Monday, December 16, 2019

My Shroud blog: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #6

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
MY SHROUD BLOG
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is "My Shroud blog," part #6, of my online book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" For more information see the Cover, part #1 and Contents #2 of this series.

[Contents #2] [Previous: About me #5] [Next: My position on the Shroud #7]


  1. Preface #3
    1. My Shroud blog #6

In June 2007 I started my The Shroud of Turin blog (https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/). In January 2019 it passed 1 million pageviews. It is, as far as I am aware, the only English-speaking pro-authenticist Shroud blog.


To be continued in part #6 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]

Posted: 16 December 2019. Updated: 12 February 2020.

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

"News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, November 2019

Shroud of Turin News - November 2019
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: October 2019, part #1] [Next: December 2019, part #1]

This is the November 2019 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed below linked news article(s) about the Shroud in November as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them. My comments are bold in square brackets.


News:
• "Shroud of Turin: Interview with Researcher Who Debunked the 1988 `Medieval' Dating," Townhall, Myra Kahn Adams, 3 November 2019 ... In mid-July, I wrote a piece that was popular with Townhall readers headlined: "Shroud of Turin: New Test Concludes 1988 `Medieval Hoax' Dating Was a Fraud." The headline reflected the conclusion of French researcher Tristan Casabianca [Right [2]] and his team of scientists, who in March published their results in the scholarly journal Archaeometry titled: "Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data." In 2017, Casabianca took legal action to obtain the raw data used in the controversial 1988 radiocarbon dating test on the Shroud of Turin — data that had been deliberately sequestered for three decades. Disputed by scientists from day one, the test results concluded with "95% confidence" that the Shroud ... was dated between 1260 and 1390. Shroud scientists are optimistic that Casabianca's breakthrough, obtaining and retesting the 1988 raw data with contrary results, will increase pressure on the Vatican to authorize new comprehensive 21st century Shroud testing. The following interview was conducted by email from Casabianca's home in Paris, France ... `I realized how much the radiocarbon test's medieval date conclusion still resonated within the Shroud scientific community and negatively impacted public opinion — despite newer evidence dating the cloth to the First Century. And, since nearly 30 years had passed, I wanted to try to put an end to this dating controversy ... I thought: What actions were never taken to obtain the raw data? Thanks to my legal background, the answer was obvious: A request based on the Freedom of Information Act ... More intriguing is that since March, the authors and institutions of the Nature article ... have been invited to reply, and, as of this writing, have not ... I am highly confident that in the next few years, the failure of the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating will largely be admitted by scientists ...'" [See my comment below after the next article.]]

• "The Shroud of Turin Was Declared a Fraud. New Research Has Some Asking for a Retrial," The Daily Beast, 24 November 2019, Candida Moss ... In the 1980s, carbon testing led to a guilty verdict for the Shroud of Turin as a fraud. But researchers who pursued a legal case for the original data say it's far from certain ... For the past 600 years [sic] Christians have venerated the Shroud of Turin as a precious relic ... even proof of the reality of the resurrection. Then, in 1988, three laboratories based at top universities performed radiocarbon analysis of some of its threads. The results were collected and collated by the British Museum in London and published in a splashy article in the prestigious Nature magazine that claimed to offer definitive proof that the Shroud was a medieval fraud. Oddly the original data was unavailable to researchers. But in 2017, a legal request under the Freedom of Information Act obtained the raw information for the first time. Their results, published recently in Archaeometry, show that the issue of the dating of the Turin Shroud is far from settled ... most people thought that the radiocarbon dating would be the silver bullet that would either confirm the inauthenticity of the Shroud or dispel Shroud doubters once and for all. Vatican agreement for testing took decades to obtain and then, finally, in 1987, laboratories in Arizona, Oxford, and Zurich were selected to perform independent tests. On April 21, 1988, a sample was taken from one corner of the cloth and distributed to the three sets of scientists. The resulting publication declared that there was `conclusive evidence' that the linen of the shroud dates to 1260-1390 CE with 95 percent confidence in those results. Since 2005, however, a growing number of scholars have questioned the results of the now 30-year-old tests. Some claimed, for example, that the area tested was a portion of the cloth that was repaired and that the tested strands reflect those repairs ... The fact that testing only used samples from one corner of the cloth makes it impossible to know if this is a claim is correct or not. Oddly, though, neither academic institutions involved or the British Museum would respond to requests for the original raw data that were held in their archives. (The British Museum also did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Beast.) It was only when Tristan Casabianca made a request under British law that he received a favourable reply. According to his co-authored article in Archaeometry, the British Museum `made all its files ... available' to his team. What Casabianca and co-authors ... discovered is that the results were less conclusive than the Nature article suggests ... What should interest everyone is how hard it was for researchers to obtain copies of the raw data produced during the radiocarbon testing. The British Museum had repeatedly denied requests for the raw data. Bioarchaeologist Dr. Kristina Killgrove, who was not involved in working on the Turin Shroud, told The Daily Beast that `it makes some sense to release info to researchers who want to check it / build on it (and not to release data completely publicly). But to refuse to release data is a big red flag.' Making data available publicly is important Killgrove added, because `replicability is the cornerstone of science, and science can't progress without the publication of raw data.' ... It's also easy to understand why people of faith might be concerned by the strange reluctance of scientists to release their results in full. Perhaps new testing is needed to put the debate to bed once and for all ... [Since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is Jesus’ burial sheet, and therefore 1st century, its 13th-14th century radiocarbon date, must be the result of fraud, i.e. a computer hacking! Moreover, the Nature article itself is fraudulent [see 15Jul18, 17Feb19 & 29May19], as the laboratories and the British Museum's refusal to release their raw data until the latter was forced to, shows they know it was. So what first must happen is that the Nature article be retracted [see 04Oct18, 29Nov18, 18Dec18, 10Mar19 & 29May19].]

Editorial
Posts: In November I blogged four new posts (latest uppermost): "AMS: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia," - 10th; "Contents: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #2," - 9th; "News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, September 2019," - 5th; "Cover: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #1," - 4th.

Comments: Comments in November included:
November 1, 2019 at 7:46 AM My reply to an anonymous comment under my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Sixteenth century (1)" post asking me to not forget to inform readers about my book progress when writing my editorial. I replied that, '... I always do. I have a permanent "My book" section in my monthly Shroud of Turin News posts and as mentioned in the August issue, "my target date for publication of my book is 2025" when "The next public viewing [of the Shroud] is scheduled ..."

November 2, 2019 at 7:37 AM My reply to a Charles P Arnold, Jr under my 2008 post, "Are the three Hebrew letters on the Shroud tsade-'aleph-waw: `you will come out'?" which was, "... `lamb' makes

[Above (enlarge): 3D hologram showing three Hebrew or Aramaic letters under the beard of the man on the Shroud: "The Shroud of Turin: The Holographic Experience," Missouri Botanical Garden, 2008. These are more clearly seen with red and green anaglyph 3D `spectacles'. ]

no sense" and "... speculating what the three Hebrew or Aramaic letters on the Shroud may mean is missing the main point which is, `they ARE Hebrew or Aramaic letters'"! That is because a medieval forger: 1) would be unlikely to know Hebrew or Aramaic letters, unless he was Jewish; 2) if he did know Hebrew or Aramaic letters, a medieval forger would be unlikely to depict them on his forged Shroud because his medieval European mostly Gentile contemporaries would be unlikely to recognise them; and 3) if a medieval forger did depict three Hebrew or Aramaic letters on his forged Shroud, he would be unlikely to chose three with an obscure meaning, but would more likely chose letters which spelled the Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent of "Jesus" or "Messiah," etc.

Updates In November there were no significant updates in the background of my past posts.

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. As we saw above, I blogged one post, "AMS: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia" on the Shroud's 1988 radiocarbon dating.

My book: On 31 October I ceased writing my word-processed book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" when I found that I was getting too bogged down with fine details, such that I had become increasingly worried that at almost (now) 73 years of age, I may never finish it. So I decided to start writing my book online, with the aim of eventually basing a word-processed version on that. Also, if I never finished my online book, at least I would have placed some of it in the public domain! So on 4 November I posted "Cover: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #1" (below) followed by "Contents:

[Above (enlarge): The no longer planned but actual cover of my online book!]

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #2" on 9 November. I intend that every second post will be a section of my book.

Pageviews: At midnight on 30 November, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 1,122,980.

This compares with 985,345 at the same time in November 2018. That is 137,635 pageviews over the year, or an average of ~377 pageviews per day.

Google Analytics also gave the most viewed posts for November (highest uppermost) as: "Introduction #2: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus’ burial sheet!," Jul 9, 2015 - 236; "`according to John chapter 20, Jesus was wrapped in linen cloths (plural) ... If Scripture is correct ... lets throw out the shroud'," Jul 11, 2012 - 115; "`Or the artist of the fake shroud knew of the Pray Manuscript and incorporated these signs into his forgery?'," May 19, 2012 - 98; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present: 1st century and Index," Jul 24, 2016 - 82 & "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F," Jan 20, 2016 - 81

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. "Amazon.fr: Tristan Casabianca: Livres, Biographie, écrits, livres audio, Kindle," 2019. [return]

Posted 11 December 2019. Updated 16 August 2025.

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

About me: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #5

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
ABOUT ME
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is "About me," part #5, of my online book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" For more information see the Cover, part #1 and Contents #2.

[Contents #2] [Previous: This book #4] [Next: My Shroud blog #6]


  1. Preface #3
    1. About me #5

I am a Protestant evangelical Christian in my seventies, converted to Christianity from Deism and before that Atheism, in 1967. For many years, to the extent that I thought about it at all, I assumed that the Shroud of Turin was just another fake Roman Catholic relic.

I remember reading a newspaper article in the late 1980s that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated and found to be a medieval fake[2].

But in January 2005 I found in a secondhand bookstall a book, "Verdict on the Shroud" (1981) [Right [3]], which was co-authored by Gary Habermas. I knew from Habermas' other writings that he was a sound, evidence-based, evangelical Christian philosopher, so I bought the book.

I was amazed at the evidence that Habermas and his co-author Ken Stevenson presented for the Shroud being the burial sheet of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels (Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:46 & Luke 23:53).

Soon after that I read an online article based on a scientific journal paper which claimed that the Shroud was thousands of years old and therefore its medieval radiocarbon date was wrong[4].

So I then provisionally, and later fully, accepted that the Shroud is indeed the very burial sheet of Jesus!


To be continued in part #6 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. "Church admits shroud is a fake," The West Australian, 14 October 1988, p.5. [return]
3. 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. [return]
4. Lorenzi, R., 2005, "Turin shroud older than thought," ABC/Discovery News, 26 January. https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/01/26/1289491.htm. [return]

Posted: 10 December 2019. Updated: 23 December 2019.

Friday, December 6, 2019

`Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?' #2

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #2 of my multi-post response to Cserhati, M. & Carter, R., 2019, "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?" Creation.com, 16 August. See my reply comment of 22Aug19. As previously mentioned, I will confine my response to the article's "Summary" but refer to the main article as I do. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. The article's words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

[Previous: part #1] [Next: part #3]

Morphology: Several features of the man in the Shroud appear to be distorted, In the main article Cserhati & Carter (hereafter C&C) claim the major instance of "distortion" is, "... the width of the right leg is twice that of the left leg above the knee on the frontal image, but not on the dorsal image" and they answer their own objection, "however this might be due to distortion of the Shroud image based on the way it was (presumably) draped across the body"[2]. But their claim is false that, "the width of the right leg is twice that of the left leg above the knee on the frontal image." As can be seen in this full-length image, the width of the legs above the knees (marked by flagrum wounds) is about the same. C&C are

[Right (enlarge)[3]. The man's right leg is the one on the same side as the speared in the side wound (Jn 19:33-34) [opposite], which is in the man's right side[4].]

confusing a longitudinal feature of the weave which runs down the Shroud, including between the legs, with the right leg itself!

and he is unusually tall, compared to the average height of a first-century Jewish man. In their article C&C cite pro-Shroud authors Mark Antonacci that the height of the man in the Shroud is 5 ft 10 in[5] and Thomas de Wesselow that it is 6 ft[6]. Both Antonacci and de Wesselow (and therefore C&C) seem unaware that STURP's John Jackson had in the 1970s experimentally established that the height of

[Above (enlarge)[7]: "Dr John Jackson and colleagues with a life-sized mock-up or working replica of the Shroud [left], and volunteers recruited to 'fit' the cloth ... [right] ... Jackson ... found the closest 'fit' to the Shroud to have been ... 5 ft 11 in (180 cm)"[8].]

the man on the Shroud was 5ft 11 in. (180 cm)[9]. But to C&C "this doesn't matter much" because "people were shorter in times past" (which Ian Wilson disputes, pointing out that, "human height has changed relatively little during the last several thousand years" and "one of ten adult skeletons in a Jerusalem cemetery from Jesus' time was found to have been a six-footer"[10]) "and even today the mean height of Jewish males in different parts of the world is at most 1.71 m (5 ft 7 in)"[11] (which contradicts their first point)! C&C further undermine their argument by admitting that, "it is not inconceivable that Jesus was tall for his time" but then they fallaciously claim, "the height of the man in the Shroud makes it less likely that this really was Jesus Christ"[12]. If that were so then to be consistent C&C would have to say that it was "less likely" the Bible was correct when it states that Israel's first king Saul was, "From his shoulders upward ... taller than any of the people" (1Sam 9:2)! Jesus may well have been, like Saul, of above average height. In Jn 7:37, "Jesus," in the midst of a great crowd celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles, "stood and cried out, `If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.'" The Greek histēmi translated "stood" means "was standing" not "rose to His feet"[13]. This implies (if not requires) that Jesus was indeed taller than average, otherwise most of the crowd could not have seen who the "me" was that they should come to!

Also, he was clearly not wrapped in the cloth, as the image does not show the sides of the head or body. C&C don't even mention this in their main article! C&C confuse two separate things: 1) the wrapping of the man's body in a burial shroud; and 2) the imprinting of an image of his body on that shroud. It does not follow that because only images of the front and back of the man's body was imprinted on the Shroud, not of his sides, crown of his head or soles of his feet, that he was not completely enveloped in the Shroud. STURP also showed experimentally in the 1970s that image density points on the Shroud relating to cloth-body distance conform to a single global mathematical mapping function[14] (below), proving that the Shroud

[Above enlarge: "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape"[15]. That is, "the Shroud image is consistent with the drape that would be expected from a cloth covering a human body ... `the frontal image on the Shroud of Turin is shown to be consistent with a naturally draping cloth in the sense that image shading can be derived from a single global mapping function of distance between these two surfaces'"[16]]

did indeed fully wrap a real human body. C&C don't ask themselves why would a forger (or a Maillard Reaction - their preferred explanation - see future part #3) "not show the sides of the head or body"?

The only explanation which fits the facts is that the Shroudman's image was imprinted on the Shroud cloth by a burst of vertically collimated (straight up and down[17]) radiant energy. To conclude this part #2 I will confine myself to quotes from Antonacci's 2000 book, Resurrection of the Shroud, because C&C refer to him (albeit not to that book - see part #1 on C&C's inadequate references list):

"It is extremely difficult to imagine how the subtle shades of light and dark on the Shroud's body images could possibly have been obtained without using light or radiation. These body images are not saturated or diffused. The edges of the man's body at the sides, top, and bottom break off sharply. Furthermore, the agent, acting at a distance, barely penetrated the cloth. As one noted scientist who has studied the Shroud for more than two decades observed, `An agent acting at a distance with decreasing intensity is, almost by definition, radiation. The limitation of the cloth darkening to the outermost surface pointed to a non-penetrating, non-diffusing agent, like radiant energy ...'[18] ... A vertical beam or beams of light or radiation also best explains how the Shroud's body image was encoded through space in a straight line from the body to the cloth. STURP scientist John Heller [1921-1995] stated, `It is as if every pore and every hair of the body contained a microminiature laser'[19]. This vertical directionality of the Shroud body image has only been accounted for by methods involving radiation. As scientist Luigi Gonella [1930-2007] explained, `Whatever the mechanism might be, it must be such to yield effects as if it were a burst of collimated radiant energy'[20]"[21].
And the explanation that fits the facts of vertically collimated radiant energy imprinting the front and back image image of the man on the Shroud, but not his sides, the top of his head or soles of his feet, is John Jackson's "Cloth Collapse" theory (see 18Jan12), as summarised by Antonacci:
"Jackson's [cloth collapse] theory predicts that the Shroud's images would be encoded if the body became insubstantial and emitted ultraviolet light. As the cloth fell through the body region, each point on the cloth would receive a radiation dose in proportion to the time it was within the region. The parts of the cloth that were over the highest points of the supine body (for example, the tip of the nose) would receive the longest dose of radiation, while the parts of the cloth over the lowest points of the body would receive the least. Thus, the intensity of all points on the resultant body image on the two-dimensional cloth would be directly correlated to the distance that they originally were from the surface of the three-dimensional body. Furthermore, since the draped cloth fell by gravity, all points of the resultant body image would have aligned vertically with the corresponding body point below it. Even those parts of the body that were not initially touching the cloth, such as the sides of the nose, would be encoded in a three-dimensional and vertical direction onto the cloth"[22].
Which is compatible (to put it mildly!) with the resurrection of Jesus, as described by Ian Wilson:
"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"[23]!
To be continued in part #3 of this series.

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. Cserhati, M. & Carter, R., 2019, "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?" Creation.com, 16 August. [return]
3. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal," (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
4. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, p.129; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 26; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.62-63; 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.42; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.12. [return]
5. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.116 [return]
6. de Wesselow, 2012, p.146 [return]
7. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.46-47 [return]
8. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.47 [return]
9. Ibid [return]
10. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.143 [return]
11. Cserhati & Carter, 2019. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Morris, L.L., 1971, "The Gospel According to John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1984, p.422. [return]
14. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," 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.34-57, 35; 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, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, pp.7-8; Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.138; Jumper, E.J., Adler, A.D., Jackson, J.P., Pellicori, S.F., Heller, J.H., Druzik, J.R., in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin,"Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C, pp.447-476, 451, 471; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, pp.32, 205. [return]
15. 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]
16. Wilson, I., 1985, "Some Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 9, January. [return]
17. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.118; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.35. [return]
18. Gonella, L., 1987, "Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin: Problems, Results and Methodological Lessons," in "Turin Shroud-Image of Christ?," Cosmos: Hong Kong, pp. 29-40, 31. [return]
19. Heller, J., in McDonald, W., 1986, "Science and the Shroud," The World and I, October, pp.420-428, 426.[return]
20. Gonella, 1987, p.31. [return]
21. Antonacci, 2000, pp.212-213. [return]
22. Antonacci, 2000, p.220. [return]
23. 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 6 December 2019. Updated 16 August 2025.

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

This book: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #4

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
THIS BOOK
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is "This book," part #4 of my online book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" For more information see the Cover, part #1 and Contents #2.

[Contents #2] [Previous: Preface #3] [Next: About me #5]


  1. Preface #3
    1. This book #4

This online book on the Shroud of Turin (hereafter "the Shroud") aims to be scholarly but under-standable to the reader who is new to the Shroud. It also aims to be comprehensive - to include everything of importance in sindonology - the study of the Shroud of Turin[2].


[Right[3]: Ian Wilson's 1978 first book on the Shroud. Although published over 40 years ago, it still is arguably the greatest book on the Shroud ever written!]

Continued in part #5 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. "sindonology," Dictionary.com, 12 November 2019. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Victor Gollancz: London. [return]

Posted: 4 December 2019. Updated: 14 December 2019.

Monday, December 2, 2019

"News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, October 2019

Shroud of Turin News - October 2019
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: September 2019, part #1] [Next: November 2019, part #1]

This is the October 2019 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed below linked news article(s) about the Shroud in October as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them.


News:
• "Stephen Lukasik, physicist turned Pentagon research director, dies at 88," Washington Post, Obituaries, 8 October 2019, Harrison Smith ... Stephen Lukasik [Right (enlarge): "Portrait of Stephen J. Lukasik in 1990"[2]], a physicist who sought to apply advanced technology to national security, overseeing Defense Department research on computer networking, artificial intelligence and the detection of nuclear explosions before becoming a prescient expert on cybersecurity, died Oct. 3 at his home in Falls Church, Va. He was 88 ...":

"A man of wide-ranging interests, Dr. Lukasik amassed a collection of about 15,000 books on subjects including national security, shipwrecks, archaeology and geology, and participated in a 1988 effort to date the Shroud of Turin, venerated by millions of Christians as the burial cloth of Jesus. (Radiocarbon tests indicated the frayed length of linen was created in the Middle Ages, although Dr. Lukasik cast doubts on those findings.)"
See also (which do not mention the Shroud): "Stephen J. Lukasik," Wikipedia, 31 October 2019 & "Stephen Lukasik, 88, Who Pushed Tech in National Defense, Is Dead," The New York Times, 7 October 2019, Katie Hafner.

Lukasik was one of STURP's representatives at the 1986 Turin Workshop on radiocarbon dating the Shroud:

"Lukasik, S (Stephen): Vice President-Technology, Northrup Corporation, Los Angeles. He was in charge of experiments the STURP group hoped to carry out on the shroud. He attended the workshop on dating the Turin Shroud"[3].
But Lukasik is probably unknown to most Shroudies because STURP never carried out its 1988 experiments on the Shroud (`thanks' to the machinations of the anti-Christian Prof. Harry E. Gove (1922-2009) and the weakness of the Turin and Vatican church authorities):
"From 1986 to 1987, Gove lobbied against STURP harder than ever. During this time, the carbon dating laboratories' directors wrote letters to Chagas, and Chagas met personally with the Pope, echoing their complaints about STURP's planned tests. In the summer of 1987, Gove wrote a remarkable letter to Chagas, which contained a number of untrue and unsubstantiated comments that, of course, concerned STURP and even those in Turin. Gove himself stated:
`... I noted that the Shroud had been subjected to a number of scientific tests of dubious value carried out in ill-conceived ways by scientists of unknown reputation ... [false] I stated that almost every aspect of the STURP organization was distasteful ... This included their clear religious zeal, their questionable sources of support [false], their military mind set ...'[3]
... before he finished, he would even compare STURP to the Spanish Inquisition. This time he not only threatened that the carbon dating laboratories would withdraw without Chagas's continued support, he guaranteed their withdrawal `if STURP participates in the carbon dating enterprise in any way" [4, 5]

Editorial
Posts: In October I blogged no new posts because my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Sixteenth century (1)" began on 25 September and ended on 3 November!

Comments: There were no comments in October worth mentioning.

Updates In October there were no significant updates in the background of my past posts.

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. Although I didn't start any new posts in October, I did mention the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud at "1508a" in my 16th century chronology (references omitted):


1508a On 20 February Margaret of Austria draws up her will, giving to the church of Brou, among other relics, a snippet of the Shroud .... Marino and Benford claim that this snippet was taken ... from what later became the 1988 radiocarbon dating area [Below (enlarge) ... and 16th century threads were used to repair the excision, thus giving the first-century Shroud a false 13th-14th century radiocarbon date ... However, see my comment below that:
"... younger carbon contamination and/or threads from a medieval repair included in the radiocarbon dating samples does not, of itself, explain why the first century Shroud had the `bull's eye' 1260-1390 = 1325±65 radiocarbon date. For an explanation of both, see my possible reconciliation of the carbon contamination and/or medieval repair theories with my hacker theory."

My book: In October I continued writing in Word, Chapter 3, "The man point outline of my book, "Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" on my

[Left (enlarge): The planned cover of my book.]

on the Shroud" and in parallel also in Word, "Problems of the Forgery Theory." However, see my post of 04Nov19 where I realised that I was getting too bogged down with fine details, such that I had become increasingly worried that at almost (now) 73 years of age, I may never finish my book. So I decided to start posting here on my blog an online version of my book, with the same name.

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 October, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 1,112,790.

This compares with 972,213 at the same time in October 2018. That is 140,577 pageviews over the year, or an average of ~385 pageviews per day.

Google Analytics also gave the most viewed posts for October (highest uppermost) as: "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F," Jan 20, 2016 - 401; Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index G-M ," Apr 2, 2016 - 141; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Sixteenth century (1)," Sep 25, 2019 - 86; "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?' #1," Sep 8, 2019 - 75 & "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index S-Z," Jun 18, 2016 - 65.

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. "File:SJLukasik1990.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 6 October 2019. [return]
3. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.191-192. [return]
4. Gove, 1996, p.192. [return]
5. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.199-200. [return]

Posted 2 December 2019. Updated 16 August 2025.

Sunday, December 1, 2019

Preface: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #3

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
PREFACE
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the Preface and part #3 of my online book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" For more information see the Cover, part #1 and Contents #2. I am using HTML's automatic numbering of sections. Again, when a topic is linked it has been posted.

[Right (enlarge): Full-length image of the Shroud after the 2002 restoration (Shroud University)]

[Previous: Contents #2] [Next: This book #4]


  1. Preface #3
    1. This book #4
    2. About me #5
    3. My Shroud blog #6
    4. My position on the Shroud #7


To be continued in part #4 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]

Posted: 1 December 2019. Updated: 30 December 2019.