Open letter to Nature: "Shroud of Turin: Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" (draft)

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Newcomers start with: "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell"

[Previous: Shroud of Turin News, January-June 2025] [Next: To be advised].

This is the eleventh instalment of my long-promised "Open letter to Nature: Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" (see 22Jan25; 15Dec25; 10Febr26 & 07Mar26). It is a draft because

[Right. The signatories and abstract of the article[14Feb19].]

it will not be the actual word-processed letter that I will submit to Nature. That is because Nature might use it as an excuse to not publish it, if it has already been published on my blog. If Nature does refuse to publish my open letter, I will submit it to another scientific journal. However, I expect Nature will publish it, with a rebuttal from the laboratories, so as not to lose control of the resulting debate. When my open letter is (or is not) published by Nature or another scientific journal, I will publish it here. I will add an abstract when I have almost finished the post. I will include here on my blog photos in, and references to, my other posts, which will not be in my letter submitted to Nature, because of its limit of 6-8 pages. I will use my in-line referencing and in my actual letter convert them to sequentially numbered references. I will also then convert my references to Nature's referencing style. I would appreciate constructive criticisms in comments under this post. However, I may not agree with a comment, with an explanation why, and so not change my post in response to it.

---

Editor
Springer Nature
Hampshire International Business Park
Cromwell Place
Lime Tree Way
Basingstoke
RG24 8YJ
UK

Date

Dear Editor,

Shroud of Turin: Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?

On 16 February 1989, an article in Nature claimed that, “Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich ... The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence.”[DP89, 611].

Yet, Professor Christopher Ramsey, then Director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, who as “C.R. Bronk” was a signatory to that article, acknowledged: “There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow ...”[RC08].

Three items, among many, in that “lot of other evidence,” are: the Pray Codex, dated 1192-95[PCW] and the speech of Nicholas Mesarites in 1200/1201[NMW]. These prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud existed at least 65 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[MP98, 33].

The Pray Codex is a collection of medieval manuscripts discovered in Hungary in 1770 by György Pray (1723-1801), a Hungarian librarian[FM15, 59; GPW; PCW]. The codex contains the earliest surviving prose text in the Hungarian language[BI69, 19; WI98, 145-146] and is kept in the National Széchényi Library in Budapest[WI91, 150; PCW].

The codex was prepared at Hungary's Boldva monastery between 1192 and 1195[BI69, 19; OM10, 37; PCW], but the style of its miniatures resembles art of the middle of the twelfth century[BI69, 19; WI91, 151]. The earliest, 1260, radiocarbon date of the Shroud[DP89, 611] is mid-thirteenth century.

The codex contains four pages of pen and ink drawings[BI69, 19; WI91, 150; GV01, 104; <]. The third page of those drawings has two scenes, one above the

[Left (enlarge[FHP]): Folio 28 of the Pray Codex[BI69, plate III & 109]. Wikipedia noteas=s"The images are claimed as one of the evidences against the radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin."[PCW].]

other[BI69, 19; OM10, 37; DT12, 178], depicting the gospel's accounts of the preparation of Jesus’ body for his burial (John 19:38-40)[DT12, 178] and of his resurrection (Mark 16:5-6)[DT12, 178], respectively.]

The likely place and date of these four drawings in the Pray Codex was in Constantinople during the reign of Hungary’s King Bela III (c. 1148-96) between 1172 and 1196[DT12, 178]. Bela had spent his youth in Constantinople from 1165 to 1172[BI69, 20; BTW] and during his reign cultural links between Hungary and the Byzantine capital were strong[DT12, 178].

The following, numbered, are what agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow called, “telling correspondences between the Shroud and the drawings on a single page of the Pray Codex.”[DT12, 180].

In the upper scene, 1. Jesus is full-frontally naked, unique in the 12th century[OM10, 37; DT12, 179]. His arms are crossed 2. right over left[WI79, 160; DT12, 178] 3. at the wrists[WI10, 183; DT12, 179]. Jesus’ hands, each of which 4. have four unnaturally long fingers[GV01, 105; WB06, 91] but 5. no thumbs[WI98, 146; OM10, 37], when his left hand thumb should be visible[DT12, 179], 6. cover his genitals[WS00, 114]. 7. Jesus is about to be wrapped in a double-body length burial shroud[WI10, 183-184; DT12, 178] held by, and draped around, the shoulders of three of Jesus’ male disciples[WI10, 184; DT12, 178]. Over Jesus’ right eyebrow is 8. a red mark, in the same location and orientation as the large `reversed 3’ bloodstain on the Shroud[OM10, 38; WI10, 183; DT12, 179].

In the lower scene, the tomb of Jesus is represented by a sarcophagus with an open lid[WI98, 146; DT12, 178].

The sarcophagus lid has 9. a stepped pyramid pattern representing the Shroud's herringbone twill weave[WI10, 184; DT12, 179], and 10. two diagonal zig-zag red streaks representing the bloodflows on each of the shroudman's arms[MP98, 33; SD08, 63-64]. On the sarcophagus and its lid respectively are 11. two sets of L-shaped circles, evidently representing the so-called “poker holes” on the Shroud[DT12, 180; GV01, 104]. Emerging from the lid is an empty shroud[WI91, 160; WI98, 146; OM10, ] evidently representing Jesus’ resurrection. In that small shroud is another set of tiny, barely visible, inverted L-shaped “poker holes”[WI91, 160; IJ98, 154; WI98, 146-147]. [Right. Sketch of tiny “poker holes”[WI98, 147]. This disposes of the argument that the Pray Codex's “poker holes” are "just decorative elements, as seen on the angel's wing and on various items of clothing"[PCW], because not only do the Codex's `poker holes' have their matching counterparts on the Shroud, the unknown artist who painted the Pray Codex would not likely have bothered to include this set of barely visible `poker holes' as decorative elements in his drawing.

In the fourth drawing, which depicts “Christ Enthroned,” 12. an angel is

[Left (enlarge): Folio 28v of the Pray Codex[BI69, plate IV & 109].

holding a cross with three nails extracted from it, as on the Shroud[WI95, 5]. In Jesus'right hand (actually left but apparently right, because the image is a photographic negative[SPW; STW] and therefore left-right reversed)[WI79, 29-30; AM00, 34-35] a red mark represents the nail wound in the shroudman’s wrist[WI95, 5; WI98, 146; OM10, 38 ] but in his left hand it is, as traditionally depicted, in Jesus' palm[WI98, 146]. Which means that the artist was aware of the tradition, but because on the Shroud the nail wound is in the man's right wrist[WI98, 146], while in his left hand the nail wound is covered by Jesus right hand[BR82, 8; WI98, 14], the artist drew what he saw on the Shroud[WI98, 147]! Finally, 13. a large red mark on Jesus’ right side depicts the speared-in-the-side bloodstain in that approximate location on the Shroud[LM10].

All 13 of the above features in two drawings in the Pray codex have their counterparts on the Shroud, and mostly nowhere else[DT12, 180]. The probability would be astronomical that these 13 shared features with the Shroud, scome of which are unique, could have occurred on these two drawings in the Pray Codex by chance[DT12, 178]. In science the Principle of Parsimony states that, “whenever we have different explanations of the observed data, the simplest one is preferable”[SD26] The simplest explanation for these 13 shared features between the Pray Codex and the Shroud is that an artist, in or before the 12th century, saw the Shroud in Constantinople and painted it[WI98, 147; SD00, 197], rather than 13 separate explanations.

The speech of Nicholas Mesarites in 1200/1201 Nicholas Mesarites (1163/64-1215/17)[AM19, 1] was, from 1200 to 1204, the Keeper of the Imperial relic collection in Constantinople’s Pharos Chapel[SD89a, 89; AM19, 6-7].

In his 1207 eulogy at the burial of his brother John[SD89b, 323; AM19, 134], Mesarites recounted that in 1200/1201 he had defended the chapel’s relics against a mob during a palace revolution[AF82, 27; AM19, 134; GV01, 7]. He had warned the would-be looters of the relics in the chapel[AF82, 27; SD89a, 89; SD89b, 323], including the:

“Burial sindones of Christ: these are of linen. They are of cheap and easy to find material, still smelling of myrrh, and defying destruction since they wrapped the uncircumscribed, fragrant-with-myrrh, naked body after the Passion.”[SD89b, 321].

“sindones” is the plural of sindon, the Greek word translated “shroud” in the gospels (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53)[RJ77, 24;IJ98, 80; GV01, 31]. Presumably Mesarites was referring to the Image of Edessa/Shroud[WI79, 120; IJ98, 104-105; AM00, 132-133; GV01, 2-3; WI10, 140-141] and two copies of it taken from Edessa to Constantinople in 944[AM00, 130; TF06, 24]. However, from what followed in his speech, Mesarites could only be referring to the Shroud.

“myrrh”. A large quantity of a mixture of myrrh and aloes was packed around Jesus’ body as anti-putrefacents[Jn 19:39; WI79, 57-58; AM00, 117; TF06, 66]. Traces of myrrh and aloes have been detected on the Shroud[BB00, 213; BJ01, 69; GV01, 76].

“uncircumscribed” is the Greek word aperilepton, which literally means “un-outlined”[DT12, 176]. This can only refer to the Shroud, which uniquely has no outline[BA34, 14; WI91, 155; DT12, 176].

“naked body” also can only refer to the Shroud, in which the shroudman is naked but 13th century art never depicted the crucified Jesus without at least a loincloth[DT12, 176]. Mesarites could not have known that Jesus' body was naked on a sindon unless he saw the full-length Shroud in Constantinople in 1200/1201[SD91, 196; WI98, 145].

“Passion.” “The Passion (from Latin patior 'to suffer, bear, endure') is the short final period before the death of Jesus”[PFJ]. “Jesus's Passion [is] the period of intense suffering before his death on the cross”[OM10, 157]. It includes his: beatings (Mt 26:67-68; Mk 14:65; Lk 22:63-64; Jn 18:22-23; 19:3)[WE54, 40; AM00, 119], scourging (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; & Jn 19:1)[AM00, 119]; crowning with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17 & Jn 19:2)[AM00, 119; GV01, 38] and crucifixion[Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33 & Jn 19:18; RTB]. The Shroud uniquely bears all the above marks of Jesus' passion[GH96, 1; RTB].

These six descriptors uniquely identify the Shroud, in Constantinople, in 1200/1201[WI91, 154-155]. At least 59 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shoud!

Together with the 13 shared features on two drawings in the 1192-95 Pray codex and the Shroud (above), the claim that, "The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390" cannot be correct and therefore the article should be retracted.

To be continued in the twelfth instalment of this post.

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]

Bibliography
AF82. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
AM19. Angold, M., 2019, “Nicholas Mesarites: His Life and Works (in Translation),” Liverpool University Press: Liverpool UK..
BA34. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London.
BB00. Baima Bollone, P., 2000, "The Forensic Characteristics of the Blood Marks," in SS00, 209-218.
BG84. Baima Bollone, P. & Gaglio, A., 1984, "Demonstration of Blood, Aloes and Myrrh on the Holy Shroud with Immunofluorescence Techniques," Shroud Spectrum International, No.13, December, 3-8.
BI69. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., translated, West, A., revised, Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland.
BJ01. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA.
BR82. Bucklin, R., 1982, "The Shroud of Turin: Viewpoint of a Forensic Pathologist," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 5, December, 3-10.
BTW. “Béla III of Hungary,” Wikipedia, 11 March 2026. DP89. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 611-615.
BZ98. Baima-Bollone, P. & Zaca, S., 1998, "The Shroud Under the Microscope: Forensic Examination," Neame, A., translated, St Pauls: London.
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
FHP. "File:Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 21 January 2026.
FM15. Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore.
GPW. "György Pray," Wikipedia, 26 August 2024.
GH96. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
LM10. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org.
MM02. Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC.
MP98. Maloney, P.C., 1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in MM02, 16-47
NA19. Nicolotti, A., 2019, "The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World`s Most Famous Relic," [2015], Baylor University Press: Waco Texas.
NMW. "Nicholas Mesarites," Wikipedia, 23 November 2025.
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
PCW. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 19 December 2023.
PFJ. "Passion of Jesus," Wikipedia, 12 April 2026.
RC08. Ramsey, C., 2008, "The Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, March.
RJ77. Robinson, J.A.T., 1977, " The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," in SK77, 23-30.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
SD00. Scavone, D.C., "Greek Epitaphoi and Other Evidence for the Shroud in Constantinople up to 1204," in WB00
SD89a. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA.
SD89b. Scavone, D., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in SR89, 311-329.
SD91. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in BA91, 171-204.
SD26. "Parsimony Principle," Science Direct, Elsevier, 2026.
SK77. Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY.
SPW. "Secondo Pia," Wikipedia, 1 April 2024.
SR89. Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL
STW. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 28 April 2026.
SS00. Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, 2000, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
WB00. Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA.
WB06. Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia.
WE54. Wuenschel, E.A. 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI91. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London.
WI95. Wilson, I., 1995, "From a Forgotten Memorandum: A Visit to the Oxford Research Laboratory 7 July 1988," BSTS Newsletter, 15-18, 16-17.
WI98. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.
WI10. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London.

Posted 23 April 2026. Updated 6 May 2026.

Shroud of Turin News, January - June 2025

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Newcomers start with: "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell"

[Previous: Shroud of Turin News, September-December 2024 ] [Next: Shroud of Turin News, July-December 2025].

This is my Shroud of Turin News for January - June 2025. I am still

[Sometime last night (15 April 2026), TSoT reached 3 million page views [Rght]! It was only on 16 March 2025, 395 days ago, that TSoT reached 2 million pageviews. That's an average of 1,000,000 / 395 = 2,532 pageviews a day in that time!]

catching up with my Shroud news articles (see 11May24) while I prepare my "Open letter to Nature" (see 22Jan25; 15Dece25; 10Febr26), which I am working on almost every day. I am also making steady progress, writing my book, "Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus" (See 06Jul17, 03Jun18, 04Apr22, 13Jul22, 08Nov22, 20Jun24; 01Dec24 & 15Dec25) almost every day, but my "Open letter to Nature," is my present higher priority (started - see 23Apr26). News articles will be in reverse date order (most recent uppermost). My comments will be within [bold square brackets] to distinguish them from the articles' words.

---

"Paranormal investigator known as `real-life Scully' dead at 80," New

York Post, 22 April 2025, David Propper ... Joe Nickell [Right (enlarge, New York Times)] called himself "the world's only full-time professional paranormal investigator," and was known for digging into some of the world's biggest myths before he died on March 4 at the age of 80 from an undisclosed cause ... [Nickell's death is a huge blow to Shroud scepticism, from which it may not recover. Although he was 80, in that time scepticism has not produced a successor to Nickell. A likely reason is that having been assured by Nickell that the Shroud is a 14th century forgery, no sceptic is prepared to put the time and effort into reading pro-Shroud literature to the extent that Nickell did.

Nickell pontificated on what is and is not "science" (as we shall see) and even pretended to be a white-coated scientist (below),

Left: Shroud sceptic Joe Nickell, whose Ph.D. was in English for graduate work focusing on literary investigation and folklore posing as a white-coated scientist! [10May12; 10Dec15; 07Jul23].

but Nickell was not a scientist, his PhD being in English!

I won't comment on the articles in memory of Nickell, because I cannot find any that mentioned the Shroud, even though it was his major topic. In 1983 Nickell published his "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," which was updated in 1987, and then went through multiple reprintings. Nickell also has a chapter on the Shroud in each of his "Looking for a Miracle (1993) and "Relics of the Christ" (2007); published in Britain as "The Jesus Relics" (2008). Nickell also wrote many articles against the Shroud: "The Case of the Shroud: What happens when faith attempts a science project" (1998); "Scandals and Follies of the 'Holy Shroud'" (2001); "Voice of Reason: The Truth Behind the Shroud of Turin" (2005); "Another Easter for the Turin `Shroud'" (2013); "Fake Turin Shroud Deceives National Geographic Author" (2015).

The following briefly are Nickell's objections to the Shroud, in his books and articles, and my responses to those objections. This will help me write Chapter "21 Objections answered" of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" See 06Jul17, 03Jun18, 04Apr22, 13Jul22, 8 Nov 22, 20Jun24 & 01Dec24. If Nickell's objections are in single quotation marks that is because they are are paraphrases of Nickell's own words.]
• `The whereabouts of the Shroud are unrecorded for thirteen centuries'[NJ87, 7]. [False. "So it is not `13 absent centuries' but only 544 - c.302 = c. 242 years, i.e. less than three centuries that the Shroud was flying under history's radar![10Feb26].]
• `The Roman Catholic Church has never claimed that the Shroud is authentic'[NJ87, 7]. [The Roman Catholic Church has never claimed that the Shroud is not authentic either! By its actions in spending many millions of US dollars equivalents in preserving and exhibiting the Shroud over many decades, the Roman Catholic Church clearly believes the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet, but for some reason, it refuses to confirm or deny that[06Oct13; 21Feb20; 29Dec20; 29May21; 11May24; 04Jun24; 15Dec25.]]
• `The pilgrim's medallion [see 13Apri18] is the earliest known authentic record of the Shroud - before this are thirteen centuries of silence'[NJ87, 12]. [False. See above that the Shroud's missing years from the historical record are less than three centuries.]
• `There is a complete lack of provenance of the Shroud[NJ87, 12]. [False. "Provenance ... of the Shroud. The cloth now known as the Shroud of Turin has had a known history from the time of the de Charny display. ... a reasonable theory tracing its existence back to the time of the crucifixion ... is well supported by a great deal of varied historic, artistic (iconographic), and other circumstantial evidence"[AA0a, 123]. There "are plenty of objects whose exact provenance includes long gaps. That happens very often in art history"[29Mar12]. "It is a common experience for museum curators to be confronted with genuinely ancient objects of unknown provenance and history, e.g. the Portland Vase has a 1,600-year gap in its history"[02Apr16]. `The Shroud carries in itself its own proof of its genuineness' as does "a bronze statue that was found at the bottom of the Aegean Sea" which "Experts examined it and pronounced it a genuine Greek statue"[16Dec24].]
• "New Testament writers fail to mention an image on the Shroud"[NJ87, 12]. [The New Testament writers do not mention the Shroud at all after Jesus' burial (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53)[15Aug20; 07May23], before the image was imprinted on the Shroud at Jesus' resurrection. And the image may not have been visible until after the New Testament was written (the Latent Image Theory)[15Aug20; 07May23]. But if Jesus' image was visible on the Shroud in the time of the New Testament writers, they had good reasons to not write that it was: 1) Christians were a persecuted minority in Christianty's early centuries, and its more numerous and powerful enemies, the Jews and Romans, would have demanded that they hand over the Shroud to destroy it, or be tortured to death if they refused[05Jan11; 30Jan11; 10May12; 23Nov14]; 2) It would lend credence to the Jewish religious leaders' explanation for Jesus' empty tomb that the disciples had stolen Jesus' body (Mt 28:11-15)[11Jan11; 30Jan11; 07May23]; 3) If the New Testament writers had mentioned that Jesus' image was on the Shroud, it would not have convinced those who did not believe that Jesus had been resurrected, just as it doesn't convince non-Christians (and even Christians) today[19Oct22; 08Nov22].]
• "The bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers [r. 1354–70], launched an investigation"[NJ87, 12] [Into the exposition of the Shroud in c. 1555 at Lirey, France. This was based on a 1389 memorandum of Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377–95), a later Bishop of Troyes[NJ87, 12]. But there is no evidence that de Poitiers conducted an investigation into the Shroud [27Dec14; 11Jul16; 22Dec16; 03Jul18; 19Oct22; 08Nov22; 21Feb23; 12Nov25]. Nor that de Poitiers had a problem with the Shroud[16Feb15; 21Aug18; 14Jan19; 29Dec20; 04Apr22; 19Oct22; 21Feb23; 10Oct25] and much evidence that he did not[14Jan19; 04Apr22; 19Oct22; 21Feb23; 10Oct25]
• "The d'Arcis memorandum is a powerful charge against the authenticity of the Shroud"[NJ87, 12]. [The so-called "d'Arcis

[Right (enlarge): Folio 137, the second of the two drafts, the first being folio 138, of the so-called d'Arcis memorandum[11Jan23; 07Jul23; 03Jul18; 08Nov22; 12Nov25]. As can be seen, although this is the second draft it still has crossings out and is not a finished memorandum. The reason these two rough paper drafts are in the Bibliothèque nationale de France (The National Library of France), and not the archives of the Troyes Diocese, is because the Troyes archivist Nicholas Camuzat (1575-1655), did not consider them to be memoranda[12Nov25].

memorandum" was not likely authored by Bishop d'Arcis but by a clerk in d'Arcis' bishop's palace[21Mar23; 12Nov25]. And nor is it a memorandum, being paper, not parchment[12Nov25]. Its Latin is "barbarous"[12 Nov25] and d'Arcis had been a lawyer[13Apr16; 11July16; 29Dec20; 12Nov25]. The original memorandum exists only as two rough paper drafts[WE54, 65; SH90, 155; AM00, 152; BB91, 237; BM95, 42; GV01, 15], not parchment, as a memorandum would be[BB91, 237; 21Feb23; 12Nov25]. They are unsigned[10May12; 11Jul16; 03Jul18; 08Nov22; 11Jan23; 07Jul23; 12Nov25], undated[10May12; 11Jul16; 03Jul18; 08Nov22; 08Nov22; 11Jan23; 07Jul23], unaddressed[10May12; 11Jul16; 03Jul18; 08Nov22; 08Nov22; 11Jan23; 07Jul23], paper drafts[10May12; 11Jul16; 03Jul18; 08Nov22; 07Jul23]. No original or copy of the memorandum has been found in the Troyes diocese's or the papal archives in Avignon or Rome[10May12; 08Nov22; 21Feb23], so there is no evidence that the memorandum was sent to Avignon Pope Clement VII (r. 1378-94)[10May12; 11Jul16; 03Jul18]. However, Pope Clement did reply to d'Arcis, enjoining "perpetual silence" upon him in this matter[10May12; 11Jul16; 08Nov22], so presumably d'Arcis conveyed his complaint to Pope Clement verbally, along the lines of the memorandum, through the papal nuncio Cardinal Pierre de Thury (-1410)[10May12; 11Jul16; 03Jul18]. The d'Arcis Memorandum did not exist until 1899 when French historian Canon Ulysse Chevalier (1841-1923) fraudulently created it by transcribing the two paper drafts onto parchment, dated and published it[12Nov25]. Chevalier dishonestly transcribed the two paper drafts onto parchment, attached a date of 1389, and added an address to the Avignon Pope Clement VII (1342-94)[11Jul16; 22Dec16]; 03Jul18; 19Oct22; 11Jan23]. Chevalier's attack on the authenticity of the Shroud was taken up in England by Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939)[22Dec16], who translated Chevalier's d'Arcis Memorandum from Latin into English and published it in the Jesuit journal The Month[11Jul16].Thurston must have known that there was no original parchment d'Arcis memorandum, because it would have already been published in the ~511 years between 1389 and 1900, and therefore Thurston was guilty of being an accessory to Chevalier's dishonesty and fraud[22Dec16].]
• "Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it ..." (emphasis Nickell's)[NJ87, 13]. See above that there was no inquiry by bishop Henri de Poitiers. Moreover, the shroudman's image is not painted[11Jan10]. Which Nickell admitted in the 1983 first edition of his book, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin", and has repeated unchanged in its 1987 edition and subsequent reprintings:

"...convincing evidence for any painting medium (that is, oil, egg tempera, etc.) on shroud image fibers is lacking. … Even at 40X magnification there areare no obvious encrustations and no apparent cementing between threads nor any consistent and confirmed coating of fibers to indicate the presence of a painting medium ... The superficiality of the stain - extending `only 2 or 3 fibers deep into the thread structure' - is another strong argument against painting. A fluid medium (for example, paint, dye, ink) would be expected, by capillary action, to penetrate much farther - to the depth of a full thread, or even to the reverse of the cloth. Finally, tests at several laboratories failed to detect the presence of any foreign organic substance in `body' image areas."[11Jul16].

Yet Nickell, dishonestly, deludedly, or worse (2Tim 2:26; 1Pet 5:8), even though for at least 42 years, he didn't believe that the shroudman's image had been painted, kept repeating the false claim in the d'Arcis Memorandum, that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted"[NJ93, 25; NJ01; NJ04; NJ05; NJ07, 125; NJ15; NJ18], in the time of d'Arcis' Bishop of Troyes predecessor Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–70).]
• "he [de Poitiers] began to institute formal proceedings against the said Dean [of the Lirey church] and his accomplices in order to root out this false persuasion. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary [de Poitiers] could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year."[NJ87, 13]. [This is also false! (see 12Nov25). de Poitiers would have known that in c. 1359 Jeanne de Vergy, the owner of the Shroud, married her second husband, Aymon (Amadeus) IV of Geneva (c.1324-69) and took the Shroud and her two young children to live with Aymon in Anthon, High Savoy. Why did de Poitiers have to find the Shroud? Medieval France had an advanced law enforcement system and if the Shroud had been taken by the "Dean and his accomplices" de Poitiers would have asked the police to find them and ask them where they had hidden it. The Dean of Lirey church, Robert de Caillac, died in 1358, so he couldn't have hidden the Shroud for "thirty-four years." ]

---

Prof. Andrea Nicolotti (1974-)'s 502 page, 2019 book against the Shroud (below [Amazon.com]) in my opinion it is a worthless pile of paper. For example, recently I checked in the book what Nicolotti wrote about the Pray Codex. The book doesn't have a subject index, but it does have a name index, however there is no entry for Gyorgy Pray. So it seems that Nicolotti ignored the Pray Codex in his book! All I could find relevant to the Pray Codex was:

"... the [iconographic] theory assumes that the Shroud is older than all the other iconographic depictions of Christ. The argument is obviously circular and the exact opposite could be affirmed, namely that the Shroud was made on the iconography of Christ"[NA19, 302].

This is a thoughtless argument from Professor Nicolotti. As I pointed out in my post of 19May12, "The `poker holes' are real burn holes on the Shroud, but only ink painted circles in the Pray Manuscript." And "There are bloodstains which are real [human] blood on the Shroud" but they are only only "red ink" in the Codex. A medieval forger would not burn holes in his Shroud forgery based on painted circles in the Pray Codex. Nor would he use real human blood on his Shroud forgery to depict the painted bloodstains in the Pray Codex. And the latter goes for "all the other iconographic depictions of Christ" which depict his blood with paint.]

magazine, 4 March 2025, Andrea Nicolotti ... Pseudoscience can often survive because of the continuous publication and dissemination of alleged new discoveries that cast doubt on the findings of "official science." Mass media regularly republish these "discoveries," which question otherwise clear and well-established findings. [See

"Anyone who has already read other books by Nicolotti knows, however, his destructive attitude: his interpretation of the sources is always contrary to the authenticity of the Shroud and the denial of any possibility that the relic is the funeral sheet of Christ is continually repeated. He is anxious to turn off any light, so that the darkness could be total. Nicolotti operates a systematic exaltation of the scholars who believe the Shroud to be false, people he presents as reliable, and an equally systematic denigration of those who consider it authentic, branded as sindonologists who make pseudoscience" (my emphasis)[10Oct25].

Nicolotti is a historian. As such he has no authority to demarcate between "science" and "pseudoscience." Nicolotti labels all pro-Shroud evidence and arguments as "pseudoscience" to "poison the well" against the Shroud, so that his sceptic readers won't bother to read it themselves.]

The Shroud of Turin is a perfect example: each year, new statements and new "studies" surface, and instill in the public the (false) idea that there is sufficient evidence to think that the relic is not medieval, but does in fact date back to the time of Christ. [Nicolotti does even consider that the reason why, following its 1988 radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, the Shroud sunk to an all-time low in public opinion but since then as further evidence was discovered which supported that the Shroud is indeed Jesus' burial sheeet and problems of the Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date came to light, the Shroud has been steadily rising in public opinion[10Oct25], is because the Shroud "is not medieval, but does in fact date back to the time of Christ" because it is his burial sheet! ]

For example, in recent weeks newspapers around the world have

[Above (enlarge[25Oct24]): Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) curves. The green "2000 years" curve is from a linen sample recovered from the Jewish fortress Masada which was conquered by the Romans in AD 74 and and thereafter occupied only between the 5th and 7th centuries by the Byzantine monastery of Marda[25Aug24]. The orange curve is from a Shroud sample. As can be seen, the Shroud sample's WAXS curve very closely matches that of the 1st century Masada sample!]

reported that a group of Italian researchers discovered an innovative way to date the fabric of the Shroud of Turin, and that this dating disproved the results of radiocarbon dating carried out in 1988 (which had placed the creation of the Shroud to somewhere between the 13th and 14th centuries). According to these media reports, the cloth is likely to be around 2,000 years old. [Nicolotti does not give the name of the "group of Italian researchers" and what was their "innovative way to date the fabric of the Shroud," so that his readers could not check it for themselves. It was "Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS)" by Scientists at Italy's Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, CNR). And the study was peer-reviewed: "X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud's Linen Sample" by Liberato De Caro, et al., Heritage 2022, 5(2), 860-870:

"Abstract: On a sample of the Turin Shroud (TS), we applied a new method for dating ancient linen threads by inspecting their structural degradation by means of Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS). The X-ray dating method was applied to a sample of the TS consisting of a thread taken in proximity of the 1988/radiocarbon area (corner of the TS corresponding to the feet area of the frontal image, near the so-called Raes sample). The size of the linen sample was about 0.5 mm × 1 mm. We obtained one-dimensional integrated WAXS data profiles for the TS sample, which were fully compatible with the analogous measurements obtained on a linen sample whose dating, according to historical records, is 55–74 AD, Siege of Masada (Israel). The degree of natural aging of the cellulose that constitutes the linen of the investigated sample, obtained by X-ray analysis, showed that the TS fabric is much older than the seven centuries proposed by the 1988 radiocarbon dating. The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe. To make the present result compatible with that of the 1988 radiocarbon test, the TS should have been conserved during its hypothetical seven centuries of life at a secular room temperature very close to the maximum values registered on the earth."

Hardly "pseudoscience"!] However, this "information" is incorrect, and the media did not bother to check the reliability of what they published. If we examine the reports closely, here is what actually happened: The article by the Italian scholars was published in 2022, so it is not new. [It is Nicolotti who is "incorrect". The news articles about WAXS and the Shroud started in 2022, as my posts about it show: 04Apr22; 22May22; 16Aug22; 09Sep23; 11May24; 25Aug24; 25Oct24] The simple facts are that a news outlet in the U.S. broke the news two years late—and then many others simply copied from it. [The simple fact is that Nicolotti is either ignorant, forgetful or lying in this matter!] The proposed dating system is not normally used nor has it been validated by the scientific community. [It is true that WAXS "is not normally used" for dating but that is irrelevant. Wikipedia says that: "In X-ray crystallography, wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS) [is] commonly used to determine a range of information about crystalline materials"[WAW]. And as for "nor has it been validated by the scientific community," there is no `validation by the scientific community'. De Caro, et al., published their findings in a peer-reviwed scientific journal (see above) which is all the vaidation by the scientific community they need!] It is based on the use of X-rays (Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering, or WAXS), which are supposed to measure the degradation of cellulose fibers [It does! A search "Wide-angle X-ray Scattering cellulose" revealed a number of journal articles which reported that Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering of cellulose fibres could reveal their structure. Which therefore could reveal the degradation of the structure of cellulose in linen of different ages.]. This system was invented in 2019 by these very same authors, and for the purpose of dating the Shroud, and so is not used by anyone else. [So what? The point is that this technique could be used by archaelogists to non-destructively determine the age of cellulose fibre fabrics, linen and cotton.] The method is highly unreliable, because tissue aging is strongly influenced by environmental factors, such as humidity, temperature, light exposure, storage conditions, and the possible presence of microorganisms or of various chemicals, all of which are unpredictable variables that can heavily alter the results. [Nicolotti, the historian, is making this up. According to the peer-reviewed article above, the structure of cellulose is only affected by temperatute and humidity. And the age of the Shroud sample is based on a reasonable "average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%" whereas, "To make the present result compatible with that of the 1988 radiocarbon test, the TS should have been conserved during its hypothetical seven centuries of life at a secular room temperature very close to the maximum values registered on the earth"! ...] Thus, it cannot provide a reliable dating that is remotely comparable to that provided by the proven Carbon-14 method, which dates the Shroud as being of medieval origin. [Leaving aside that the Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker (which my Open Letter to Nature (see above), if it is published, will prove that beyond reasonable doubt and cause Nature to retract the article), there are now five different scientific tests for the Shroud's age which overlap the date of Jesus' crucifixion in AD 30[16Aug22; 09Sep23; 11May24; 25Oct24].] The inventors of the WAXS method are not neutral scientists; they are sindonologists (i.e., people who study the Shroud of Turin from a believing perspective; from the Greek word sindòn, used in the Gospels to define the type of fine fabric, undoubtedly linen, with which the corpse of Jesus was believed to be wrapped), and who for years have been trying hard to prove that the Shroud is authentic [No one is neutral towards the Shroud. Nicolotti certainly isn't! But "sindonologists" don't need to be neutral - all they need to do is present the evidence accurately for the Shroud being Jesus' burial sheet and let their readers make up their own minds.]. None of them are experts in either dating or textiles. [De Caro, et al, are experts in dating cellulose-based textiles by WAXS! If Nicolotti followed his own principle, as a historian, he should not be commenting on scientific matters!]

---

"New research shows that the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin is fake," Mercator, 14 January 2025, William West. "For most of the 20th

[Left (enlarge): Australian journalist William West's second book, "The Shroud Rises: As The Carbon Date is Buried" (2024), which I don't yet own.]

century, there was a growing conviction around the world that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, carrying a mysterious `photographic' image of Jesus' body between death and resurrection. Then came the carbon dating of 1988, allegedly proving the Shroud was a mediaeval forgery. Overnight the Shroud went from Christendom's most prized artefact to being considered a mere icon ... Now, after almost four decades of further research, the Shroud has undergone a form of resurrection. The latest findings indicate it was the carbon dating that was fake, not the Shroud." [Specifically the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking! See my proof beyond reasonable doubt of this: 14May 25 & 14June 25. And see "My Hacker Theory in a nutshell." When Nature publishes my "Open letter to Nature" (see above) this will be evident to all but the most invincibly ignorant Shroud sceptic. And also to Shroudies who continue to ignore it, even though I have shown that, "Other Shroudie explanations all fail!" (see 28Feb25). But if Nature does not publishes my "Open letter" then it will be published here on my blog, and also I will submit it to other scientific journal(s). However, for the latter reason I now expect that Nature will publish my "Open letter"!]

[...]

In the middle of the two extremes is Michael Kowalski's recent book,

[Right (enlarge): The intriguing cover of Kowalski's book, which I ordered at a very reasonable price on Amazon.com and it arrived on 17 March, but I don't have time to read it!.]

The Shroud of Christ: Evidence of a 2,000 Year Antiquity. Kowalski, the current editor of the British Shroud of Turin newsletter, is a physics graduate who also studied statistical analysis. [I look forward to reading Kowalski's statistical analysis of the radiocarbon dating.] [...] Among the most important findings from this research has been the discovery that the image on the Shroud is likely to have been formed by burst of light in the form of ultraviolet radiation [Which is consistent with the Transfiguration of Jesus being a preview of Jesus' resurrection[23Jun15; 05Sep16; 05Feb17; 08Dec22; 09Sep23; 11May24; 02Jul24; 25Oct24].] The key research here was carried out by senior researcher and chief of research at Italy's National Council for New Technology, Energy and the Environment (ENEA), Dr Paolo Di Lazzaro. Working with a team of researchers using fine-tuned excimer laser equipment, he was able to achieve coloration of linen cloth matching the quality and coloration of the image on the Shroud. [See 22Dec11; 06Jan12; 15Jun12; 23Jun15; 11Aug15; 19May16; 05Sep16; 05Feb17; 08May18; 13Mar21; 11Feb22; 29May22; 09Sep23 & 25Oct24].]

All these developments – the duplication of the qualities of the image on the linen cloth, the new dating techniques that dated the Shroud to the first century, and the discovery of the flaws in the carbon dating of the Shroud in 1988 - [Obviously it was not "flaws in the carbon dating" that produced the `bull's eye' 1325 ±65 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[05Mar15; 24Nov15; 10Dec15; 30Dec15; 15Jul18; 28Oct18; 05Jan19; 20Mar19; 29May19; 09Jan21; 13March 21; 21Nov23; 11May24; 04Jun24; 20Jan25; 28Feb25]. It was that the dates of their Shroud samples which appeared on the screens of the AMS computer terminals at Arizona, Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories were not real dates, but computer-generated ones, produced by a hacker's program[13Aug14; 29May19; 21Nov23; 22Jan25; 28Jan25; 09Sep25]! The hacker being Arizona laboratory physicist, Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[05Jul14; 31Mar15; 27Apr15; 29Mar16; 07Apr25 & 14May25].]

– now support the conclusion that the Shroud is indeed genuine: the actual burial cloth of Jesus. [Indeed. The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet! ] In the process, they also support the conclusion that Jesus not only lived, but he died by crucifixion and rose from the dead in a process involving a massive burst of radiant energy that formed the mysterious image on the 2000-year-old burial cloth. [It did not have to be "massive". A "massive burst of radiant energy" would have destroyed the Shroud. It could have been the equivalent of "34 thousand billion watts"[22Dec11; 06Jan12; 15Jun12; 23Jun15; 11Aug15; 19May16; 05Sep16; 05Feb17; 08May18; 13Mar21; 09Sep23; 25Oct24; 10Feb26]. However, if that "34 thousand billion watts" of ultraviolet light from Jesus' resurrection had irradiated the Shroud for "durations shorter than one forty-billionth of a second":

"Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted five years of experiments, using state-of-the-art excimer lasers to train short bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen, in an effort to simulate the image's coloration. The ENEA team, which published its findings in 2011, came tantalizingly close to approximating the image's distinctive hue on a few square centimeters of fabric. But they were unable to match all the physical and chemical characteristics of the shroud image. Nor could they reproduce a whole human figure. The ultraviolet light necessary to do so `exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today,' says Di Lazzaro. It would require `pulses having durations shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and intensities on the order of several billion watts.'"[VF15]

then Jesus' resurrecting image could have been imprinted on the Shroud without destroying it!] This is consistent with 1Cor 15:52 that at Christians' resurrection:

"in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed."

The Greek word translated "moment" is atomos, which means "an indivisible point of time." And in Php 3:20-21, it says that at Jesus' return, he "will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body":

"20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself."

Therefore, if at Christians' resurrection their lowly bodies will be changed into being like Jesus' glorious body, in an atom of time, it is reasonable to assume that at Jesus' resurrection his lowly body was also changed into his glorious resurrection body in an atom of time!]

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]

Bibliography
AA0a. Adler, A.D., 2000, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in AC02, 113-127.
AC02. Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
BA91. Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX.
BB91. Bonnet-Eymard, B., "Study of original documents of the archives of the Diocese of Troyes in France with particular reference to the Memorandum of Pierre d'Arcis," in BA91, 233-260.
BM95. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, 18-51.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
NA19. Nicolotti, A., 2019, "The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World`s Most Famous Relic," [2015], Baylor University Press: Waco Texas.
NJ87. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
NJ93. Nickell, J., 1993, "Nickell, J., 1993, "Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY.
NJ01. Nickell, J., 2001, "Scandals and Follies of the 'Holy Shroud'," Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 25, No. 5, September,17-20.
NJ04. Nickell, J., 2004, "PBS `Secrets of the Dead' Buries the Truth About Turin Shroud," Skeptical Inquirer, April 9.
NJ05. Nickell, J., 2005, "Voice of Reason: The Truth Behind the Shroud of Turin," Livescience, 18 March..
NJ07. Nickell, J., 2007, "Relics of the Christ," The University Press of Kentucky: Lexington KY.
NJ15. Nickell, J., 2015, "Fake Turin Shroud Deceives National Geographic Author," 23 April.
NJ18. Nickell., 2018, "Crucifixion Evidence Debunks Turin `Shroud'," Center for Inquiry, 18 June.
SH90. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN.
VF15. Viviano, F., 2015, "Why Shroud of Turin's Secrets Continue to Elude Science," National Geographic, 17 April.
WAW. "Wide-angle X-ray scattering," Wikipedia, 10 January 2026.
WE54. Wuenschel, E.A. 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961.

Posted 7 March 2026. Updated 25 April 2026.