No 83, June, pp.3-5, 3. [return]
35. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," (flipped horizontally), Sindonology.org. [return]
36. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
37. Carter, 1982, p.433; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.131; Antonacci, 2000, p.214; Oxley, 2010, p.242. [return]
38. Accetta, et al., 1999, p.3; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
39. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, 44-45 (no longer online). [return]
40. Dutton, D., 1984, "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review, 23, pp.243-55. [return]
41. Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2. [return]
42. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.91. [return]
43. Nickell, 1987, pp.91-92. [return]
44. Fearnside, W.W. & Holther, W.B., 1959, "Fallacy the Counterfeit of Argument," Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 25th printing, p.113. [return]
45. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.131. [return]
46. Jackson, E., 1983, "Prof Thinks X-Rays Caused Shroud Image," Christian Herald, February, Al, 5, in Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.131. [return]
47.Ibid. [return]
48. Zurer, P., 1983, "Archaeological Chemistry," Chemical & Engineering News, 21 February, p.35, in Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.40-41. [return]
49. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.136. [return]
50. Nickell, 1987, p.91. [return]
51. Bucklin, R., 1970, "The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ," Medicine, Science and the Law, January; Bucklin, R., 1997, "An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud," Third International Scientific Symposium on the Shroud of Turin, Nice, France, 12 May; 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. [return]
52. Zugibe, F.T., 1988, "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into the Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon House: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.132-134; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, pp.213, 221. [return]
53. 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.58-59. [return]
54. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.251; Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
Posted: 16 September 2018. Updated: 2 March 2021.
