Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]
Adler, A #7
This is "Adler, A," part #7 of my new Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. For information about this series, see part #1 and part #2. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. Much of this is about Heller and STURP. When I get to "Heller, J" and "STURP" and also "McCrone, W" and "Jesus," I will transfer some of this to those entries and link to them from here.
[Index #1] [Previous: Acts of Thaddeus] #6] [Next: Allen, N #8]
Alan David Adler (1931-2000), was a Professor of Chemistry at
[Right (enlarge)[2]: Alan David Adler (5 October 1931-12 June 2000).]
Western Connecticut State College, now Western Connecticut State University, up to his retirement in 1992.
Adler was a renowned porphyrin chemist and because of his extensive porphyrin studies and encyclopedic knowledge, he was considered an authority on blood chemistry.
Dr. John H. Heller Before that, for seven years from 1967 to 1974, Adler was a research scientist at the then New England Institute, Ridgefield, Connecticut. There he was a colleague of the founder of the Institute, biophysicist Dr. John H. Heller (1921-95) [see future "Heller, J"].
John P. Jackson In 1978 Heller read an article about the Shroud in the journal Science by leading science journalist Barbara Culliton[3] and his curiosity was aroused by the phrase in it, "the physics of miracles"[4]. The article was about a group of scientists who were investigating the Shroud of Turin[5] (which was the nucleus of the Shroud of Turin Research Project - STURP) [see future "STURP"]. Heller wrote to John P. Jackson [see future "Jackson, J"] whom the article said was the leader of the group[6]. The article had mentioned that there was skepticism about the blood because preliminary tests showed that the blood stains on the Shroud fluoresce, but blood does not fluoresce[7]. In his letter to Jackson, Heller asked if the blood on the Shroud was an image of blood or actual blood, and if the latter "it should be very simple to determine"[8]. Jackson phoned Heller and clarified that the blood was tested in 1973 (by the Turin Commission) [see future "Turin Commission"] but unsuccessfully[9]. Heller said that the 1973 test must have been "extraordinarily inept" not to have detected blood if it was present[10]. Heller added that "members of the institute [New England Institute] staff had been working with blood porphyrins [see future "blood"] and had learned how to make them
[Left (enlarge)[11]: Diagram of a porphyrin ring containing an iron atom in a blood haemo-globin molecule.]
fluoresce, which was then measured with "micro-spectrophotometry"[12]. Heller does not explicitly say, but presumably this porphyrin fluorescence research was conducted by Adler.
Raymond N. Rogers Jackson asked Heller to contact Los Alamos National Laboratory chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005) [see future "Rogers, R"] which he did[13]. Rogers agreed that "[p]orphyrin fluorescence is an interesting approach"[14] to identify if the blood on the Shroud really is blood.
STURP When Heller reported back to Jackson on his talk with Rogers, Jackson invited Heller to a "Shroud team" meeting in Amston, Connecticut, over the Labor Day weekend [2-4 September, 1978][15]. Heller attended the meeting in Amston which turned out to include a "dry run"[16] of a planned 4 days of testing the Shroud in Turin from 9 to 12 October 1978[17],
[Right (enlarge): STURP photographer Barrie Schwortz' [see future "Schwortz, B"] copy of the "Operations Test Plan for Investigating the Shroud of Turin" from the "dry run" in Amston, Connecticut, on 3 and 4 September 1978[18].]
at the end of the 1978 Exposition of the Shroud from 26 September to 8 October, 1978[19].
Jackson informed the meeting that "a corporate entity in the state of Connecticut" had been created "called the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc., or STURP"[20]. After modifications to a secrecy agreement everyone signed and became members of STURP"[21]. But Heller was told he would not go to Turin, because his job, the determination of the presence or absence of blood on the samples the team would take from the Shroud, would begin when the specimens came back from Italy[22].
Blood porphyrins At the Amston meeting Heller told Rogers that at the New England Institute his colleagues had extracted the iron atoms out of the centre of blood porphyrin molecules, after which they fluoresced a specific ruby-red colour under ultraviolet light, and using that technique they could measure 100 nanograms (100 billionth of a gram) of blood if it was present[23].
Blood tape samples In Turin Ray Rogers and Rev. Robert Dinegar (1921-2005) applied a special $5000-per-roll sticky-tape supplied by 3M Corporation[25], 
[Left (enlarge): STURP's Rogers and Dinegar taking a sticky tape sample from the Shroud in 1978[24].]
using a special applicator designed at Los Alamos that measured applied pressure[26], took 32 sticky tape samples[27] of every feature (see below), according to a predetermined grid[28].
Walter S. McCrone But Rogers made the mistake of first loaning the 32 tapes from the Shroud to leading microscopist Walter McCrone (1916-2002)[30] [see future "McCrone, W"],
[Above (enlarge)[29]: Composite map of Shroud front (left) and back (right) locations of 32 sticky tape samples taken by STURP's Rogers and Dinegar in 1978.]
not realising that McCrone was an extreme anti-authenticist who would not accept that the Shroud was Jesus' even if its radiocarbon date was first century[31].
As an example of McCrone's capacity for self-delusion (or rather lying - see below), he claimed that half of STURP's samples were his and the other half were Rogers':
"Ray took the tapes back to Los Alamos and I collected them from him during the week of December 15, 1978 ... When I returned to Chicago with the tapes, I split them into two duplicate sets - one for Ray and one for me"[32].That McCrone was here lying is evident in that he kept and worked on all 32 tapes ("Careful study of each of these 32 tapes, micrometer by micrometer, over a period of months"[33]), damaging them all in the process[34].
McCrone initially refused to return STURP's tapes to Rogers but under threat of legal action by "STURP's lawyers"[35], he first returned to Rogers the most damaged half of the tapes[36]. And then after a visit to his Chicago laboratory by STURP's "Ray Rogers, John Jackson and Eric Jumper," McCrone returned to them the remaining "all slides, bits and pieces of those tape slides"[37]. Even then McCrone was lying because he kept back one Shroud "slide 3-CB," but afterwards he "was forced by threats of legal action to return even that tape"[38]. Later McCrone falsely claimed that he was "[not] very bright" and was "conned out of my set of tapes" by STURP[39]!
Heller's early tests Early in 1979, before the events above, at Rogers' request, Heller phoned McCrone several times for the return of STURP's tapes, but he was never available[40]. So Heller experimented with non-blood colourants which a medieval forger might have used on the Shroud, but these were all unsuccessful[41]. Eventually McCrone sent Heller four poor-quality tape microscope slides with his notes which indicated there was little or no blood on them[42]. Heller did succeed in identifying blood using porphyrin fluorescence, but the amount of `blood' on the tapes McCrone had sent him was too small (about 700 picograms where a picogram is 1 thousandth of a nanogram) [see above on a nanogram] that Heller could not prove it[43]. Heller called McCrone again and left a message, "requesting any other slides that had or might have blood on them" but McCrone's (lying and/or deluded) relayed answer via his receptionist, was "no"[44].
Enter Adler Then Heller thought of Adler:
"Then a colleague, Professor Alan Adler, popped into my mind. I had worked with Dr. Adler on various projects over the years. He would admit to being a physical chemist, thermodynamicist, and a porphyrin nut. He is a Renaissance man, with an encyclopedic knowledge of the physical and biological sciences, military history, ecology, and many other fields. I wondered whether he would be interested ... "[45].Adler was interested! He agreed with Heller that it was blood on a tape returned by McCrone, and he improved on some of Heller's experiments, but still the amounts were too small to prove that they were blood[46].
STURP workshop, Santa Barbara CA, March 1979 STURP's first post-Turin workshop intervened[47]. It was held at the Brooks Institute of Photography, Santa Barbara, California, on the weekend of 24-25 March 1979[48]. Topics included:
• Roger Morris, a physicist from Los Alamos, presented a paper on x-ray fluorescence, in which he reported the Shroud was covered in calcium, and to a lesser extent strontium and iron[49]. Heller "wondered where ... it could have come from"[50]. but Jesus was buried in a limestone (calcium carbonate) tomb and Jerusalem limestone has both strontium and iron in it [see 22Mar13 & 27Dec18]! If the Shroud image had been painted, x-ray fluorescence could identify any of the inorganic pigments made up of such elements as arsenic, cobalt, and mercury, available in the Middle Ages, but it didn't[51]. The iron was also spread uniformly over the Shroud, except in the bloodstains where there was a significantly higher incidence of it, which is evidence that the bloodstains are blood, because blood contains iron atoms in its heme porphyrins[52] (see above).
• Don Lynn (1932-2000)] and Jean Lorre (1945-2005), both of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, using a microdensitometer and a computer showed that the Shroud front and back "images were directionless and therefore could not have been painted by human hand"[53] [see 29Oct16].
• John Jackson presented mathematical models which demonstrated 
[Above enlarge: "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape"[54].]
that the Shroud image can be described by a "single global-mapping function"[55]. This meant that the Shroud had overlain a real human body[56]. "Along with the nondirectional quality of the images [above], the results of the X-ray fluorescence [above], and Rogers' evaluation":
"Ray Rogers was an eminent expert in thermal effects. His initial interest in the Shroud was fanned by the observation that it had been through a fire in 1532, at which time parts of the silver box containing the cloth had melted. Molten metal had burned through the layers of folded material, intersecting areas of `blood' and body image, and leaving ugly holes and scorched areas down both sides of the linen. Rogers realized that this mischance had created a first-rate thermal experiment ... the melting point of silver made during the Middle Ages ... [was] about 900°C. He calculated that the temperature within the box had risen to nearly 200°C, before the box was doused with water ... He realized that if the blood and body had been created by an artist using any organic pigment — or even an inorganic pigment in an organic vehicle — the heat would have produced a significant change in color in portions of the images ... However, the photographs of the Shroud, both in black and white and in color, showed no effect whatsoever"[57]"this significantly reduced the possibility that the Shroud was a painting"[58] (to put it mildly)!
• Roger Gilbert presented his reflectance spectroscopy measurements but Heller admitted there "was far too much information" for him "to digest at one sitting," although he did note that"the lightest scorch area [from the 1532 fire] was similar to the color of the images of the man, but he had "had no idea" what this meant[59]. See 22Dec11 where the closest match to the Shroudman's image on linen was produced by "extremely brief pulses of ultraviolet light" from a high-frequency excimer laser. Heller did not mention the Gilbert's discovery that there were almost invisible traces of dirt on the man's feet, which turned out to be a very close match to Jerusalem limestone dust! [see 22Mar13 & 27Dec18].
• Heller's presentation was brief because it was only of two microscope slides, one of "seven microfibers with something on them that looked like blood" on the poor-quality tape (out of STURP'S 32) returned by McCrone [above] and one of old Spanish linen with his own blood[60].
• McCrone, in his presentation, claimed that from his examination of only "some of the Shroud fibers" that "the body images had been made by red iron-oxide earth pigments"[61]. Although
[Right: "Dr. Walter C. McCrone, Jr."[62].]
McCrone was a particle expert who had written a five-volume "Particle Atlas," nevertheless optical physicist Sam Pellicori [below[63].] was thinking:
"I don't believe this. I've measured the spectrum of iron oxide dozens of times. The color's totally wrong for what he's claiming. Based on spectrophotometry and the X-ray fluores-cence findings, there's no way that the Shroud images are composed of iron oxide. I may be young and naive, and McCrone may be the master, but he's wrong"[64]Jackson was thinking that McCrone's analysis was contradicted by the Gilberts' reflectance curves[65]. McCrone projected slides on the screen of red dots on Shroud fibres which he claimed were "red iron earth pigments"[66]. McCrone concluded by stating that he was 90 percent sure that the Shroud was a painting - or perhaps there may have been a very faint pre-existing image that was later touched up by an artist using red iron-oxide earth pigments"[67].
The question and answer session that followed McCrone's presentation went like this:
"`Dr. McCrone, how do you know those red dots are iron oxide?’And with that, McCrone left the meeting[69].
`Experience.’
`Did you test them chemically?’
`I don't have to. Experience. Besides, it's birefringent.’
`How do you explain the X-ray fluorescence studies and the Gilberts' curves?’
`They must be wrong.’
`How does your iron-oxide paint jibe with the negative image and the 3-D information?’
`Oh, any competent artist could have done that.’
`Do you mean that you just looked through your microscope and, without doing specific tests for iron oxide, can proclaim it a painting?’
`Yes.’"[68].
Heller's later test After the Santa Barbara meeting, Heller who had been a Professor of Internal Medicine at Yale University[70], asked a former colleague at Yale, molecular biology professor George M. McCorkle (1921-93), for access to a Yale microspectrophotometer to test whether the 700 picogram sample [above] was blood[71]. McCorkle arranged for Heller to use the microspectrophotometer in the department of Yale cell biology professor, Joseph G. Gall (1928-)[72]. If the 700 picogram red spot was blood it would absorb light at 410 nanometres[73]. As Heller described the test:
"We began our readings of the biltong spot at 700 nanometers. I wrote in the dark. After each reading, we moved down 10 nanometers on the scale. There were some increases and decreases, but until these were plotted, there would be no way of knowing which part of the fingerprint of what molecule it might be. When we reached 450 nanometers, my pulse rate began to go up. Very unscientific. At 430 nanometers, we shortened the gap between readings to 5 nanometers. At 425, the peak was still climbing. At 420 and 415, it still was rising. The crucial reading was 410. If the graph peaked here and began to fall away, we were on to something big. If, however, it continued to rise, the experiment had fallen through and was useless. At 405, there seemed to be a flattening-out. My pulse was racing. `Calm down,' I said to myself. `This is an experiment nothing more, nothing less. The data are the data!' When we hit 400, the peak began to fall. At 395 — more so. At 390, it was sharply down. `Oh, my God,' I said aloud, `it really is blood!' The hair stood up on the nape of my neck. Exhilaration shot through me. This was blood, not iron oxide. I let out my breath with a huge whoosh, and Gall turned to me and smiled. `I guess we did it, John'"[74].Heller returned to the New England Institute and showed the microspectrophotometer curve he had plotted to Adler, who immediately recognised it as the spectrum of "hemoglobin ... the acid methemoglobin form ... denatured and very old"[75]. Heller and Adler then phoned "two other hemoglobin hotshots" including the New England Institute's Dr. Bruce Cameron (1934-2018) and they both confirmed that the spectrum plotted was that of "old acid methemoglobin"[76]. The 700 picogram red spot on the Shroud fibres attached to the STURP tape that McCrone had returned was blood!
STURP workshop, Los Alamos NM, October 1979 STURP held its second post-Turin workshop at Los Alamos in October 1979[77]. Heller could not attend it but he was sent an audiotape of the proceedings[78]. McCrone had claimed that the iron oxide which comprised the Shroud image was extremely finely ground, less than one micron in size, and had not existed until the 1800s when it was known as "jeweler's rouge"[79]. Furthermore, McCrone claimed that someone had after 1800 "touched up" the Shroud image with a gelatin based iron oxide paint[80]. Jackson asked Heller what he thought of these claims of McCrone[81]. Heller replied that sub-micron particles of iron had existed "since the dawn of time" from micrometeorites, erosion and volcanic eruptions, and that the Shroud had been held "under lock and key" since it had arrived in Turin ~400 years ago[82]. Heller could 
[Right (enlarge)[83]: Close-up of the `ground-zero' burn where a drop of molten silver at about 900°C first contacted the Shroud and its image [see 20Jan18]. The scourge marks show where the body image is, but there is no change to the colour of the image (the darker colour is scorching near where the Shroud had caught fire - the two missing `triangles'), as there would be if the image was comprised of iron oxide suspended in gelatin, as McCrone claimed.]
have added Ray Roger's point above, that if the Shroud image was "an inorganic pigment [iron oxide] in an organic vehicle" [gelatin], it would have changed colour in the intense heat of the 1532 fire, but it didn't.
STURP conference, Colorado Springs, January 1980 On 21-22 January 1980, STURP members, including Heller and Adler, met at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs[84]. The purpose of the meeting was to better understand the chemistry of the Shroud[85]. The original dates had been inconvenient to McCrone, so the members all changed their plans to accommodate him, but then at the last minute McCrone sent a message that he wasn't coming[86]! The October 1979 Los Alamos meeting was the last STURP meeting McCrone attended, even though he was invited to all of them[87]. Jackson informed Heller and Adler that McCrone had returned STURP's tape slides[88] [see above]!
Heller looked through a microscope at a slide with body image fibres on it and saw "microacres of what looks like blood"[89]. They decided to first test McCrone's assertion that gelatin, a protein, was present in the image. McCrone had used a general test for protein, Amido Black, but that was a poor choice as it is not specific and reacts with cellulose of which the Shroud's flax fibres are comprised[90]. Adler used a test for protein that was far more sensitive than the Amido Black test - the Biuret-Lowry and found no reaction[91]. Next Adler carried out a fluorescence test for porphyrin and the distinctive ruby-red colour of blood porphyrin could be clearly seen, not only under ultraviolet light, but even with the naked eye[92]! The blood was indeed blood and the image did not contain gelatin[93]! Adler and Heller then placed further "red dots" on both image and non-image fibrils under the microscope and when hydrazine was added to dissolve any iron they turned the typical hemochromogen colour, upon which Adler declared:
"This, lady and gentlemen, is not iron oxide; it is blood!"[94]!Heller concluded these January 1980 Colorado Springs tests with:
"For the next few days, repeated tests for protein in image fibers were negative. The red particles dissolved in hydrazine. There was, of course, protein in the bloodstain areas but not in the body image areas. Other tests were done, but by now we had enough unequivocal data to serve as a solid base for a preliminary conclusion that the images were not gelatin and iron oxide and that the blood was in fact blood. We had not ruled out unconventional colors and other methods of image making, but McCrone's hypothesis was unlikely"[95]!STURP final meeting, New London CT, January 1980 To cut this already long story short (it will be covered in future "Heller, J", "McCrone, W" and "STURP" entries), STURP held its final meeting, open to the public, in the main auditorium of Connecticut College in New London, CT[96]. McCrone was again invited to take part but again he declined[97]. McCrone's `body language' shows that deep down he knew that he was wrong!
After the presentations there was a press conference during which Adler was asked how he could answer McCrone's claim that there was no blood, but merely a mixture of red ochre and vermilion[98]. Adler displayed on the screen table 5 from their 1981 paper, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin"[99]:
- High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence
- Indicative reflection spectra
- Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra
- Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence
- Positive hemochromogen tests
- Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests
- Positive detection of bile pigments
- Positive demonstration of protein
- Positive indication of albumin
- Protease tests, leaving no residue
- Positive immunological test for human albumin
- Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls
- Forensic judgment of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks"[100].
"That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!'"[101].Science cannot prove that the Shroud is Jesus'? Heller continued:
"Many people in the audience and in the press asked, in more ways than I thought were possible, whether the scientific evidence indicated that the Shroud was the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. We thought we had answered this question as many times as it was asked. Finally, Ray Rogers took the floor. `In science, you're entitled to any hypothesis you choose, including the one that the Shroud was made by elves from the Black Forest. But if you don't have a test to examine that hypothesis, it's not worth anything. We do not have a test for Jesus Christ. So we can't hypothesize or test for that question'"[102].Elsewhere Adler similarly claimed:
"There exists no scientifically acceptable experiment that can establish the identity of the man whose image appears on the Shroud of Turin; i.e., there is no experimental test for `Christness'. Hence all the scientific experimentation that one can devise can only support the consistency of a historical identification or authentication of the cloth as Christ's burial shroud, but not `prove' it. However, a single experiment can be seen to be capable of disauthenticating such an identification"[103].But this is true, only if by "science" is meant the experimental, `hard' sciences, physics and chemistry. Then of course, there is no physics or chemistry, experimental, test of Jesus (or of any historical person)! But physics and chemistry are not the whole of science.
There is a science which identifies individual persons beyond reasonable doubt, and effectively sends hundreds, if not thousands, of them to prison every day, namely forensic science. And forensic science identifies individual persons by probability:
"Forensic statistics is the application of probability models and statistical techniques to scientific evidence, such as DNA evidence, and the law ... This ratio of probabilities is then used by juries or judges to draw inferences or conclusions and decide legal matters"[104].STURP member Ken Stevenson and Christian philosopher Gary Habermas in their 1981 book, "Verdict on the Shroud," assigned conservative probabilities [in square brackets] to "eight irregularities [which] were present in Jesus' death and burial" which are "also present in the death and burial of the man of the Shroud"[105] [see future "Jesus"]:
"1 ... Jesus' scourging and other mistreatment at the hands of his executioners" [1/2];Far from having "vastly overstated the case for the Shroud's identification with Jesus," as claimed by the mathematically challenged[107], "mere arts graduate"[108], Ian Wilson, leading Shroud sceptics Steven Schafersman and Joe Nickell "agree with" Stevenson and Habermas' "odds [of] 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ":
"2. ... Jesus was crowned with thorns ... to mock his claims to be ... the `ruler' [King] of the Jews" [1/400];
"3. Many crucifixion victims were tied to their crosses with ropes" ... Jesus ... [was] nailed" [1/2];
"4. The ... Romans commonly broke the legs of crucified persons in order to hasten their death ... Jesus['] ... legs were not broken"[1/3];
"5. To insure that Jesus was dead, a soldier stabbed him in the side, and blood and water flowed from the wound" [1/27];
"6. Since most crucified victims were criminals, slaves, and rebels, few were given individual burials in a fine linen shroud ... [as] Jesus was"[1/8];
"7. ... Jesus had to be buried hastily in order to be placed in the tomb before the Sabbath"[1/8];
"8. ... Jesus' body did not undergo corruption (Acts 2:22-32) "[1/10] ... multiplying these [independent] probabilities" [1/2 * 1/400 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 1/27 * 1/8 * 1/8 * 1/10 = 1/82,944,000 ], we have 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus"[106].
"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[109] and Stevenson and Habermas[110] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[111]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus'[112]."Adler's voluminous writings about the Shroud The above has been mainly about Adler's crucial role in proving that the bloodstains on the Shroud really are blood. But Adler wrote much more about the Shroud that can be covered here. Fortunately, the late Dorothy Crispino (1916-2014) collected Adler's voluminous writings about the Shroud and published them in a book, "The Orphaned Manuscript" (2002), the papers in which are online as the last, Special issue of Crispino's Shroud Spectrum International.
Adler's `larger than life' character Adler was evidently a `larger than life' character. Heller described him as "somewhat overwhelming to strangers ... exuberant and unflappable, a compulsive talker ... [with] the subtlety of a tank":
"When Adler and I arrived at the motel in Colorado Springs, Adler had to be introduced to the team'. Al seems somewhat overwhelming to strangers. In the fall he lets all his hair from the neck up grow wildly. In the spring he shaves off everything except his eyebrows. I think I remember him with a tie once - at a funeral. His shirt often - and his undershirt always - has blazoned on it a huge chemical structure of the basic porphyrin molecule. He is exuberant and unflappable, a compulsive talker who has the disconcerting habit of declaiming even when he is actually listening. He has the subtlety of a tank, but he is nonetheless extremely kind and will make great personal sacrifices to help people in trouble"[113].Ian Wilson remembered Adler as:
"A man so full of life and zest and argument that those of us who knew him well can perhaps be forgiven for our failing to give his mortality a second thought. ... Throughout the last two decades Adler has been a regular contributor to both US and international Shroud conferences, his good humour, ebullience, loquacity and above all, consummate scientific knowledge serving always to ensure that he stood out from the rest"[114].Rex Morgan recalled Adler at a symposium, giving "an emphatic and convincing demonstration of his incisive mind ... without notes and prowling amongst his audience as he spoke":
"Dr Alan Adler one of the handful of top Shroud experts from America presented Concerning the Side Strip on the Shroud of Turin. In his inimitable and totally engaging style, without notes and prowling amongst his audience as he spoke, Adler gave an emphatic and convincing demonstration of his incisive mind. He traced in detail his reasons for proposing that the sidestrip is in fact part of the cloth itself and the apparent seam is a tuck through which a rope or pole had passed to aid suspension of the cloth for display"[115].Albeit being wrong that the sidestrip is not separate from the main body of the Shroud!
Adler not a Christian? Adler evidently was not a Christian. He was "Jewish-born"[116], but I am not aware that he was observant of the Jewish religion. Adler dismissed as "bizarre" fellow chemistry professor Giles Carter (1930-2010)'s theory that the man on the Shroud's hand and finger bones and teeth are xray images caused by Jesus' resurrection[117]. In fact a search through Adler's writings reveals that the word "resurrection" does not even occur! So tragically, Adler appears to have been another leading Shroud pro-authenticist who was "not far from the kingdom of God" (Mk 12:34).
Continued in the next part #8 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. Crispino, D., "Foreword," 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.v-ix, ix. [return]
3. Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, 236. [return]
4. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.5. [return]
5. Heller, 1983, p.5. [return]
6. Heller, 1983, p.12. [return]
7. Culliton, 1978, p.237. [return]
8. Heller, 1983, p.12. [return]
9. Ibid. [return]
10. Heller, 1983, pp.12-13. [return]
11. Stewart, C, 2019, "Introduction An average adult has 5 L of blood Blood Red blood cells." [return]
12. Heller, 1983, p.13. [return]
13. Heller, 1983, p.14. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Heller, 1983, pp.74-75. [return]
17. STURP, 1978, "Operations Test Plan for Investigating the Shroud of Turin by Electromagnetic Radiation at Various Wavelengths," The Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc., pp.1-61, 2. [return]
18. STURP, 1978, "Operations Test Plan," p.1. [return]
19. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.303-304. [return]
20. Heller, 1983, p.76. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
22. Heller, 1983, p.83. [return]
23. Heller, 1983, p.88. [return]
24. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.21. [return]
25. Heller, 1983, pp.86, 116. [return]
26. Heller, 1983, p.87. [return]
27. Stevenson K.E. & Habermas G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.81-82; 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.11; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.54; Wilson, 1998, p.78; McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.78; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.63, 68; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.58. [return]
28. Heller, 1983, p.117; Scavone, 1989, p.54; Wilson, 1998, p.78; Wilson, 2010, pp.58-59. [return]
29. STURP, 1978, "Operations Test Plan," pp.14 & 15. [return]
30. Heller, 1983, pp.121-122. [return]
31. McCrone, 1999, p.141. [return]
32. McCrone, 1999, p.78. [return]
33. McCrone, 1999, p.140. [return]
34. Rogers, 2008, pp.23-24. [return]
35. McCrone, 1999, p.124. [return]
36. McCrone, 1999, pp.123-124. [return]
37. McCrone, 1999, p.124. [return]
38. Ibid. [return]
39. Ibid. [return]
40. Heller, 1999, pp.122-123. [return]
41. Heller, 1999, pp.123-124. [return]
42. Heller, 1999, pp.124-125. [return]
43. Heller, 1999, pp.126-127. [return]
44. Heller, 1983, p.132. [return]
45. Heller, 1983, pp.132-133. [return]
46. Heller, 1983, pp.133-134. [return]
47. Heller, 1983, p.134. [return]
48. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.45. [return]
49. Heller, 1983, p.136. [return]
50. Ibid. [return]
51. Ibid. [return]
52. Ibid. [return]
53. Heller, 1983, pp.137-138 [return]
54. Jackson, et. al, 1984, "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape," Applied Optics, Vol. 23, No. 14, pp. 2244-2270. [return]
55. Heller, 1983, p.138 [return]
56. Ibid. [return]
57. Heller, 1983, pp.6-7 [return]
58. Heller, 1983, p.138. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
61. Heller, 1983, p.139. [return]
62. "World-renowned Chicago scientist dies at 86: Walter C. McCrone, Jr.," Southwestern Association of Forensic Scientists (SWAFS), 11 October 2015. [return]
63. "Samuel Pellicori, Coating Material News," Materion Corporation, 2019. [return]
64. Heller, 1983, pp.139-140. [return]
65. Heller, 1983, p.140. [return]
66. Ibid. [return]
67. Ibid. [return]
68. Heller, 1983, pp.140-141. [return]
69. Heller, 1983, p.141. [return]
70. Scavone, 1989, p.57; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.47; Wilson, 1998, p.80;. [return]
71. Heller, 1983, p.143. [return]
72. Heller, 1983, pp.143-144. [return]
73. Heller, 1983, p.144. [return]
74. Heller, 1983, pp.145-146. [return]
75. Heller, 1983, pp.146-147. [return]
76. Heller, 1983, p.147. [return]
77. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.173, n.27. [return]
78. Heller, 1983, p.148. [return]
79. Heller, 1983, p.148. [return]
80. Ibid. [return]
81. Heller, 1983, pp.148-149. [return]
82. Heller, 1983, p.149. [return]
83. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal," (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
84. Heller, 1983, p.153; Rogers, 2008, p.36. [return]
85. Heller, 1983, p.153. [return]
86. Heller, 1983, p.154. [return]
87. Heller, 1983, p.141; 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.92; Guerrera, 2001, p.69. [return]
88. Heller, 1983, p.156. [return]
89. Ibid. [return]
90. Heller, 1983, pp.158-159; Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, p.47; Scavone, 1989, p.62; Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.50; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.215; Guerrera, 2001, p.69. [return]
91. Heller, 1983, pp.159-160. [return]
92. Heller, 1983, p.160. [return]
93. Heller, 1983, pp.160-161. [return]
95. Heller, 1983, p.165. [return]
96. Heller, 1983, pp.213-214. [return]
97. Heller, 1983, p.214. [return]
98. Heller, 1983, p.215. [return]
99. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, p.52. [return]
100. Heller, 1983, pp.215-216. [return]
113. Heller, 1983, p.216. [return]
102. Ibid. [return]
103. Adler, A.D., 1991, "Conservation and Preservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.67-71, 67. [return]
104. "Forensic statistics," Wikipedia, 8 November 2018. [return]
105. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.127-128. [return]
106. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.126-127. [return]
107. Wilson, I., 2001, "Letters to the Editor," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 54, November, pp.66-67, 67. [return]
108. Wilson, I., 1988, "The Carbon Dating Results: Is This Now the End?," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.2-10, 4. [return]
109. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
110. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.121-129. [return]
111. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
112. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, 42; in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
113. Heller, 1983, p.154. [return]
114. Wilson, I., 2000, "Obituaries: Dr Alan Adler," BSTS Newsletter, No. 51, June. [return]
116. Wilson, 1998, p.80; Ruffin, 1999, p.96; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.105. [return]
117. Zurer, P., 1983, "Archaeological Chemistry," Chemical & Engineering News, 21 February, p.35, in Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.40-41; Ruffin, 1999, p.151; Guerrera, 2001, pp.74-75. [return]
Posted 21 April 2019. Updated 30 April 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment