Wednesday, December 11, 2019

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

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

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

This is the second installment of 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.

• "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 authentic, 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].]

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 authentic!," 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

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

Posted: 11 December 2019. Updated: 14 December 2019.

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!
© Stephen E. Jones

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.

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. [return]

Posted: 10 December 2019. Updated: 11 December 2019.

Friday, December 6, 2019

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

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the fifth and final installment of part #2 of my multi-post response to Cserhati, M. & Carter, R., 2019, "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?", 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.

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?", 16 August. [return]
3. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal," (rotated left 90°), [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: 5 December 2019. Updated: 10 December 2019.

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!
© Stephen E. Jones

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.

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,", 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

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

This is the second and final installment of 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.

• "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]

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.

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: 4 December 2019.

Sunday, December 1, 2019

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

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
© Stephen E. Jones

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.

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: 11 December 2019.

Sunday, November 10, 2019

AMS: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones

AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) #9

This is "AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry)," part #9 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. It grew longer than I expected, so I have concluded it by listing the key steps in radiocarbon dating the Shroud up to 27 April 1987, where my "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" series began. When I get to "Gove, H" I may revisit this page. For more information about this series, see part #1 and part #2. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: Allen, N #8] [Next: Antioch #10]

AMS, short for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, is a form of mass spectrometry that accelerates ions to extraordinarily high kinetic energies[2]. The special strength of AMS is its power to separate a rare

[Above (enlarge): "Schematic of an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS)"[3]. As can be seen, when the mass spectrometer is configured for it, it separates carbon-12, carbon-13 (13C4+) and carbon-14 (14C4+).]

isotope from an abundant mass of the same element, e.g. carbon-14 (14C) from ordinary carbon-12 (12C)[4].

Radiocarbon dating AMS is a technique of radiocarbon dating, which is based on the fact that carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of carbon, is unstable and has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years[5]. Radiocarbon dating was discovered in 1949 by University of Chicago Professor of Chemistry, Willard F. Libby (1908–80), for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1960[6].

Carbon-14 Libby knew that there were neutrons in the upper atmosphere which must have been generated by cosmic radiation impacting atoms of the atmosphere[7]. From that Libby deduced that those high energy neutrons would collide with nitrogen-14 atoms and generate carbon-14: N14 + n = C14 + H1[8]. Libby then realised that these carbon-14 atoms would combine with oxygen to form carbon-14

[Above (enlarge)[9]: As can be seen, carbon-14 is continually being produced in the upper atmosphere by high energy neutrons from cosmic ray impacts, colliding with nitrogen-14 atoms[10]. The C-14 then reacts with oxygen to form carbon-14 dioxide[11]. Plants take up that carbon-14 dioxide by photosynthesis into their tissues[12] and when they die (including being eaten by animals), their intake of C-14 ceases and their existing C-14 (including that in animals which ate those plants) begins to decay back to N-14[13]. Thus there is a dynamic equilibrium between the constant production of C14 and its constant decay back to N14[14]. From the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in an archaeological artifact (e.g. a wooden implement, leather, cloth, bone, etc)[15], knowing that every 5,730 years half the C-14 in it would have decayed back to N-14, and assuming no contaTmination with extraneous carbon[16], the age of the artifact can be calculated[17].]

dioxide[18]. Libby then calculated that the carbon-14 dioxide would mix with the lower atmosphere's carbon dioxide and all plants and the animals that ate them would be radioactive with carbon-14[19]. Assuming that cosmic ray intensity had not varied significantly in 20,000 - 30,000 years, knowing that nuclear decay is not affected by chemical or environmental factors, and going by the then assumed half-life of carbon-14 of 5568 ± 30 years[20], Libby derived an equation by which the age of biological materials could be calculated from their carbon-14 content[21].

Advantage of AMS radiocarbon dating The Libby method of radiocarbon dating involves detecting with a Geiger counter, a beta particle emitted when a carbon-14 atom decays to nitrogen-14[22]. As only 1 in a trillion (1012) of carbon atoms are carbon-14[23], a comparatively large sample was required which must then be destroyed by converting it into pure carbon[24]. So museums and art galleries (and the Shroud custodian) were understandably reluctant to lose a large part of a precious artifact to have it radiocarbon dated[25]. But because AMS counts every C14 atom in a sample, not just the tiny fraction which just happened to decay during the dating[26], AMS needs orders of magnitude less of a sample size to be dated than the Libby method[27].

18 May 1977 The first radiocarbon dating using an Accelerator Mass Spectrometer occurred when a team led by Kenneth H. Purser (1929-2018), University of Toronto Professor Albert Edward "Ted" Litherland (1928-) and University of Rochester Professor Harry Gove (1922-2009), using Rochester University's tandem Accelerator Mass

[Right (original)[28]: Prof. Harry E. Gove (1922-2009), co-inventor of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating[29] and the unofficial leader of the Shroud radiocarbon dating project[30].]

Spectrometer, dated a few milligrams of charcoal from recently felled trees and graphite from oil deposits that were millions of years old[31]. The graphite was a control sample as its carbon-14 would have decayed to nothing long ago[32]. The charcoal sample returned over a thousand times more carbon-14 counts than did the graphite, so they had proved that AMS could detect carbon-14[33]! The amount of material needed for carbon dating by AMS was at least a thousand times smaller than required by the Libby method that it would now be possible to date even the most precious artifact[34]. Purser was due to talk on an unrelated topic at an accelerator conference in Strasbourg, France but with the permission of the conference organisers, he instead delivered a paper co-authored by himself, Litherland and Gove, describing their success[35]. A second run at Rochester in June returned even better results[36].

8 June 1977 Having presented their results to a scientific conference and repeated their experimental success, the group through Gove issued a press release announcing to a wider audience their breakthrough[37]. This was picked up by news outlets, including Time Magazine[38] and The New York Times[39]:

"Atomic scientists have devised a new method of carrying out carbon-14 dating of archeological and paleontological specimens that promises to more than double the time span from which ancient organic objects can be dated. The new method is also said to be much more accurate and to work on samples so tiny that they could not previously be dated because the conventional carbon-14 method would destroy them ... The conventional method requires between 10 and 100 grams, or up to a quarter of a pound, of the object to be destroyed in the dating process ... The new method destroys only 10 to 20 milligrams of a sample, or about seven one-thousandths of an ounce ... The new method which uses techniques of mass spectroscopy [sic], was developed by a team of researchers at the University of Rochester's Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory ... `In the past, scientists have determined the age of objects by measuring their carbon-14 radioactivity,' said Harry Gove, director of the Rochester laboratory, `... Our method does not require us to wait for the radioactive ticks of carbon-14, but measures the amount of carbon-14, directly'"[40].
24 June 1977 The Rochester AMS group received a letter from the Rev. H. David Sox (1936-2016), the General Secretary of the British Society for the Turin Shroud (which he did not disclose to the group), asking whether this new small-sample technique he had read about in Time magazine could be used to date the Turin Shroud[41]. It was the first time anyone in the Rochester group had ever heard of the Turin Shroud[42]. The Group responded to Sox that indeed AMS could carbon date the Shroud, but it was too soon to apply it to such a renowned object[43]. However, it was this inquiry by Sox which led to the dating of the Shroud by AMS eleven years later[44]!

May 1978 Litherland, Purser and Gove agreed that they should explore the possibility of dating the Turin Shroud by AMS[45]. To them the Shroud was only a means to an end: "a highly public demonstration of the power of carbon dating by AMS"[46]. Ten years later in 1988, when the first-century Shroud was falsely dated "1260-1390" by AMS, Gove declared it:

"... a public triumph for AMS, but a disappointment for those who hoped or believed it was the burial cloth of Christ"[47].
As Ian Wilson observed,
"... it would seem more and more evident that in the laboratories' eyes the Shroud was a hotly prized test for the AMS carbon-dating method, rather than the AMS method a cool, wholly impartial test for the Shroud"[48];
"Gove ... forgot all his earlier warnings that the test as conducted by just the three laboratories would not meet `the test of scientific rigour' ... declared the result to be a `triumph' for this [AMS] technique. From his enthusiasm, one might be forgiven for thinking that it had been his method that was being tried and tested, not the Shroud"[49].
Back then in 1978 Gove, an agnostic[50], "was becoming increasingly curious about the shroud" [sic] but he considered it a "remote possibility that it actually was Christ's burial cloth"[51]. In late July 1978 the Rochester AMS group sent a paper to Turin describing how they would radiocarbon date the Shroud and offering to do so if they wished[52].

9-10 October 1978 The Second International Congress on the Shroud was held in Turin[53]. A paper was submitted to the congress by the Rochester group and another by the Brookhaven non-AMS group describing how the Shroud could be radiocarbon dated using very small samples of cloth[54]. Before that the Shroud had been exhibited in the Cathedral of John the Baptist in Turin from 27 August to 8 October[55]. Then for five days from 8-13 October the Shroud was taken into Turin's Royal Palace for non-destructive tests by members of STURP and other scientists[56]. Gove saw the Shroud on 6 October, and it affected him deeply:

"... looking up at the shroud. I must say I also found it a very moving sight. It is a truly remarkable object with great artistic and religious beauty. The double image on the cloth — the front and back imprint of a crucified body — is indeed very faint and the intricate details that those who have studied it claim to see are not all apparent even at the distance from which one could view it on this wooden walkway. The triangular patches along the sides but avoiding the image, applied by the Poor Clare nuns in 1534 two years after a fire burned holes through the shroud, are the most visible features. But one could also clearly see the crossed hands showing only four fingers. There were wounds at the wrists and also what appeared to be a wound in the right side, as well as ones on the head and all over the back. I left the cathedral strengthened in my belief that the Turin Shroud was, at the very least, a religious artifact of greater significance than any other in the world that I had ever seen or heard of"[57].
Yet despite this (or because of it?), at that congress Gove resolved to continue [see 07Jul17] his anti-Christian hostility towards STURP:
"... Gove had noticed in 1978 that `most of the STURP members were, and perhaps still are "true believers" in the identity of this remarkable piece of material with Christ's shroud ... It was then, at this [Second International] Congress, that I decided that STURP would not play the least role in the radiocarbon dating measurements if I could do anything to prevent it. I am happy to say that in the end they played no role"[58].
In 1987 Gove admitted "it bothers the hell out of me" that STURP "have a pretty strong belief it's Jesus's shroud":
"Harry Gove, whose laboratory at the University of Rochester was among those chosen for the dating tests [sic], said he `wouldn't touch it [the analysis] with a ten-foot pole' if STURP was involved. `The trouble is they're all people who actually have a pretty strong belief it's Jesus's shroud, and it bothers the hell out of me they're the only ones so far who've carried out any kind of scientific measurements,' he said"[59].
Evidently Gove suffered from what the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel (1937-) admitted was his "fear of religion itself," i.e. God:
"In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper-namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that"[60].
Rochester's paper, "A Method for Dating the Shroud of Turin" (and presumably Brookhaven's) were accepted as communications and were published in the congress proceedings but were not presented orally[61]. Rochester's paper affirmed that they could date specimens reduced to 1 milligram of carbon with a precision of about ±160 years, and would need a thread only 10 centimetres long[62]. Brookhaven's paper, however, said its non-AMS method would need 10 milligrams of carbon[63].

16 February 1979 Gove mailed a letter to the Archbishop of Turin, via Don Piero Coero-Borga (1924-87), the Secretary of the Turin Sindonology Centre[64], to Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989), on behalf of the Rochester, Toronto, General Ionex, US Geological Survey group and the Brookhaven National Laboratory group, offering to date the Turin Shroud using milligram samples of cloth[65]. Sox had advised that the letter be sent via Coero-Borga, but he was a conservative "particularly opposed to carbon dating"[66] and so he chose not to deliver the letter to Ballestrero[67]. Or so Gove thought, because he never received a reply or even an acknowledgment[68], but Sox was told by the Archbishop's scientific adviser, Prof. Luigi Gonella (1930–2007), who was also Ballestrero's English translator[69], that he did receive Gove's letter but the "Archbishop had been unable to say yes or no at the time, and thought it best to say nothing"[70].

March 1982 At an archaeometry conference held in Bradford, England representatives from most of the laboratories (not Rochester[71]) which had expressed a willingness to carbon date the Shroud met and endorsed a suggestion by Robert Otlet of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, England[72], that the British Museum provide them with samples of cloth to test their ability to do so (this became the laboratories intercomparison test[73]-see below).

January 1983 Dr Michael Tite of the British Museum's Research Laboratory informed the laboratories at Arizona, Zurich, Brookhaven, Harwell, Oxford and Rochester that he was prepared to carry out the intercomparison tests that Otlet had suggested[74]. The British Museum would provide two textile samples to each laboratory for an intercomparison test as a prelude to dating the Turin Shroud[75]. The six laboratories agreed to participate[76]. Four would use AMS: Arizona, Bern/Zurich, Oxford and Rochester, and two would use the Libby proportional counter method (Brookhaven and Harwell)[77]. In May 1983 two samples each weighing approximately 100 milligrams: Sample #1, linen from Ancient Egypt, c. 3000 BC, and Sample #2, cotton from Peru, c. 1200 AD), were sent to each of the six laboratories[78]. The laboratories were told the samples' provenances but not their ages[79]. In July the Rochester group sent their dated samples to the British Museum[80]. Gove then went on a year's sabbatical to Oxford with his wife Betty[81].

January 1984 The laboratories were told that the first results showed that the Peruvian cotton Sample #2 was more modern than thought[82], so a Peruvian cotton Sample #3, c. AD 1000-1400, was sent to replace Sample #2[83]. In May, Gove's wife Betty died suddenly while they were in Oxford[84]. So it was not until mid-November that Gove was able to send the Rochester group's second Peruvian sample #3 to the British Museum[85].

June 1985 The 12th International Radiocarbon Conference was held in Trondheim, Norway[86] from 24 to 28 June[87]. STURP was represented by Dr. Robert Dinegar (1921-2005) [88]. At the conference the British Museum presented the results of the laboratory intercomparison test[89]. Five of the six laboratories obtained dates close to one another, and close to the known c. 3000 BC date of the Egyptian cloth[90]. But the Zurich AMS laboratory was out by a thousand years, due to faulty pretreatment by the Bern laboratory[91]. Gove organised a meeting of representatives of the six laboratories, the British Museum and STURP's representative, Dinegar[92]. It was agreed that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences be contacted to ease the communications gap between the laboratories and the church in Turin[93] and that Gove prepare a protocol for carbon dating the Shroud[94].

August 1985 The final version of the protocol was completed and sent to the six carbon dating laboratories, the British Museum and to the President of the Pontifical Academy of Science[95].

14 October 1985 Gove and Shirley Brignall (1936-2019) (Gove's partner[96]) of the University of Rochester met with Prof. Carlos Chagas (1910-2000) [Left [97]], president of the Pontifical Academy of Science, and Vittorio Canuto [Below right [98]], a NASA astrophysicist and a scientific aide to Chagas, at the Holy See Mission to the United Nations in New York to discuss the possibility of holding a workshop on dating the Shroud involving all the interested parties[99].

November 1985 Canuto informed Gove that Chagas had received permission from the Vatican and the archdiocese of Turin to hold the workshop in Turin in June, 1986[100].

17 February 1986 Gove and Brignall met with Professor Luigi Gonella, science advisor to the archbishop of Turin, at the Holy See Mission to the United Nations in New York to discuss the workshop on carbon dating the Shroud[101]. Gonella insisted that the workshop be held at his institution, the Turin Polytechnic[102]. Gove noted that the workshop is being organized by the Pontifical Academy of Science and should be held in their headquarters in the Vatican[103]. But Gove failed to appreciate that any Shroud dealings favouring Rome provoked deep resentment from Turin[104]. Gonella was opposed to six carbon dating labs being involved[105].

April 1986. Chagas sent letters of invitation to attend a workshop on carbon dating the Turin Shroud to be held in the Archbishop's Palace in Turin 9-11 June 1986[106]. This included a seventh laboratory, the AMS facility at Gif-sur-Yvette in France[107]! But a few days before Chagas had revealed to an English Catholic journalist, Peter Jennings (1948-2013), that the meeting would be held in June and Jennings mentioned this in an article[108].

May 1986 The National Science Foundation approved funding for expenses of the three US participants in the Turin workshop[109]. But a few days later the Pontifical Academy of Sciences announced that the June workshop had been postponed, because of the article by Jennings[110]. Gove composed a cable which was signed by representatives of four of the six carbon dating laboratories and the British museum, and sent it to the archbishop of Turin, the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Agostino Casaroli (1914–98) and Chagas, strongly protesting the postponement of the workshop[111].

July 1986 Chagas sent a second invitation to attend the workshop on 29 September through 1 October 1986[112]. It would be held in Turin in an institution associated with the archdiocese of Turin, not at Turin Polytechnic[113] and Gove was invited to prepare an agenda for the workshop[114].

August 1986 Gove and Brignall went to New York City to consult Canuto and the Vatican Ambassador to the UN, Giovanni Cheli (1918-2013), on the agenda Gove had prepared[115]. The agenda was then mailed to Chagas who deleted the reference to "six" laboratories and mailed the revised agenda to all workshop invitees in mid-September[116].

September 1986 Gove and Brignall travelled to Rome, visited Chagas in the Pontifical Academy of Science headquarters in the Vatican and were introduced to Pope John Paul II (r. 1978-2005)[117]. The Turin workshop was chaired by Chagas and held in a seminary in Turin from 29 September to 1 October 1986[118]. A protocol for dating the Shroud was agreed upon (by ignoring Gonella's concerns about the number of laboratories-see 27 April 1987)[119].

April 1987 The Fourth International Symposium on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry was held at Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada 27-30 April[120]. It celebrated the tenth anniversary of the first detection of carbon-14 in natural organic material by accelerators (see above)[121]. No word had come concerning a decision from Turin or Rome to date the Shroud[122]. Those at the symposium representing the five AMS laboratories that had participated in the Turin workshop agreed to confirm to Chagas their support of the dating protocol and to press for action[123]. During the symposium an article was published in the Turin newspaper La Stampa quoting Gonella as stating that only two or three carbon dating laboratories would be given Shroud samples to carbon-date[124]. [See 27 April 1987].

Continued in 27 April 1987, where my "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" series began.

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. "Accelerator mass spectrometry," Wikipedia, 26 September 2019. [return]
3. "File:12929 2008 Article 54 Fig1 HTML.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 10 April 2018. [return]
4. "Accelerator mass spectrometry," Wikipedia, 26 September 2019. [return]
5. Bowman, S., 1990, "Radiocarbon Dating," Interpreting the Past, British Museum Publications: London, p.11; "Carbon-14," Wikipedia, 6 November 2019. [return]
6. "Willard Libby," Wikipedia, 9 November 2019. [return]
7. Libby, W.F., 1955, "Radiocarbon Dating," [1952], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, p.1. [return]
8. Libby, 1955, p.2. [return]
9. "Uses of Radioactivity: Radiocarbon dating," Pass My Exams: Easy exam revision notes for GSCE Physics, 29 June 2018. [return]
10. "Carbon-14 dating," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15 November 2019. [return]
11. "Uses of Radioactivity: Radiocarbon dating," Pass My Exams, 29 June 2018. [return]
12. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.134; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.171; 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.179. [return]
13. Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous - the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-65, 58; Morgan, R., 1988, "Carbon Dating the Shroud - A 1988 Resumé," Shroud News, No. 47, June, pp.3-13, 5. [return]
14. Bowman, 1990, p.10; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.11. [return]
15. Wilson, 1991, p.171. [return]
16. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 307; Antonacci, 2000, pp.157-158; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.138-139; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.161. [return]
17. "BioMath: Carbon Dating," The University of Arizona, 16 February 2006. [return]
18. Libby, 1955, p.5. [return]
19. Ibid. [return]
20. Libby, 1955, p.2; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p137; Bowman, 1990, p.11; Wilson, 1998, p.180; Guerrera, 2001, p.115. [return]
21. Libby, 1955, pp.8-9. [return]
22. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.133-134; Wilson, 1998, p.180. [return]
23. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.156; de Wesselow, 2012, p.161. [return]
24. Gove, H.E., 1999, "From Hiroshima to the Iceman: The Development and Applications of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.20. [return]
25. Gove, 1999, p.2. [return]
26. Gove, 1996, pp.11-12; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.135. [return]
27. Gove, 1996, p.12. [return]
28. Extract from, "Dr. Harry Gove Co-developer, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," El carbono 14, por Manuel Carreira, Sabana Santa, 2013. [return]
29. Gove, 1999, p.314. [return]
30. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.95; Antonacci, 2000, pp.192-193. [return]
31. Gove, 1996, pp.12-13. [return]
32. Gove, 1996, p.13. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. Ibid. [return]
35. Ibid. [return]
36. Ibid. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, pp.13-14. [return]
38. Stoler, P., 1977, "New Dating Game," Time magazine, 27 June. Reprinted in Gove, H.E., 1999, "From Hiroshima to the Iceman: The Development and Applications of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.20. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.14. [return]
40. Rensberger, B., 1977, "A New Method of Carbon-14 Dating Expected to Double Science's Range," The New York Times, 9 June, p.45. [return]
41. Gove, 1996, p.7. [return]
42. Ibid. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. Ibid. [return]
45. Gove, 1996, pp.50, 101. [return]
46. Gove, 1996, p.14; de Wesselow, 2012, p.164. [return]
47. Gove, H.E., 1992, in Wilson, I., 1994, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 36, December 1993/January 1994, p.22; Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
48. Wilson, I., 1989, "Recent Publications: Archaeometry," BSTS Newsletter, No. 23, September, pp.14-19, 19. [return]
49. Wilson, 1998, p.185. [return]
50. Gove, 1996, p.14. [return]
51. Ibid. [return]
52. Ibid. [return]
53. Gove, 1996, p.320. [return]
54. Ibid; Guerrera, 2001, p.116. [return]
55. Ibid. [return]
56. Ibid; Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
57. Gove, 1996, p.30. [return]
58. Gove, H.E., 1989, "Letter To The Editor: The Turin Shroud," Archaeometry, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.235-237, 236, in McDonnell, D.J., 1993, "The Great Holy Shroud Dating Fraud of 1988," Shroud News, No 84, August 1994, pp.6-11, 7. [return]
59. Weisberg, L., 1987, "Shroud Splits Scientists," The Scientist, Vol. 1, No. 17, 13 July, p.1. [return]
60. Nagel, T., 1997, "The Last Word," Oxford University Press: New York NY, p.130. [return]
61. Gove, 1996, p.31. [return]
62. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.21. [return]
63. Ibid. [return]
64. Gove, 1996, pp.46, 74-75. [return]
65. Gove, 1996, pp.45-47, 320. [return]
66. Wilson, I., 1987, "Obituaries," BSTS Newsletter, No. 15 - January/February, p.8. [return]
67. Gove, 1996, pp.45-46. [return]
68. Gove, 1996, pp.45-47, 320. [return]
69. Gove, 1996, pp.74, 200. [return]
70. Sox, 1988, p.100. [return]
71. Gove, 1996, p.80. [return]
72. Sox, 1988, p.94. [return]
73. Gove, 1996, p.321. [return]
74. Gove, 1996, p.321. [return]
75. Gove, 1996, p.77. [return]
76. Gove, 1996, p.321. [return]
77. Burleigh, R., 1986, "Trondheim Radiocarbon Dating Conference," BSTS Newsletter, No. 13, April, pp.5-9, 6; Wilson, 1998, p.306. [return]
78. Morgan, R., 1985, "Radiocarbon Dating Conference, Trondheim, Norway," Shroud News, No. 32, December, pp.7-9, 8. [return]
79. Morgan, 1985, p.8. [return]
80. Gove, 1996, p.77. [return]
81. Gove, 1996, p.77. [return]
82. Gove, 1996, pp.77-78. [return]
83. Morgan, 1985, p.8. [return]
84. Gove, 1996, p.78. [return]
85. Gove, 1996, p.79. [return]
86. Gove, 1996, p.321. [return]
87. Wilson, I., 1985, "Recent Developments: British Proposals for Shroud Testing and Radiocarbon Dating," BSTS Newsletter, No. 10, April, p.3. [return]
88. Wilson, 1985, p.3. [return]
89. Gove, 1996, pp.9, 321. [return]
90. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.169. [return]
91. Wilson, 1998, pp.184, 306; Tribbe, 2006, p.169. [return]
92. Gove, 1996, pp.83, 321. [return]
93. Gove, 1996, pp.9, 321. [return]
94. Ibid. [return]
95. Ibid. [return]
96. Antonacci, 2000, p.183. [return]
97. "Carlos Chagas Filho," Academia Brasileira de Ciências, n.d. [return]
98. "Speech by Vittorio Canuto, Session III," YouTube, October 11, 2011. [return]
99. Gove, 1996, pp.9, 85, 321. [return]
100. Gove, 1996, pp.86, 321. [return]
101. Gove, 1996, pp.94, 322. [return]
102. Gove, 1996, pp.96, 322. [return]
103. Gove, 1996, pp.96, 322. [return]
104. Wilson, 1985, p.182. [return]
105. Gove, 1996, pp.97, 322. [return]
106. Gove, 1996, p.322. [return]
107. Gove, 1996, p.150. [return]
108. Gove, 1996, p.322. [return]
109. Ibid. [return]
110. Ibid. [return]
111. Ibid. [return]
112. Ibid. [return]
113. Ibid. [return]
114. Ibid. [return]
115. Ibid. [return]
116. Ibid. [return]
117. Ibid. [return]
118. Ibid. [return]
119. Gove, 1996, pp.322-323. [return]
120. Gove, 1996, p.323. [return]
121. Ibid. [return]
122. Ibid. [return]
123. Ibid. [return]
124. Ibid. [return]

Posted: 10 November 2019. Updated: 12 December 2019.