[Previous: May-June 2021] [Next: January-April 2022]
This is the July-December 2021 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I will try to catch up over the coming months. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. The articles' words are bold to distinguish them from mine. A Google search of "Shroud Turin" (without the quotes) for those months found only one article worth commenting on!
X-ray dating of Shroud sample I received an email today (12 April 2022, Western Australian time) from Joe Marino, which began:
*New Peer-Reviewed (Open-Access) paper: "X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud's Linen Sample" by Liberato De Caro, et al., Heritage 2022, 5(2), 860-870; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5020047
*Abstract: "On a sample of the Turin Shroud (TS), we applied a new method for dating ancient linen threads by inspecting their structural degradation by means of Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS). The X-ray dating method was applied to a sample of the TS consisting of a thread taken in proximity of the 1988/radiocarbon area (corner of the TS corresponding to the feet area of the frontal image, near the so-called Raes sample). The size of the linen sample was about 0.5 mm × 1 mm. We obtained one-dimensional integrated WAXS data profiles for the TS sample, which were fully compatible with the analogous measurements obtained on a linen sample whose dating, according to historical records, is 55–74 AD, Siege of Masada (Israel). The degree of natural aging of the cellulose that constitutes the linen of the investigated sample, obtained by X-ray analysis, showed that the TS fabric is much older than the seven centuries proposed by the 1988 radiocarbon dating. The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe. To make the present result compatible with that of the 1988 radiocarbon test, the TS should have been conserved during its hypothetical seven centuries of life at a secular room temperature very close to the maximum values registered on the earth."*11 pages* https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47
Coincidentally this new method of dating the Shroud was done by a team led by Italian engineering professor, Giulio Fanti, whose other three methods of dating the Shroud are mentioned below. Wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS) is an established process "commonly used to determine a range of information about crystalline materials" (Wikipedia). But this is the first time it has been used to date materials (ResearchGate). No doubt there will be further news articles discussing this, and I will comment on this and those in my next January-April 2022 Shroud of Turin News.
My news. • My book. I am making progress writing my book. I now
[Left (enlarge): The planned cover of my book.]
have a 21-chapter dot-point outline of the book in Gmail on my phone and almost every day I add to it. Because my problem is I get too quickly into details, my plan is to: 1) Write first a dot-point outline of the book `off the top of my head' on my phone; 2) When the outline is finished, write one paragraph, `off the top of my head' under each outline heading; 3) Write the book manuscript on a word-processor with references; and 4) Either self-publish or have published my book in 2025, to coincide with the next public exposition of the Shroud (which I hope to go to Turin to see).
• My domain. New direct .au domain names became available for Australians on Thursday 24 March 22 and I have registered shroudofturin.au and turinshroud.au! I am leaning towards having shroudofturin.au hosted as my website. As time permits, I will then upload to it PDFs of my original BSTS Newsletter Nos 1-42, Shroud Spectrum International and Shroud News, which I scanned for Barrie Schwortz' Shroud.com. All will have the original page numbers. I will also upload to my website my HTML copies of all my posts to this my blog. I might also upload the scanned text of my Shroud books and articles. And finally, if I self-publish my book, it will be able to be purchased from my website. At first my website will be written in plain HTML, but it will have to be professionally written if I sell my book through it.
News:
"The Shroud From Outer Banks Is Actually Kinda Real," Bustle, 4 August 2021, Gretchen Smail ... Though both the Royal Merchant gold and the cross are fictional, it's likely that Outer Banks based the shroud on a real relic called The Shroud of Turin. Depending on who you ask, The Shroud of Turin (called La Sindone in Italy) is either an actual Christian artifact or a very clever medieval forgery. This is what I call the "Central Dilemma of the Shroud" [see 19Oct12 & 18Jul20], that either the Shroud is a work of human art; or it is the burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the imprint of His dead body; there is no third alternative. Writer John Evangelist Walsh (1927-2015) [Right (enlarge)[2].] stated the dilemma in his 1963 book "The Shroud":
"Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground"[3].It's a 14-foot, yellowed linen cloth that appears to bear an image of a crucified man. The Shroud doesn't merely "appear" to, it does bear an image of a crucified man, whether real or forged! Some believe it's the robe that Jesus Christ was buried in, while others think it's just a religious icon that has manifested the image of Jesus on its surface. This "some" and "others" gives the impression that views on the Shroud are equally for and against by those who have studied it thoroughly. But as the agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow (who accepts that the Shroud is Jesus', but not that He rose from the dead), pointed out, "the overwhelming majority of those who consider the matter carefully ... conclude that the Shroud might very well be ... the winding sheet of Jesus":
"`Too good to be true' - that is a regular response to the Shroud of Turin. Without even looking at it, most people make a rough calculation (based on all sorts of hidden assumptions) that it is plainly incredible, not even worth considering. The doubts creep in only when and if - a rare event they start studying the cloth. Surprisingly, perhaps, the overwhelming majority of those who consider the matter carefully (including atheists, agnostics and non-Catholic Christians with a healthy disregard for religious relics) conclude that the Shroud might very well be what it purports to be: the winding sheet of Jesus"[4].The first mentions of the Shroud of Turin appeared in France during the 1350s[sic]. This is false. As I have previously pointed out [see 24May20, 21Jun20, 03Mar21 & 13Jul21], that the first undisputed appearance of the Shroud was at Lirey, France in c.1355, meaning that anti-authenticists don't dispute it, is not the same as "the first mentions of the Shroud of Turin [having] appeared." Because in 1201, Nicholas Mesarites, the overseer of the Byzantine Empire's relic collection in Constantinople's Pharos Chapel wrote that in the collection was "The funerary sheets [sindones] of Christ [which] wrapped the un-outlined, dead, naked ... body ... after the Passion":
"... in Constantinople ... the Pharos Chapel ... housed the magnificent collection of relics owned by the Byzantine emperors. In 1201 the Overseer of the collection, Nicholas Mesarites, delivered a speech in which he described the Sindon [Shroud] in some detail: `The funerary sheets [sindones][5]. of Christ: they are of cheap and easy-to-find material, still smell of myrrh, and defy destruction, because they wrapped the un-outlined, dead, naked and embalmed [body] after the Passion. ... First, Christ's body is referred to as naked. This is significant, as in this period the dead Christ was almost invariably conceived as wearing a loincloth ... The novel idea that Christ was naked when wrapped in his winding sheet could have been inferred from the Shroud. Secondly, the adjective aperilepton, meaning literally `un-outlined', is a word that is obviously applicable to the blurry, un-outlined Shroud-image. ... What better way of describing the figure seen in the Shroud?"[6].This is objective, historical evidence that the Shroud existed in Constantinople in 1201, over a century and a half (154 years) before it was exhibited at Lirey in c. 1355! And 59 years before the earliest possible radiocarbon date of 1260!
Per History.com, a French knight named Geoffroi de Charny allegedly presented it to the dean of the church in Lirey, France as Jesus Christ's burial robe. Presumably this is in the article: "The Shroud of Turin: 7 Intriguing Facts - HISTORY" but on clicking it I get a message that it isn't available in my area (Western Australia)! But there is no record of how Charny got his hands on the shroud or why it would be in France when Jesus was likely buried outside of Jerusalem. This also is false! There are records that Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234), a leader of the Fourth Crusade[7], looted the Shroud in the 1204 Sack of Constantinople[8] and took it to Athens[9]. Othon then sent the Shroud to his father Pons de la Roche (1145–95)[10] at his chateau at Ray-sur-Saône in Bergundy[11], in which there is a wooden chest (see below) of which
[Left (enlarge): Wooden chest in Ray-sur-Saône chateau, which it is claimed to be that in which Othon de la Roche brought the Shroud from Constantinople[12].]
it is claimed to be that in which the Shroud was brought by Othon from Constantinople[13]. Pons in turn gave the Shroud for safekeeping to the Archbishop of Besançon, Amedee de Tramelay (r. 1197–1220)[14], who placed it in Besançon's St-Etienne's (Stephen's) Cathedral[15]. After Othon's death in 1234, the Shroud was passed down through his descendants, some of whom were de Vergys and/or bishops of Besançon[16]. Besançon was within the Holy Roman Empire but the Shroud was owned by the French de Vergy descendants of Othon de la Roche, who feared it would be lost to France[17]. When St-Etienne's Cathedral was struck by lightning in 1349 and destroyed by the ensuing fire[19], the Shroud had already been secretly taken in 1343 to the King of France, Philip VI (r. 1293-1350)[20], and had been replaced with the painted "Besançon `shroud'"[21]. Philip
[Right (original)[22]: Extract from a 1634 copy of the Besançon `shroud', which was destroyed in the French Revolution (1789-99)[23]. It may have been the "cunningly painted" `shroud' that Bishop d'Arcis (see below) had confused with the real Shroud[24].]
in turn gifted the Shroud to Geoffroi I de Charny[25] on the condition that he marry Jeanne de Vergy (c. 1332-1428), a direct descendant of Othon de la Roche[26], which he did in 1346 when she reached the then marriageable age of 14[27]. The ~32 years difference in their ages (Geoffroi was ~46) shows that this was no ordinary marriage!
Per a 1981 New York Times article, there were numerous claims of religious relics during the Middle Ages in Europe. Presumably this was, "Opinion: The Shroud of Turin.," New York Times 4 December, 1981. As a result, the authenticity of the shroud has been debated for decades, starting from the moment it was discovered. This falsely begs the question that the Shroud was "discovered" in "about 1350." See above that what can only be the Shroud was in Constantinope in 1201 (for starters). In 1357, the Bishop of Troyes, France Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377–1395). proclaimed it was a forgery, with his successors saying he believed the cloth "had been cunningly painted" and was more "a work of human skill" rather than a miraculous artifact. Presumably she means one of d'Arcis' predecessors, Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370). But this was mere hearsay by d'Arcis in his 1389 Memorandum. There is no evidence that Bishop de Poitiers had a problem with the Shroud and much evidence that he didn't [see 16Feb15, 03Jul18, 14Jan19 & 29Dec20]. Besides the Shroud is not painted [see 11Jul16], so either d'Arcis was mistaken (see above on his possible confusion of the painted Besançon `shroud' with the real Shroud) or he was lying! If it was in fact painted by an artist, that person would have singlehandedly changed the way Jesus is depicted today. Again, the Shroudman's image was not painted!
As Duke professor Dr. Alan B. Whanger He was "Alan D. Whanger." told New York Times in 1982, Jesus was initially drawn without a beard to resemble Greek gods. Presumably this was: Wilford, J.N., 1982, "New Data on Shroud of Turin," New York Times, 28 January, p.A16. But because of the shroud's image, he's now typically depicted as a tall, thin man with long hair, a beard, and deep-set eyes. This is an important point. The image of Jesus that everyone (even Shroud sceptics) has in their heads is that of the man on the Shroud! Google Jesus Images.
The Pope appointed a team of experts to study the shroud in 1969, This became known as the 1969 Secret Commission because . It was followed in 1973 by another Commission which was not secret. and in the 1980s, it was pored over by countless scientific teams. Hardly "countless"! This journalist, Gretchen Smail (like many, if not most journalists), knows little about the subject that she is writing about! In fact she, "is an entertainment journalist at Bustle, where she writes about genre TV shows, true crime and documentary series, and projects from creators of color"! Presumably her "in the 1980s", includes the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)'s October 1978 5-day round-the-clock examination of the Shroud, using a battery of scientific tests. If the Shroud had been a fake, they would have discovered that within hours, if not minutes. Instead, in its final report, STURP wrote:
"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved"[28].Finally, in 1988 the Roman Catholic Church announced it was not the authentic cloth that Jesus Christ was buried in, as the linen was radiocarbon dated back to the Middle Ages."This also is false. One Roman Catholic, the then Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989), not the entire "Roman Catholic Church," foolishly said that he accepted the radiocarbon dating results, instead of saying the church would study the results and announce its response later. This led to dishonest headlines, such as, "Church Says Shroud of Turin Isn't Authentic":
"TURIN, Italy, Oct. 13 - The Roman Catholic Church announced today that the Shroud of Turin, venerated by millions of Christians over the centuries as the burial cloth of Jesus, could not be authentic because new scientific tests show that the linen dates from the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, Catholics were encouraged to continue their veneration of the shroud as a pictorial image of Christ, still capable of performing miracles. At a news conference today, the shroud's custodian, Anastasio Cardinal Ballestrero, revealed that radiocarbon tests conducted independently by three laboratories this year had concluded that the shroud cloth was created between 1260 and 1390 ... While church officials did not contest the test results, they said further research and evaluation would be necessary before the origins of the shroud were clearly established"[29].But the church didn't discourage the belief that the shroud still somehow manifested an image of Jesus Christ, and thus is capable of performing healing miracles. That's because the Roman Catholic Church did not agree with Archbishop Ballestrero's foolish acceptance of the 1988 radiocarbon dating's "1260-1390" results (see above). That should have been the end of the discussion, but debate continues to this day about its authenticity. Why should one set of scientific tests be "the end of the discussion"? Considering that the evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic, i.e. is Jesus' "linen shroud" recorded in the Gospels (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53)! And that Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Director, Prof. Christopher Ramsey (see below), a signatory to the 1989 Nature article which reported the "1260-1390" results admitted, "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow":
"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that ... experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information"[30].In 2013, scientists in Italy used infrared light and spectroscopy to date the shroud between 280 B.C.E. and 220 C.E., which is much closer to when Jesus supposedly died. There is no "supposedly" about it. Wikipedia states (footnotes omitted) that, "Most scholars agree that he [Jesus] died in 30 or 33 AD":
"A number of approaches have been used to estimate the year of the crucifixion of Jesus. Most scholars agree that he died in 30 or 33 AD. The Gospels state that the event occurred during the prefecture of Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea from 26 to 36 AD. The date for the conversion of Paul (estimated to be 33–36 AD) acts as an upper bound for the date of Crucifixion. The dates for Paul's conversion and ministry can be determined by analyzing the Pauline epistles and the Acts of the Apostles. Astronomers have tried to estimate the precise date of the Crucifixion by analyzing lunar motion and calculating historic dates of Passover, a festival based on the lunisolar Hebrew calendar. The most widely accepted dates derived from this method are 7 April 30 AD, and 3 April 33 AD (both Julian"[31].Googling "2013 date shroud between 280 B.C.E. and 220 C.E." (without the quotes) revealed that Smailes is quoting from a History.com article, "Shroud of Turin Isn't Jesus' Burial Cloth, Claims Forensic Study," which again I can't read. But presumably it's referring to the experiments by Italian engineering professor, Giulio Fanti (see below). And if so, his "average of all three dates of the Shroud is 33 BC ±250 years," i.e. 217BC - AD283, which is "a date range in which Jesus' death (either AD 30 or AD 33) falls" (see below)! To save time I will copy-and-paste (changing the footnote numbers) from my post of 19Jul17 summarising this:
... Another work indicated an age for the TS "between 1300-and 3000-years old." A mechanical analysis coupled with opto-chemical measurements has recently dated the TS to 90 AD ±200 years.
... The, "A mechanical analysis coupled with opto-chemical measurements has recently dated the TS to 90 AD ±200 years" (above) presumably is an update of three different methods (or a new fourth) to date the Shroud, carried 
out under the leadership of engineering professor Giulio Fanti [Right (enlarge)[32].] at the University of Padua, Italy. I had blogged about Prof. Fanti's three new methods of dating the Shroud in my posts of 27Mar13, 02Apr13, 21Apr13 and 02Jan14. They were mainly in response to the news articles, Tornielli, A., 2013, "New experiments on Shroud show it's not medieval," Vatican Insider, 26 March and Squires, N., 2013, "Turin Shroud 'is not a medieval forgery'," Daily Telegraph, 30 March. These three tests and their results were:
"Final results show that the Shroud fibres examined produced the following dates, all of which are 95% certain and centuries away from the medieval dating obtained with Carbon-14 testing in 1988: the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three dates of the Shroud is 33 BC ±250 years"[33].This is summarised in the following table:
| Test | Max/Min | Range |
| FT-IR | 300 BC ±400 | 700 BC-AD 100 |
| Raman | 200 BC ± 500 | 700 BC-AD 300 |
| Mechanical | 400 AD ± 400 | AD 0 - AD 800 |
So all three tests yield a date range in which Jesus' death (either AD 30 or AD 33) falls!
Per CNN, a member of the 1988 radiocarbon dating team said in December 2013 that he was willing to retest the shroud. Not "CNN" but presumably this refers to the following article:
"Christopher Ramsey, the current head of the Oxford AMS lab and ... an author on the original 1989 paper, confirmed that he has looked into the matter as well ... Fanti's alternative dating technique relies on a combination of Raman and infrared spectroscopy and mechanical textile breaking parameters to arrive at dates. Ramsey is cautious about Fanti's technique. `Those aren't methods that are used for dating in the archaeological community,' he points out. It is easy to see why Ramsey is so cautious. Most dating systems rely on some form of radioactive decay, be it radiocarbon for young samples, or argon–argon, uranium–lead, neodymium–samarium decays for geological samples. Other techniques, like electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence, exist to date archaeological samples. The point in all cases is that these systems have a solid theoretical underpinning and a long history of use, rigorous testing and cross-calibration behind them. Fanti's technique is not only new, but seems to have been devised specifically to address the issue of the Turin Shroud. In short, the scientific cart seems to have been put in front of the methodological horse"[34].This is a fallacious argument. Scientific truth does not depend on whether Ramsey accepts it. That Shroud samples dated by three different scientific methods returned dates which straddle the date of Jesus' crucifixion needs to be explained. Ramsey is in my opinion playing a double game. Pretending to be open to "further research [which] is certainly needed" (see above) but refusing to even consider Fanti's 3 different dating methods of the Shroud. Well now he has another, the Wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS) method (see above)! I replied to Joe Marino today (12 April 2022):
"I expect that using WAXS for dating will be embraced by archaeologists as another tool in their dating toolkit. If so, it will put more pressure on Ramsey and Jull to explain why, if WAXS returns reliable dates, their C-14 dating of the Shroud is such an outlier. They must know, or suspect, that Linick hacked Arizona's dates. Arizona's "1350" first run date, "591±30" in Table 1 of the 1989 Nature paper, is the most recent of all the dates! They must know that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date [see 03Aug19]. As you presumably know, in October 2018 I wrote an open letter to Ramsey, which I both emailed and snail mailed to him. http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2018/10/open-letter-to-prof-christopher-ramsey.html [providing evidence that: "... the Shroud of Turin existed not just 65 years, nor only 316 years, but at least 716 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud! Therefore, the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud of Turin must be wrong and cannot be salvaged."] He could have shot it down in flames if it was wrong. But he didn't even acknowledge it. Their `body language' is that of ... hiding something important! So you are probably right that they would never publicly admit their 1989 Nature paper was wrong. They are in too deep for that"[35].And in 2018, a forensic scientist found that the shroud could not be authentic, as the blood patterns on the material are not consistent with how a crucified body would bleed. This was in the article, Borrini, M. & Garlaschelli, L., 2018, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Forensic Sciences, 10 July. See my critique of it in my post of 13Aug18, which included: • Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) has increasingly attracted sceptical scutiny because it relies too much on crime investigators' "subjective hunches." • Borrini and Garlaschelli's lance
Today, the Shroud of Turin is housed in the Duomo of Torino Turin Cathedral. in a climate-controlled case in a chapel built just to hold it. No. The Shroud was in the Royal Chapel until a fire in 1997 severely damaged it and the Shroud was moved into Turin Cathedral where it has been ever since. Even though the Royal Chapel was restored in 2018. There are several reasons why: • The Royal Chapel since 1946 has been owned by the Italian State. • The Shroud is safer in the Cathedral than in the Royal Chapel. • The Church has spent a lot of money providing a climate-controlled reliquary for the Shroud in the Cathedral. Because it's extremely fragile, it's not viewable to the public except during very rare exhibitions (the last of which was in 2015). As I wrote above, the next public exposition of the Shroud is expected to be 2025, but it hasn't been definitely announced that it will be.
Despite her many mistakes in this article, I am grateful to this journalist Gretchen Smail for writing such a wide-ranging article about the Shroud for me to comment on!
Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Walsh, John Evangelist," Obituaries, Madison.com, 28 March 2015. [return]
3. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.xi-xii. [return]
4. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.133. [return]
5. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.53. There were linen strips [othonia] found by Peter and John in the empty tomb (Jn 20:6). They may also have been in the Pharos Chapel with the Shroud but have since been lost. [return]
6. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.176-177. [return]
7. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.58; Barnes, 1934, pp.54-55; O'Connell, P. & Carty, C., 1974, "The Holy Shroud and Four Visions," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.7-8; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.50; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.96; Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, 198; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.127; Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, 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.58-70, 66; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.32; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.104; "Othon de la Roche," Wikipedia, 11 January 2022. [return]
8. Beecher, 1928, p.58; O'Connell & Carty, 1974, p.8; Scavone, 1991, p.198; Scavone, 1998, p.66; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.9-10; Oxley, 2010, p.104; "Othon de la Roche: Early life," Wikipedia, 11 January 2022. [return]
9. Scavone, 1989, p.96; Scavone, 1991, p.198; Iannone, 1998, pp.127-128; Scavone, 1998, p.66; 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.273; Tribbe, 2006, pp.24,32; Oxley, 2010, p.104; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.211, 301; "Othon de la Roche: Lord of Athens," Wikipedia, 11 January 2022. [return]
10. Barnes, 1934, p.55; Scavone, 1989, pp.97-98; Tribbe, 2006, pp.24,32. [return]
11. O'Connell & Carty, 1974, p.8; Scavone, 1989, p.97; Oxley, 2010, p.105; "Othon de la Roche: Lord of Athens," Wikipedia, 11 January 2022. [return]
12. Extract from slide 25 of Piana, A., 2010b, "The `Missing Years' of the Holy Shroud," Frascati (Rome), 5th May 2010. [return]
13. Oxley, 2010, p.105. [return]
14. Barnes, 1934, p.55; Scavone, 1989, pp.97-98; Tribbe, 2006, pp.24,32. [return]
15. Barnes, 1934, p.55; Scavone, 1989, pp.97-98; Tribbe, 2006, pp.24,32. [return]
16. Scavone, 1991, p.198; Oxley, 2010, p.105. [return]
17. Barnes, 1934, p.55; Scavone, 1989, pp.97-98. [return]
19. Beecher, 1928, p.58; Barnes, 1934, p.55; O'Connell & Carty, 1974, p.8; Scavone, 1989, p.98; Scavone, 1991, p.198; Scavone, 1998, p.66; Tribbe, 2006, pp.24,32. [return]
20. Barnes, 1934, p.55; O'Connell & Carty, 1974, p.8. [return]
21. Scavone, 1998, p.67. [return]
22. "The Holy Shroud of Besançon," 1634, by Jean de Loisy (c. 1603-60), The Art Institute of Chicago. [return]
23. Scavone, 1998, p.67. [return]
24. Scavone, 1998, p.67. [return]
25. Barnes, 1934, p.55; Scavone, 1998, p.66. [return]
26. Wilson, 1998, p.273; Tribbe, 2006, p.32; Wilson, 2010, pp.210-211;. [return]
27. Scavone, 1998, p.66; Tribbe, 2006, p.32. [return]
28. "Shroud of Turin Research Project," Wikipedia, 26 September 2021. [return]
29. Suro, R., 1988, "Church Says Shroud of Turin Isn't Authentic," New York Times, 1 October. [return]
30. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "The Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, March. [return]
31. "Jesus: Chronology," Wikipedia, 8 April 2022. [return]
32. Roberto Brumat, 2013, "Shroud, new dating compatible with the age of Christ," (Google Translate). [return]
33. Tornielli, A., 2013, "New experiments on Shroud show it's not medieval," Vatican Insider, 26 March. [return]
34. Corfield, R., 2013, "Chemistry in the face of belief," 23 December. [return]
35. Email to Joe Marino, "Re: NEW PEER-REVIEWED SHROUD PAPER / Various Shroud videos," 12 April 2022 12:48 pm. [return]
36. 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]
Posted 4 April 2022. Updated 16 August 2022.
No comments:
Post a Comment