Saturday, January 9, 2021

Telephone Calls to Tucson about the Suicide of Timothy Linick

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the fourteenth installment of my comments on a transcript of phone calls between a French scholar Claude de Cointet who phoned Arizona radiocarbon dating leaders Paul Damon (1921-2005), Douglas Donahue (c. 1924-2020) and Timothy Jull in 1991, and discussed the suicide of the alleged hacker Timothy Linick. The transcript was emailed to Ian Wilson and me as a PDF on 23 October 2020 by Joe Marino. The transcript is available on Joe's website: https://tinyurl. com/y3blftto. I have Joe's permission to post the transcript here with my comments. Joe asked me to mention his new book, "The 1988 C-14 Dating Of The Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé" [Right: "A majority of scientific and historical evidence proves the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. Only one test says otherwise-the carbon date performed in 1988"[2]. I had ordered the book and it arrived today (13 January)]

My words will not be indented by contrast with the transcript.

First, Joe's covering email of 3 October 2020:

"While reorganizing my files, I came across a document I forgot I even had. It was sent to me in the early 90s by Claude de Cointet, an associate of Bro. Bruno Bonnet-Eymard. de Cointet called Damon, Donahue and Jull in late September 1991 and made a transcript (which I had to clean up considerably as everything sort of ran together). The call basically was about Linick's suicide but also has some information about how Arizona ran their samples. It has references to Linick being involved in computer programs. See attached. Best, Joe"[3].
Claude de Cointet was an
[Left (enlarge): "Bro Bruno Bonnet-Eymard [left] with M. Claude de Cointet [right] during a meeting at the St Louis Shroud Symposium June 1991"[4].]

associate of Bro. Bruno Bonnet-Eymard of the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth (later XXIst) Century. The two visited the University of Arizona in Tucson late in 1990 to interview the labs' scientists regarding the 1988 C-14 dating on the Shroud. One of the scientists, Dr. Timothy Linick, had committed suicide on June 4, 1989. Bonnet-Eymard and de Cointet did not know that at the time of their visit. De Cointet placed some calls in late 1991 to the lab in order to learn more details. Some additional information regarding the Shroud samples the lab had received are also revealed. De Cointet sent me a transcript of the various calls that were made. The transcript is very rough; de Cointet's English was not perfect. Since there is some valuable data in it, I have edited the document significantly, including deleting some irrelevant information, correcting spelling and spacing errors to make it easier to read. Commentary by de Cointet is in parentheses; I've made some remarks in italicized brackets.

Abbreviations used:

CdC: Claude de Cointet

TJ: Timothy Jull
DD: Douglas Donahue
PD: Paul Damon

24 September 1991, 09:00 -- Call to Tim Jull at the Tucson University
TJ: Tim Jull speaking.

[Right: Prof. A.J. Timothy Jull (1951-) with an image of a Shroud sample on a computer screen[5]. Note the Shroud's distinctive weave (see below).]


CdC: I am speaking to Dr. Jull?
TJ: Yes.
CdC: I am Claude de Cointet; I am calling you from Paris in France. You remember, I visited you one year ago with Brother Bruno; and I was looking for some addresses. Brother Bruno has made a very interesting study about the d'Arcis Memorandum. You remember that we spoke about the d'Arcis Memorandum? A very interesting historical story, and we want to send this document to you and also to B.H. Gore. By the way, are you still in contact with B.H. Gore? He was a student?
TJ: Yes, he is a student. I have an address for him. [Jull provided.]
CdC: I was also looking for the address of Timothy Linick, but unfortunately I heard that he committed suicide. I wanted to express my warmest sympathy to you about this event. More than two years [ago] – we did not hear about this when we were in Tucson [in October 1990]. We spoke about different people and you told me that except [for] Donahue, Damon and yourself, the people who were part of the C-14 measurement were agnostic most of them. Linick, it is an Irish name? No? He was not Irish?
TJ: He was Jewish—but not practicing.
CdC: Ah, yes, he was young, like you, no?
TJ: He was about 40 or so. [1]
CdC: The reasons why he killed himself are completely not ....
TJ: Yes, you know, he had some personal problems, which is a very long story; then he had a depression, so it is a very sad story but ....
CdC: Yes.
TJ: Anyway, O.K., you are going to send me ....
CdC: I will send you the story, yes.
TJ: OK and Dr. Donahue? Or just to me?
CdC: Oh yes, to Dr. Donahue also.
TJ: OK, thank you very much.
CdC: OK, fine, goodbye.
TJ: Goodbye.

Bonnet-Eymard and others regarded Linick's suicide as

[Left: Photograph of Timothy W. Linick in a May 2000 Bonnet-Eymard article, that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances ..."[6]. It is significant that although Bonnet-Eymard knew in this 1991 transcript that Linick's death was officially suicide, he does not call it that, evidently believing (as I do) that Linick's death was murder, made to look like suicide!]

suspicious, being less than four months after the 16 February 1989 publication in Nature of the article, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," in which Linick was a signatory, when he should have been basking in the success of (supposedly) having helped prove, "that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[8].

24 September 1991 at 9:30 (Tucson time) – Call to Douglas Donahue, at his office in Tucson

CdC: Yes, good morning Professor Donahue [Below [9].], I am Claude de Cointet. I am calling you from Paris. I just wanted to express [to] you my warmest sympathy, I just heard that Mr. Timothy Linick who was part of your staff committed suicide a few months ago. I wanted to send you an interesting study about the d'Arcis Memorandum that we discussed when we were having lunch with Bro. Bruno in the Mensa [Society] of your University. I had and address for Gore for Timothy Linick I heard from Hathaway that he unfortunately, he committed suicide.
DD: Yes, two years ago. It was a very sad thing.
CdC: Yes, and do you know the reason for his suicide?
DD: Well, he suffered from emotional problems. Who knows such things?
CdC: Yes, of course. He was still young he was about 40 or something like this?
DD: Oh yes, but young people also have emotional problems. It was a very sad thing, he had a young child; we miss him very much.
CdC: Yes, he was a recent immigrant or he was living the US for a long time?
DD: No, no, he was born in the U.S.
CdC: OK, it is very sad.
DD: Yes, so it happened two years ago.
CdC: In June, in June of 1989.
DD: Ah yes. We had in Radiocarbon, the Journal of Radiocarbon an issue dedicated to him and it had a small picture, you know, sometime ago.
CdC: Yes, you made some publications, you say in Radiocarbon?
DD: Radiocarbon, that is a journal. In an issue, a year or two ago. I don't remember the exact issue, but there was an obituary and his picture and a brief sketch of his life. The people in the business are aware. It is well known, but I can understand that you wouldn't have heard. He published a big article in Radiocarbon in 1986. He was a prolific and an excellent scientist.
CdC: Yes, and he was part of your experiments on the Shroud?
DD: Sure.
CdC: As he signed ... [the Nature report].
DD: Yes, he was.
CdC: What was his [Linick's] role, what did he do specifically? (silence) [2[
DD: Well, like others he did some of everything, mostly operating the machine, analyzing results, it is what he did always.
That Linick's role was "mostly operating the machine," i.e. Arizona's tandem accelerator mass spectrometer, confirms my deduction that Linick was in charge of the fully computerised AMS dating process at

[Above (enlarge)[10]: Extract of historic group photograph (presumably taken by Damon who isn't in it) of those present at the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory on 6 May 1988[11] when the AMS computer terminal [left] displayed a date of the Shroud, which when calibrated, was "1350 AD"[12]. The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick (1946-89) [see 05Jul14, 22Feb16], is in a black shirt[13], standing in front of everyone, including laboratory leaders Douglas Donahue (behind the seated person) and Timothy Jull (behind and on our right of Donahue). This is evidence that Linick was in charge of the fully computerised AMS dating process[14] at Arizona laboratory and those present were acknowledging that [see 22Feb16, 22Nov16, 25Mar18, 23Jun18, 15Jul18, 27Sep18, 28Oct18 & 06Nov20].]

Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory!

CdC: But he was not present when you received the samples?
DD: Not in Turin, no!
CdC: No, I mean in Arizona.
DD: He was certainly present when we made the measurement and when took the samples, sure. He was a full partner in all of everything we did.
CdC: Oh yes, but I am surprised because you never mentioned his name when we talked about these things.
DD: Well, when we talked it was a year later, and we keep trying to forget it. It was a big blow to us but we were slowly getting over it.
CdC: So you say he was [present] when you received the samples here in Tucson?
DD: We did not receive—we brought them back.
CdC: Of course, but then when you opened the container, and then did everything.
DD: Certainly.
De Cointet's questions reveal that he is trying to connect Linick's suicide with Bonnet-Eymard's theory that the British Museum's Michael Tite switched the Shroud sample with the linen control sample from the 13th century cope of St. Louis d'Anjou[15]. But firstly, Tite believed that the Shroud was medieval[16] so he would have no reason to risk his scientific career and reputation in switching the Shroud sample for a medieval sample. Secondly, the sample from the cope of St. Louis d'Anjou consisted only of threads[17] and its linen weave is not herringbone but plain linen[18]. And thirdly, the Shroud's weave is so distinctive (see above) that the laboratories all recognised which sample was from it[19].
CdC: OK, thank you very much professor. So I will send you our documentation.
DD: Documentation of what?
CdC: The article of Brother Bruno, he made a study and he was in Saint Louis at the Symposium and he made a very interesting presentation, a good paper about the d'Arcis Memorandum. You will see.
DD: When was the Symposium?
CdC: The Symposium of St. Louis? It was in June, just before the summer, and we attended this symposium. Dinegar was there and some other scientists.
DD: I think, about one year ago I was invited, but somehow or other it got lost, I think. thought it was 1992 actually. What is the name of the man who ...? It was Brother Marino. [I was a monk at the time.] He is a friend of my son-in-law; my son-in-law works for the St. Louis paper.
CdC: Oh, yes.
DD: OK, so I was happy to hear from you.
26 September at 08:30 (Tucson time) --Call to the home of Prof. Paul Damon. [Below [20].] His wife gives number at the University
PD: Damon.
CdC: Hello, Yes. Professor Paul Damon?
PD: Yes.
CdC: Oh yes, good morning professor, I am Claude de Cointet, you remember me? I spoke with you on the telephone about one year ago, and I wanted to have a friendly conversation with you if it was possible. I am not disturbing you too much?
PD: No. I don't remember the connection.
CdC: Oh yes, I am French and I was speaking to you about the radiocarbon experiments, you know.
PD: Oh, yes. Yes.
CdC: I came, in fact I visited Tucson about one year ago. [3]
PD: Yes, yes.
CdC: With Brother Bruno and we were looking for some details about the samples you received from Turin, etc. and at that time, there is something that we did not notice, we did not pay attention to it. In fact when we spoke with you and also with Dr. Jull, we never spoke about what was the exact role, what did Timothy Linick do, during these days, in Tucson. And in the meantime, I heard – I was informed that unfortunately he was dead, he committed suicide. It was in fact before we came, it was in June 89 and for us this may be very, very important, because ...
PD: No, no. He had had for a long time personal problems. He was separated from his wife, we all were (sigh) trying to encourage him to continue his work, he was an underachiever, quite brilliant—but with personal problems,
That Damon didn't let de Cointet finish shows that he had been prepared by Jull (above) and Donahue (above) in what to say!
PD: and he had very little to do with the Shroud of Turin. Yes, he was ... very little to do with it, so you know that ... (he stops) ... in no way should that be associated with the Shroud of Turin. In fact, it is really an ugly thought—and has no foundation in reality.
This is true in respect to Bonnett-Eymard's untenable sample switch theory. But it is not true in respect to the actual radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. As we saw above, Linick had everything to do with that!
PD: I think (sigh) it has been difficult for his wife, they were separated, not divorced, and—for his son—but he has had problems going back to ... a long ... his family, his parents.
Indeed Linick did have family problems (see 30Dec15).
PD: I mean these things are private ... (louder) (insisting) and (have) nothing at all to do ... You must remember if this had not been the Shroud of Turin, it would have been quite routine for us. We date linens all the time, and we have many other things on our mind besides the Shroud of Turin, and as I pointed out too, I think, to one of your colleagues, Doug Donahue is from an Irish Catholic family, and he was trying to be quite objective about the whole thing.
It is significant that Damon does not say that Donahue himself was a devout Catholic (see 06Nov20).
PD: He was not going to read up on it, etc—our job is just to date it, and within the first five minutes we could say it couldn't be first century. And I looked at him and looked very dejected. I said, “'What's wrong, Doug?' and he said, ‘I didn't think that I would be disappointed, but I am terribly disappointed'.” So you see from our point of view this is very troublesome (sigh) to repeat it all over again. We are comfortable with the our results and all we can say is that the flax was harvested not before ... (silence) the twelfth century (quickly correcting) the thirteenth century as the very, as you know, the very ... astronomical statistics ...
This is false. Damon must have known that it is common for archaeologists to reject radiocarbon dates if they conflict with the archaeological evidence[21]. This was confirmed by Sheridan Bowman, a signatory to the 1989 Nature article, and the successor to Tite at the British Museum:
"Rejecting radiocarbon results In the datelists published in the journal Radiocarbon, submitters provide a brief comment on how the radiocarbon results compare with the archaeology and therefore with expectation. Comments such as 'archaeologically acceptable', while not very informative, are less frustrating than the bald 'archaeologically unacceptable' statements. Often there is no discussion of these 'unacceptable' results; they are simply rejected by the archaeologist when evaluating the chronology of the site"[22].
And the evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

And as for "astronomical statistics" (above) the laboratories had pointed out that the probability that the Shroud, being 1st century, has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date, would be "astronomical"[23], "one in a thousand trillion"[24] and "totally impossible"[25]. But the flip side of this is that since the Shroud is 1st-century (according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence), it must be the radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 that is totally impossible! [see 20Dec14, 23Jul15, 11Jun16, 15Jul18 & 28Oct18].

PD: so we really ... we come back to this over and over again and if people don't believe our results were (accurate ?) somebody else can do it.
There is no need for "somebody else," i.e. another laboratory, to again carbon-date the Shroud. As Damon well knew, Arizona has its own undated part of its Shroud sample [Left [26]] which they could have dated anytime, and still could, if they were confident that the Shroud's "flax was harvested not before ... the thirteenth century"!
PD: What has happened is that there is a question of dishonesty. We know that we had a sample of the Shroud of Turin because of the weave and because it was wrapped in red silk, and we saw it microscopically, we saw two pieces—two threads—yes, so we know what we dated, and we did this routinely, we took very extra precautions. I developed in consultation with textile experts a very elaborate technique for purification, and it was really not necessary because the amount of impurities was negligible: about one part of a thousand so, you know, I mean (sigh) that is the way we looked at it ...
I agree! Contamination with new carbon cannot be the explanation why the 1st-century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date. Firstly, the amount of new carbon required to shift the 1st century Shroud's radiocarbon date 12-13 centuries into the future would have to be about 60% of the Shroud sample, and it clearly isn't (see above) [see 01Nov13, 24May14, 22Aug14, 08Dec14, etc]. Secondly, contamination with younger carbon cannot plausibly explain why the Shroud sample had the bull's eye radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, the midpoint of which is 1325 ±65, which `just so happens' to be a mere 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in c. 1355 at Lirey, France. Only some form of fraud can plausibly explain that, and with the failure of Bonnet-Eymard's sample switch theory, only my Revised Hacker theory [see 29May19, 02Sep19 & 14Feb20 & 15Apr20] is left still standing, unrefuted!
PD: but to bring Linick into this, is really a ... You should ... people should examine their motives in doing such a thing (he becomes aggressive) --it really bothers me from a moral and ethical point of view, and a personal point of view, because he was our friend and colleague, and we knew he had these problems for a long period of time and it was not ... it was not really something that he was closely associated with ... These problems have occurred (sigh) many years!—well before we heard of the Shroud.
Three points: 1) Linick was not de Cointet's friend and colleague, so Damon's bluster about the morality and ethics of de Cointet's questions is misplaced. 2) That Linick "had these problems [of depression] for a long period of time" does not explain why he killed himself at that point of time, 4 June 1989, when he would have been at a career high, having had his name published less than four months earlier as a signatory to the important 16 February 1989 Nature article, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin." 3) Damon's emotional overreaction to de Cointet's reasonable questions suggests that Damon had an uneasy conscience about Linick's apparent suicide (see future below)!
CdC: Yes, but he signed the Nature report, so he has been involved in the ...
PD: Yes, but involved peripherally; we put everybody on there, including the electrical, the physics engineer who helped to keep the machine ready.
Damon's downplaying of Linick's involvement in the Shroud's dating as only "peripherally" contradicts Donahue's description (above):
"He was certainly present when we made the measurement and when took the samples, sure. He was a full partner in all of everything we did." (my emphasis)
Evidently Damon (presumably after disussions with Jull and Donahue on what to say to de Cointet), is trying to hide something about Linick's involvement in dating the Shroud!
PD: People most directly involved were [4] – first for the preparation—were myself, Tim Jull, and Larry Toolin and Doug Donahue; the other people were simply doing what they always do.
CdC: But Doug Donahue told me that Timothy Linick was also involved in the ... was present the day when you received, you opened the containers. He told me, “Oh, of course Timothy Linick was here.”
PD: No, no, who told you that?
CdC: Doug Donahue. Yesterday I asked him.
PD: Not, not the first day because the first day he was not even in. We came in on a Sunday. And later, yes everybody wanted to see, sure everybody in the laboratory wanted to see, of course, I mean it was ...
Damon realises he has been caught out in a contradiction ...
PD: But why are you bringing this up? I really, (excited) I really feel that this is almost obscene ... (silence). It is almost obscene, Sir.
... so he resorts to counterattack! But again, Linick was not known to de Cointet, so it is not "obscene" for him to ask questions about the possible connection between Linick's apparent suicide, more than 2 years before, and his involvement in dating the Shroud. All Damon needed to do was answer de Cointet's questions truthfully. Unless they had something to hide!
CdC: We experienced unfortunately in Europe a lot of times in the past century and also unfortunately in these decades in some opportunities like this and in fact they ...
PD: You know, I think this is obscene. I think it's obscene, Sir! I think you ought to examine your conscience! And if you are truly religious, I think you ought to pray to God to close your mind ... (silence)
Clearly de Cointet's reasonable questions had `touched a raw nerve' with Damon! (see future below on what that probably was).
CdC: How did he commit suicide, did he hang himself?
PD: I beg pardon?
CdC: How did he commit ...?
PD: No, no, no, no, this ... (long silence) This, I mean, there is no ... (silence, great sigh) It is obscene! That is all I could say! (almost beside himself) I don't want to continue the conversation! What you are doing is obscene, to drain [drag] this man into this and to associate this with the Shroud of Turin, when it has absolutely nothing to do with it. (Suddenly calm and quiet)
It is significant that Damon does not simply answer de Cointet's simple question with, he "shot himself" (or so it was assumed) as Linick's half-brother Anthony emailed me [see 22Feb16].
PD: Well, let me say: if this objection, you people have, comes to a legitimate peer-reviewed journal, we will respond! But we cannot give up the rest of our work; this seems to be consuming you. It was ... it would have, if it had not been for the Shroud of Turin, been a routine matter for us, you see, you understand?
That is precisely the point! It was the Shroud of Turin that the laboratories dated. And the laboratories (originally seven!)[27] asked the Roman Catholic Church to be allowed to date the Shroud[28], not the other way around. So uniquely the laboratories were both the clients and the testers[29]. They wanted to date the Shroud for the publicity[30]. And having gone out a very public limb, the laboratories can't now admit, after 30+ years that they got it wrong!
CdC: Yes.
PD: And what you're doing is obscene to mix Tim Linick with anything to do with the Shroud of Turin concerning his suicide, (insisting again) this is obscene!
CdC: Well, I am just asking questions!
PD: Examine your conscience, Sir, examine your conscience!
CdC: Yes, yes.
PD: There is no reason for me to continue this conversation, I mean, I am astounded, I am astounded that you can do this.
CdC: There have been a lot of times where Masons were killing people, in order they not be able to testify, to give testimony, and this is always disguised in suicide. It is just a question I was asking.
It sounds like de Cointet had inside information (e.g. from "B.H. Gore" above) that Linick's death was a "killing ... disguised in [as] suicide"!
PD: No, we know exactly how he died.
CdC: I understand that he was a very good scientist, very prolific, very active man of 40 years, so I cannot understand how suddenly he disappeared.
PD: Because he had problems and he possibly committed suicide, that is how it happened. We have no doubts about it, his family has no doubts about it. He had threatened. I guess people couldn't think that he ... I see your point, you want a murder or something, well that's ... [5]
Only "possibly committed suicide"! Combined with 'We have no doubts about it, his family has no doubts about it" indicates that there were official doubts that Linick's death was suicide and not murder!

I had previously been told that Arizona was a `closed record' State, so I couldn't obtain Linick's death certificate [see 05Jul14]. But I have now discovered that the answer to the question, "Are police reports public records in Arizona?" is:

"By state law, public agencies must release public documents within a reasonable amount of time. ... Here is how it works: In the city of Phoenix, if you want a police report or to request another public document, you have to fill out a form through its online records portal here.Jun 27, 2019" (www.abc15.com)
And the answer to the question, "Are autopsy reports public record in Arizona?" is:
"In the state of Arizona, autopsy reports are public records. Anyone can view the records or request copies, but sometimes a fee is required. Autopsies fall under the jurisdiction of county governments. Contact the medical examiner's office in the county where the autopsy was performed to learn how to obtain a report.Jul 20, 2017" (legalbeagle.com)
Joe Marino has agreed to try to obtain for me the police and/or medical examiner's report on Timothy Linick's death in Tucson on 4 June 1989. And if I do receive them, I will post them here! My email to Joe concluded with:
"It will be a huge boost for my hacker theory if the Arizona police and/or medical examiner found evidence that Linick's death may not have been suicide!"
Back to the transcript.
CdC: Not but maybe, it was just to know. You know better than me, because you were present, you were in Tucson at the time, and ...
PD: Sure, sure, and we have doubt, Sir, about what happened.
Presumably Damon's "we have doubt, Sir, about what happened" is a typo and he actually said, "we have [no] doubt ...about what happened"?
CdC: There was an enquiry of the police?
PD: Well, I would have to ask the family, I suppose, of course, and you would have to ask the family about the intimate details.
CdC: Yes, of course.
Damon's evasiveness is significant. There must have been a police enquiry into Linick's suicide or murder, so why doesn't Damon answer truthfully? Because Arizona laboratory is hiding something and Damon is afraid he will inadvertently reveal it?
PD: (Silence) I see what you are doing. I know that there is no ... no, I thought that you were ...
CdC: Sorry?
PD: I did not know what you were up to, but this ...
CdC: I was thinking, professor, that may be, if he had been killed, you also ignore this and everybody ignore that ...
PD: He just committed suicide, he threatened for ...
CdC: What?
PD: He threatened to commit suicide, before he committed suicide, but his wife did not believe it—his feelings were extreme.
It is significant that Linick's wife (who has since died), did not believe that Linick's threat to commit suicide, meant he would do it.
CdC: It was in connection with his wife, with his family problems?
PD: It was the separation from his wife and of course they had a son, and there were problems from childhood with respect to his relationship with his mother (long silence and sigh). You know, this is a sad thing and in our lives here that this happened ...
CdC: But you are sure it cannot be this kind of accident or ...
PD: No.
CdC: How did it happen?
PD: (Silence) Well you know this is a personal matter. It happened on the spur of the moment.
CdC: I am sorry.
PD: It happened in the spur of the moment, that I mean in a moment of great depression; his wife did not think he would carry through with his threat.
CdC: Yes, but how did he commit suicide? He had a car accident?
PD: No, no, no.
CdC: He hung himself?
PD: No. What I am wondering now is if I am .. You are probing this ... if I should review the problems of the family. Well (silence) ... I think you should get these details from his wife.
CdC: Well, she is still in Tucson?
PD: Yes, she is still in Tucson.
CdC: She is married again?
PD: No, no, not married again. You see what you are doing is probing into a personal matter.
CdC: Yes, I understand.
PD: I feel that this should come from his ...
CdC: Yes.
PD: She knows the details and I don't think it should come from me.
CdC: OK, you are sure that it is related to personal problems.
PD: Oh yes, yes. You know he was really only peripherally involved in the Shroud. You know if somebody was going to do something like that it would have been Donahue or myself, not Linick. What he did was routine work: he did the computer programs and that sort of thing, [6]
that is what he was doing, and the two people who really were so much known to the public (were) myself and Donahue, who did all the interviews and that sort of thing, so ...
CdC: Yes, but when during the experiment, it was a possibility, maybe in exchanging the vials, gas vials at this level, to exchange the samples.
PD: I mean ... we measured it sixteen times, we made sixteen different samples as I record, this is routine, but a very large number of times, and in my memory they were 16 and these were separate preparations. Now some of the measurements were of the same purification so when the statisticians decided to lump those because that is only those that were done completely from the first step ... but we made different targets, 16 targets, they went to the carbon sample ... but Timothy Linick was involved in the computer programs that we use all the time.
CdC: So he was involved when you had to give the different numbers to the samples, and the codification, etc. during the experiments?
PD: No, we of course, we did that ... together, beginning and that's the ... he was not involved in that ... (very long silence as if Paul Damon was realizing something ...)
CdC: OK. You are not coming to Europe in the next months?
PD: No.
CdC: If you were passing through Paris, I would have the pleasure to invite you to have a discussion with you more quietly; it is difficult not to see each other and speak just on the phone. OK. I thank you very much, I am sorry to disturb you with all these bad things and very sad story.
PD: You are bringing back bad moments.
CdC: It was just to clarify this point, I wanted to know what you were thinking about all this. OK, I thank you very much, professor. Bye Bye.

26 September 09:15 – short telephone call to Mrs. Damon
[No actual transcript here—just a short description by de Cointet about the call.]
I wanted to ask her to let her husband know that if we suspected Tim Linick of switching the samples, it was meaning that we thought that her husband was not aware of the fraud: Tucson may have received a piece of the Shroud, but the switch may have occurred during the measuring process – at the level of the gas vials – or at the level of the treatment of the results by computers ... and Tim was the one who was able to choose the program used for the machine. He did the programs. But Mrs. Damon did not allow me to give my explanations. She said that the 3 Laboratories dated the Shroud. She doesn't accept any comment. [7]

To be continued in the fifteenth installment 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]
2. Marino, J.G., 2020, "The 1988 C-14 Dating Of The Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé," Amazon.com. [return]
3. Marino, J.G., 2020, "Transcript of phone call about Timothy Linick," 23 October 2020, 8:16 pm. [return]
4. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 1991, "Study of Original Documents of the Archives of the Diocese of Troyes in France with Particular Reference to the Memorandum of Pierre D'Arcis," Shroud News, No. 68, December, pp.6-18, 18. [return]
5. Porter, D.R., 2013, "The Arizona Samples of the Shroud of Turin," Shroud of Turin Blog, May 5. [return]
6. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
8. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
9. "Douglas J. Donahue," UA Science: Physics, University of Arizona, 2016. No longer online. [return]
10. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176H. [return]
11. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
14. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, pp.146-147; Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
15. Wilson, I., 1989, "A French Accusation Against Dr. Tite," BSTS Newsletter, No. 22, May, pp.4-7, 5-6; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.56-57; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.65; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.10-11; 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.186. [return]
16. Dupont, C., 1989, "Radio Courtoisie," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 32/33, September/December, pp.36-37, 36; Dupont, C., 1990, "An interview with Dr. Mike Tite," BSTS Newsletter, No, 25, April/May, pp.2-3; Morgan, R., 1990, "Interview with Dr Michael Tite by Orazio Petrosillo (Rome Journalist) and Professor Emanuela Marinelli, (Rome), 8 September 1989, during the Paris Symposium," Shroud News, No 59, June 1990, pp.3-9, 8. [return]
17. Wilson, 1989, p.186; Wilson, 1991, p.11. [return]
18. Wilson, 1989, pp.6, 186; Wilson, 1991, p.11. [return]
19. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.90. [return]
20. Jensen, M.N., 2005, "Memorial Service for Pioneering Geoscientist," University of Arizona News, 22 April. [return]
21. 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; Meacham, W., 1986, "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties," Proceedings of the Symposium `Turin Shroud - Image of Christ?', Hong Kong, March; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, pp.50-51; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.114-115; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.135-136; Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.54; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.162. [return]
22. Bowman, S., 1990, "Radiocarbon Dating," Interpreting the Past, British Museum Publications: London, p.62. [return]
23. Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
24. Gove, 1996, p.303. [return]
25. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.115. [return]
26. Schwortz, B.M., 2012, "New Photographs of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Samples," Shroud.com, November 21. [return]
27. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.178-179; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.165. [return]
28. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
29. Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," BSTS Newsletter, No. 51, June; Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.93. [return]
30. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]

Posted: 9 January 2021. Updated: 26 January 2021.

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

Shroud of Turin News, November 2020

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Previous: October 2020] [Next: December 2020]

This is the November 2020 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. The articles' words are bold to distingish them from mine.

This is my first post on my `new' Windows 10 computer bought about 2 years ago! Everything was at my fingertips with my old Windows 7 computer, so I was reluctant to change (even though I had been using Windows 10 on my laptop for other things), and despite the dire warnings (which I now believe were by paid Microsoft `influencers'), my Windows 7/64 system was still receiving regular updates from Microsoft! Over a year ago I made sure that if my old computer `died' I could access this my blog from my new computer. In July I paid a computer `geek' to load my backed up data onto my Windows 10 computer and install my Thunderbird emails on it. Yesterday, 28 December 2020, with perfect timimg, the morning after I had finished my month-long latest post, Jesus the man on the Shroud [whose face in this framed photo - right (enlarge)[2] - `looks' down on me at my computer desk], to whom I had been praying for help in this transition, allowed my Windows 7 computer's CPU fan to fail. Even though this is fixable, I took it as a sign from the Lord to start using my Windows 10 computer, and I found my `old man's' fears (Ecc 12:5) were groundless!


News:
"Jesus Christ breakthrough as Shroud of Turin debate put to bed," Daily Express, Joel Day, 6 November 2020. The Shroud of Turin is perhaps one of the more famous so-called Medieval mysteries that has caught the attention of popular culture academia. For centuries, historians, scientists and religious figures have battled it out over whether the Shroud is really an imprint of Jesus Christ. It first appeared in 1354, and just over 30 years later, was branded a fake by the local bishop of Troyes. Since when are the claims of a "local bishop" on a matter decisive? He was Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395)[3], in whose diocese of Troyes, France, was the village of Lirey[4], where the Shroud was

[Above (enlarge)[5]: A lead pilgrim's badge, found in 1855 in the mud under a bridge over the Seine River, Paris and dated 1357, depicts the Shroud at the first Shroud exposition in Lirey c.1355[6]. Now in the Cluny Museum, Paris, the badge depicts the Shroud being exhibited with the coats of arms of Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300–56) (left) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428) (right) [7].]

again being exhibited, this time by Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–98) and his mother Jeanne de Vergy[8]. D'Arcis complained in a 1389 Memorandum[9] to Pope Clement VII (r. 1523-34)[10] that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted"[11] and that about "thirty-four years" earlier (i.e. c. 1355)[12] one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370), had investigated and found "the artist who had painted it"[13]. But this is false: • d'Arcis, who had been a lawyer[14] didn't give the name of the forger[15], who would have been well-known (and may even have been still alive) if he had existed[16]. • The Shroudman's image is not painted[17] [see 11Jul16]. • There is no evidence that Bishop Henri de Poitiers had a problem with the Shroud[18] and much evidence that he didn't[19]. • Pope Clement VII allowed the exhibition to continue and ordered d'Arcis to be "perpetually silent" on the matter[20]! • There is abundant evidence that the Shroud existed long before 1355 (see for example below and in my previous post, "1770" and "1395").

This didn't stop many believing the linen was in fact the burial shroud in which Christ was wrapped following his crucifixion. A more conclusive answer appeared to put the debate to an end in 1988. It was here that scientists, through carbon dating, established the Shroud to have been created in the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390. The results were inevitably fiercely contested, with many arguing the results were skewed because of material dating discrepancies. Which

[Above (enlarge). This comparison of the 10th-13th century Christ Pantocrator mosaic in Istanbul/Constantinople's Hagia Sophia Cathedral (left) with its counterpart Shroud image, gives the lie to the article's claim that "the Shroud [was] ... created in the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390"!]

contradicts his claim that "scientists, through carbon dating, established the Shroud to have been created in the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390"! I will summarise the evidence against the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, based in my 2018 "Open letter to Professor Christopher Ramsey"

• The leaders of the radiocarbon dating laboratories were not

[Left (enlarge): From left to right, Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), Dr M. Tite (British Museum) and Dr R. Hedges (Oxford) on 13 October 1988 in the British Museum, London, announcing with a triumphant exlamation mark[21], that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[22].]

Christians (not even Donahue - see 06Nov20) and so were inevitably biased against the Shroud being Jesus' burial sheet (Jesus said "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Mt 12:30 & Lk 11:23). See above exclamation mark in "1260-1390!"[23]. Timothy Linick of Arizona Laboratory (whom I alleged was a hacker whose program generated the bogus medieval radiocarbon dates of the Shroud - see 22Feb16, etc), was so biased against the Shroud that he wouldn't accept it was Jesus' even if radiocarbon dating showed it was "2000 years" old:

"Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'"[24].
• Oxford laboratory's Prof. Christopher Ramsey himself in 2008 admitted:
"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that ... experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information"[25].
But in the intervening ~12 years Ramsey has done little to resolve the conundrum and specifically he ignored, without even an acknowledgement, my open letter to him which I both emailed and snail-mailed to his online Oxford addresses. So on the principle, "don't believe what people say - believe what they do," I don't believe Prof. Ramsey is sincere in his admission that, "It is important [to] assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence ... to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information," and that by omission he is perpetuating a scientific fraud!

• One of that "lot of other evidence that ... the Shroud is older than the

[Above (enlarge)[26]: The Entombment of Jesus in Jn 19:38-42 (upper), one of the four pen and ink drawings in the Pray Codex[27], and the Resurrection of Jesus in Mk 16:1-6, where an angel is telling the three women at the empty tomb, "Jesus ... has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him"(lower) [28]].

radiocarbon dates allow" (as Prof. Ramsey must know) is the Pray Codex[[29] which is dated 1192-95[30], and the drawings in the codex are even older, about 1150[31]. There are at least "eight [and by my count ten - see 04Oct18a] telling correspondences between the Shroud and the drawings on ... [this] single page of the Pray Codex"[32].

Another drawing in the Pray Codex (below) has a further four telling

[Above (enlarge): The Enthronemnent of Jesus (e.g. Mk 16:19; Acts 2:33 & Heb 1:3,12) in the Pray Codex[33].]

correspondences with the Shroud, making a total of fourteen [see 04Oct18b]!

The only reasonable explanation is that the artist who painted the ink drawings in the Pray Codex did so with the Shroud before him[34]. Hungary was ruled at that time by King Bela III (r. 1172-96), an ally of the Byzantine Empire, who had spent eight years as a young man in the imperial court at Constantinople[35], as the heir to the throne of the Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143-80)[36]. Given the close links at the time between Hungary and the Byzantine Empire, the Pray Codex artist undoubtedly saw the Shroud, and painted his copy of it, in Constantinople[37]! A likely year was 1169 when Emperor Manuel's wife, Maria of Antioch (1145–1182), gave birth to a son Alexios II Komnenos (r. 1180-83), and so Emperor Manuel I dissolved his daughter's betrothal to Béla and in her place the Bela married Empress Maria's half-sister Agnes of Antioch[38]

These fourteen telling correspondences between the Pray Codex and the Shroud prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud already existed at least 65 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud[39]! And, as we saw above, the most likely place the Pray Codex artist saw and depicted the Shroud was Constantinople. And, as we also saw above, the most likely time the artist depicted the Shroud was about 1169. That is over 90 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud! But the Image of Edessa/Shroud arrived in Constantinople in 944[[see "944b"]. That's 316 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud! And before that the Image of Edessa/Shroud was continuously in Edessa since 544 [see "544"]. That's 716 years before the Shroud's earliest 1260 radiocarbon date!

• Yet another of that "lot of other evidence that ... the Shroud is older

[Above (enlarge)[40]: 11th-12th century depiction of the transfer of the Image of Edessa, behind the face image of which is the full-length Shroud [see "944a"], from Edessa (left) to Constantinople (right) via Byzantine general John Kourkouas (fl. 915–946) to Byzantine Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 919–944) in 944 [see "944b"] [41].]

radiocarbon dates allow" is the above 11th-12th century miniature in the Synopsis of Histories by John Skylitzes (c.1040–1101), depicting the transfer of the Image of Edessa/Shroud from Edessa to Constantinople in 944[42]. Skylitzes' work covers the reigns of Byzantine emperors from the death of Nicephorus I in 811 to the deposition of Michael VI in 1057[43]. The Madrid manuscript was produced in Sicily in the 12th century but its 574 miniatures may be copies of earlier Byzantine images[44]. The above miniature proves beyond reasonable doubt that by the 12th century it was known that behind the face of the Image of Edessa/Mandylion was the full-length Shroud[45]! And that the arrival of the Image of Edessa/Mandylion from Edessa on 15 August 944 (a fact of history in Wikipedia:

"[944] August 15 – The `Holy Mandylion' (a cloth with the face of Jesus) is conveyed to Constantinople [from Edessa], where it arrives on the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos. A triumphal entry is staged for the relic in the capital"[46])
was the arrival in Constantinople of the Shroud[47]! And then see above that means the Image of Edessa/Shroud in Constantinople in 944 was more than three centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[48] and before that it was continuously in Edessa since 544, which is more than seven centuries before the Shroud's earliest 1260 radiocarbon date!

The Catholic Church has avoided taking an official position on the authenticity of the Shroud, with the Pope merely stating that he "venerates" it; while the Church itself has never gone beyond describing the linen as anything more than an "icon" of Christian devotion. As I have previously posted:

• [06Oct13], I regard the Roman Catholic's Church's official position on the Shroud, that it is merely "an `icon' of Christian devotion," as weak and dishonest:

Dishonest, because the Roman Catholic Church has spent, and continues to spend, the equivalent of many millions of US dollars preserving and protecting the Shroud, and holding expositions at which tens of millions of pilgrims have filed past it on the understanding that it really is Jesus' burial shroud. And individual Popes have expressed their personal conviction that it really is Jesus' burial shroud. So clearly the Roman Catholic Church (to its credit), really believes that the Shroud of Turin is the very burial sheet of Jesus and the image on it is of Jesus' body."

Weak, because as John Evangelist Walsh [1927-2015] (himself a Catholic) pointed out 50 years ago, either the Shroud of Turin is a deliberate fraud, or it is Jesus' burial shroud:

"Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground"[49]

• [14Feb14] I repeat my criticism that "the Catholic Church doesn't have an official position on the cloth" is duplicitous (i.e. two-faced), in that the Church, to its credit, clearly believes the Shroud is authentic, and has spent the equivalent of millions of dollars in safekeeping the Shroud and exhibiting it. I am not anti-Catholic in this - I am pro-truth!

• [150417] As I have stated before, it is duplicitous (i.e. two-faced), of the Vatican to refuse to confirm or deny that the Shroud is authentic. By its actions of spending the equivalent of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars preserving the Shroud and exhibiting it to millions of people as though it is authentic, the Vatican clearly does believe that the Shroud is authentic, so it should say so. Shroud anti-authenticists cite the Vatican's refusal to state that the Shroud is authentic as evidence that it is not!

• [160507] See my previous criticism ... of the Vatican's policy of neither confirming nor denying that the Shroud is authentic, as "duplicitous," i.e. "two-faced." Because by its actions of spending the equivalent of many millions of dollars preserving the Shroud and exhibiting it to millions of people as though it is authentic, the Vatican clearly does believe that the Shroud is authentic, so ordinary honesty requires that it should say so. Shroud anti-authenticists cite the Vatican's refusal to state that the Shroud is authentic as evidence that it is not. And as devout Roman Catholic Donald M. Smith pointed out in his 1983 book, "The Letter," which was in the form of a letter to Pope John Paul II, if the Shroud is not authentic then it can only be the image of someone else tortured and crucified to make it look like Jesus (see 25Oct15). And for the Vatican to exhibit that, would show it has the same "the end justifies the means' ... principles of ... Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler":

"[If the Shroud is not authentic] ... there is another conclusion which also must follow: Sometime between 100 A.D. and 1357 A.D., an evil, cruel and sinful act occurred. A human being was actually made to go through the exact same torture and agonizing death as suffered by Jesus and as reported in the Gospels, for the sole purpose of producing a valuable relic ... If the goal of producing a likeness of the only begotten Son of God by such evil means, could in any way be condoned, then the whole principle is based on the theories that `the end justifies the means,' and that `power makes right.' These are the same set of principles of men with character the likes of Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler ... It is not right to venerate an object if that object was created by evil means" (my emphasis)[50].

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Shroud of Turin Face Detail," AllPosters.com, 2020. [return]
3. "Roman Catholic Diocese of Troyes: 1300 to 1500," Wikipedia, 28 December 2020. [return]
4. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.32. [return]
5. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.126-127. [return]
7. Latendresse, 2012. [return]
8. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.151. [return]
9. Antonacci, 2000, p.151. [return]
10. Antonacci, 2000, p.151. [return]
11. Antonacci, 2000, p.151. [return]
12. Antonacci, 2000, pp.151-152. [return]
13. Adams, 1982, p.32; Antonacci, 2000, p.151. [return]
14. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.231. [return]
15. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
16. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
17. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, pp.55-56; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, pp.98-99. [return]
18. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
19. Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.13. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.81-83; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.71. [return]
21. Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, p.8-9. [return]. [return]
22. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, plate 3b. [return]
23. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.108; Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.9; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.67; Guerrera, 2001, p.133. [return]
24. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147. [return]
26. "File:Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 2 March 2019. [return]
27. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; Guerrera, 2001, p.104. [return]
28. Guerrera, 2001, p.104. [return]
29. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 23 January 2020. [return]
30. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, p.19; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.178. [return]
31. Berkovits, 1969, pl. IV (cropped). [return]
32. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
33. Berkovits, 1969, p.20. [return]
34. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
35. de Wesselow, 2012, p.178; "Béla III of Hungary: Childhood (c. 1148–1163)," Wikipedia, 4 December 2020. [return]
36. Berkovits, 1969, p.20; "Béla III of Hungary: Despotes Alexios (1163–1169)," Wikipedia, 4 December 2020. [return]
37. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
38. "Béla III of Hungary: Kaisar Alexios (1169–1172)," Wikipedia, 4 December 2020. [return]
39. Maloney, P.C., 1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.16-47, 33. [return]
40. "File:Surrender of the Mandylion to the Byzantines.jpg," in "Chronography of John Skylitzes, cod. Vitr. 26-2, folio 131a, Madrid National Library, Wikimedia Commons, 20 December 2012. [return]
41. Scavone, D.C., 1991, "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, 193. [return]
42. "John Skylitzes," Wikipedia, 2 January 2021. [return]
43. "Madrid Skylitzes," Wikipedia, 16 November 2020. [return]
44. "Madrid Skylitzes," Wikipedia, 16 November 2020. [return]
45. Scavone, 1991, p.194; Scavone, D.C., "Underscoring the Highly Significant Historical Research of the Shroud," in Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.xxvi-xxvii. [return]
46. "944: Byzantine Empire," Wikipedia, 26 November 2020. [return]
47. Piana, A., 2007, "The Shroud's `Missing Years'," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 66. December, pp.9-25,28-31; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.55. [return]
48. de Wesselow, 2012, p.183. [return]
49. Walsh, J.E., "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, 1963, pp.x-xii. [return]
50. Smith, D.M., 1983, "The Letter," DMS Publishing Co: Rancho Palos Verdes CA, pp.24-25. [return]

Posted: 29 December 2020. Updated: 17 January 2021.

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Eighteenth century

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is part #23, "Eighteenth century" of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see the Index #1. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. This page was initially based on Ian Wilson's 1996, "Highlights of the Undisputed History: 1700."

[Index #1] [Previous: 17th century #22] [Next: 19th century #24]


18th century (1701-1800).

1701a 27 April. Birth of future King Charles Emmanuel III (r. 1730–73) to King Victor Amadeus II (r. 1675–1730) and Duchess Anne Marie d'Orléans (1669-1728)[2].

1701b July. The War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14), is triggered by the death in November 1700 of the childless Charles II of Spain (r. 1665-1700)[3] and France's King Louis XIV (1643-1715), whose mother Anne of Austria (1601-66) was a daughter of King Philip III of Spain (1598–1621)[4] and his wife Maria Theresa of Spain (1638-83) was the eldest daughter of King Philip IV (r. 1621-65)[5], claimed the title of King of Spain[6].

1701c November. Victor Amadeus II forms an alliance with France against the Austrian Holy Roman Empire[7], which is sealed by giving his daughter Maria Luisa Gabriella of Savoy (1688-1714) in marriage to King Philip V of Spain (1700-24)[8].

1703a An engraving of this year shows an exposition of the Shroud in front of the Bertola altar in the new Chapel of the Holy Shroud[9].

[Right (enlarge)[10]. Engraving dated 1703 by Bartolomeo Giuseppe Tasnière (c. 1675-1752) based on a drawing by Giulio Cesare Grampin[11]]

1703b October. Victor Amadeus II switches sides in the War of the Spanish Succession from France to the Habsburg Holy Roman Empire[12] and declares war on France[13].

1704-5 In 1704 French troops under Marshall Louis de La Feuillade (1673-1725) capture Savoy territories and by the end of 1705 Victor Amadeus controlled only his capital Turin[14].

1706a 12 April. The Shroud is exhibited in Turin[15], not on the usual 4 May, in anticipation of an impending French attack.

1706b 12 May. Marshall de La Feuillade and 48,000 French troops arrived at Turin but the blockade of the city will not be completed until 19 June[16].

1706c 23 May. The Grand Alliance – Austria, England, and the Dutch Republic – under the command of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough (1650-1722a), won a decisive victory over the French in the Battle of Ramillies in the Netherlands[17].

1706d 2 June. The Siege of Turin begins under de la Feuillade but makes little progress against Turin's hardened defences[18].

1706e 16 June. The Shroud is in Cherasco[19], about 50 km (31 mi)

[Above (enlarge): Route (marked by red `diamonds') by which the Shroud was taken from Turin in June 1706 via Cherasco (16th June), Mondovì (24th), Ceva (25th), Ormea (26th), Caravonica (not shown), to Albenga. From Albenga the Shroud was then sailed via Savona to Genoa arriving on 16th July[02May15].]

southeast of Turin, enroute to the seaport of Genoa[20], about 169 km (105 mi) south east of Turin. The Shroud had been taken from Turin by Duchess Anne Marie, accompanied by her two youngest children, the 2 year-old Victor Amadeus (1699-1715) and the 1 month-old Charles Emmanuel (1701-73)[21], as well as Victor Amadeus II's mother, Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours (1644-1724)[22].

1706f 8 July. Louis Joseph, Duke of Vendôme (1654-1712), one of France's best generals and any available forces, were sent to reinforce France's northern frontier after the defeat at Ramillies[23].

1706g 17 June. Victor Amadeus escapes from the city with 7,000 cavalry. He spends the next two months attacking French supply lines, while de La Feuillade continues siege operations with little success[24].

1706h Mid July. Prince Eugene of Savoy (1663-1736) [Left (enlarge)[25]], Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Army, whose attempts to move west towards Turin had been previously thwarted by Vendôme's skillful manoeuvres, crosses the River Po from where he can at last move west towards Piedmont and relieve Turin[26].

1706i 16 July. The Shroud arrives safely in Genoa by a circuitous route (see map above)[27].

1706j 15 August, Prince Eugene begins his advance on Turin[28].

1706k 29 August. Prince Eugene reaches Carmagnola only 29 km (18 mi) south of Turin, where he is joined by Victor Amadeus[29].

1706l 7 September. Prince Eugene orders a general assault which

[Above (enlarge): "The Allied relief force breaks the French lines, lifting the siege of Turin"[30].]

finally forces the French to retreat with heavy loss of life, casualties, captures and loss of equipment. Victor Amadeus re-enters his capital the same day[31].

1706m October. The Shroud is returned to Turin[32].

1708 Victor Amadeus gains the bordering Duchy of Montferrat[33].

1713 April. Under the Treaty of Utrecht, Victor Amadeus II receives the kingdom of Sicily and parts of the Duchy of Milan[34].

1715 22 March. Death from smallpox at age 15 of Victor Amadeus, Prince of Piedmont (1699-1715), the eldest son of King Victor Amadeus II and Duchess Anne Marie and heir apparent[35]. His younger brother Charles Emmanuel III (1701-1773) inherited the title Prince of Piedmont as the new heir apparent[36].

1718 2 August. Beginning of the War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-20) in which Spain sought to recover territorial losses it had agreed to in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht[37].

1720a 17 February. The Treaty of The Hague was signed on 17 February 1720 between Spain and the Quadruple Alliance of Britain, France, the Dutch Republic and Austria[38]. Its terms included that Victor Amadeus II [Right (enlarge)[39]] exchange his title of King of Sicily for the more geograph-ically practical King of Sardinia[40].

1720b Exposition of the Shroud to celebrate the union of Sardinia with the Savoy states[41].

1722a 15 March. Charles Emmanuel III marries Anne Christine of Sulzbach (1704-23)[42].

1722b On 4 May there is a showing of the Shroud in Turin and on 3 June another showing[43].

1723 7 March. Anne Christine gave birth to a son, Prince Victor Amadeus Theodore (1723–25), the Duke of Aosta[44]. But she died a few days later on 12 March at the age of nineteen in Turin[45].

1724a 15 March. Death of Victor Amadeus II's mother, Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours[46].

1724b 23 July. Marriage of Charles Emmanuel III to Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg (1706–35)[47].

1725 11 August. Death of Prince Victor Amadeus Theodore (1723–25) at the age of 2[48].

1726 26 June. Birth of Victor Amadeus III (1726–96) who was to become Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia in 1773[49].

1727 Discovery by Johann Heinrich Schulze (1687-1744) "that the darkening in sunlight of various substances mixed with silver nitrate is due to the light, not ... heat" [50]. Contrast Nicholas Allen's claim that photography was invented ~4 centuries previously in the 13th-early 14th century [07Aug16, 16Jun19 & 15Nov20]!

1728 26 August. Death of King Victor Amadeus II's wife Duchess Anne Marie d'Orléans[51].

1730a 12 August. Marriage of King Victor Amadeus II to his mistress Anna Canalis di Cumiana (1680–1769)[52].

1730b 3 September. Abdication of King Victor Amadeus II[53]. Beginning of the long reign of his eldest son, King Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia (r. 1730– 73) [Left (enlarge)[54]][55].

1731 Having suffered a stroke and under the influence of his wife Anna, Victor Amadeus II informs his son King Charles Emmanuel III that he was going to resume his tenure on the throne[56]. Therefore King Charles Emmanuel III has his father confined to Moncalieri Castle and Anna was separated from her husband until April 1732 when she was allowed to rejoin him in Rivoli Castle[57].

1732 31 October. Death of Victor Amadeus II[58].

1735 13 January. Death of King Charles Emmanuel III's second wife Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg[59].

1736 21 September. The Shroud is exhibited in Turin to celebrate the engagement of King Charles Emmanuel III to Princess Elisabeth Teresa of Lorraine (1711-41) [60].

1737a 1 April. Marriage of King Charles Emmanuel III to Princess Elisabeth Teresa of Lorraine[61].

1737b 4 May. Public showing of the Shroud to mark the royal

[Above (enlarge): Engraving by Filippo Juvarra (1678–1736) of the 1737 exposition of the Shroud from a pavilion in Turin's Piazza Castello to mark the marriage of King Charles Emmanuel III and Elisabeth Therese of Lorraine[62].]

marriage, commemorated by print showing vast crowd in front of the Royal Palace, as the Shroud is displayed from a balcony[63].

1750a A handwritten anonymous document (MS 826) is placed in the Besançon City Library, and claims that Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234) sent the Shroud from Athens [see 11Nov17] to his father, Pons in Burgundy, who gave it to the Bishop Amadeus de Tramelay 1197–1220 of Besançon, and names three medieval writers (no longer extant) who stated this[64].

1750b 31 May. Prince Victor Amadeus III marries Maria Antonia Ferdinanda (1729-85), a daughter of King Philip V of Spain (r. 1700-24)[65]. They had three surviving sons, each of whom would become Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia: Charles Emmanuel IV (1751-1819), Victor Emmanuel I (1759–1824) and Charles Felix (1765-1831)[66].

1750c 29 June. Showing of the Shroud to celebrate the marriage of Prince Victor Amadeus III and Infanta Maria Antonia[z].

1751 24 May. Birth of Charles Emmanuel IV (1751-1819), who would be King of Sardinia from 1796 to 1802[68].

1758 3 May. Death of Pope Benedict XIV (r. 1740-58), "... one of the best scholars to sit on the papal throne"[69], who had written of the Shroud:

"The Holy Shroud, that outstanding relic, is preserved at Turin. Popes Paul II (1464-71); Sixtus IV (1471-84); Julius II (1503-13) and Clement VII (1523-34) all bear witness that this is the same in which our Lord was wrapped"[70].

1759 24 July. Birth of Victor Emmanuel I (1759–1824), who would be King of Sardinia from 1802-21[71].

1765 Birth of Charles Felix (1765-1831), who would be King of Sardinia from 1821-31[72].

1769 16 June. Private showing of the Shroud for Emperor Joseph II (r. 1765-90) of Hapsburg-Lorraine and then the Shroud is displayed from the balcony of the Royal Chapel for large crowd gathered in the cathedral below[73].

1770 Discovery of the Pray Codex (1192-95)[74] by Hungarian Jesuit

[Above (enlarge)[75]: "The Entombment of Christ (above) and Three Marys [sic] at the tomb (below). The images are claimed as one of the evidences against the radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin"[76]. There are at least "eight telling correspondences between the Shroud and the drawings on a [this] single page of the Pray Codex"[77]. And by my count there are twelve - see 27May12. See also 26Oct14, 02Dec14, 23Jul15, 15Oct15, 27Dec15, 07May16, 07Aug16, 14Jul18, 15July18, 21Aug18, 20Dec18, 24May20 & 14Oct20]

archivist Gyorgy Pray (1723-1801)[78]. Even Wikipedia has had to admit, "This illustration shows remarkable similarities with the Shroud of Turin":

"One of the five illustrations within the Codex shows the burial of Jesus. This illustration shows remarkable similarities with the Shroud of Turin: that Jesus is shown entirely naked with the arms on the pelvis, just like in the body image of the Shroud of Turin; that the thumbs on this image appear to be retracted, with only four fingers visible on each hand, thus matching detail on the Turin Shroud; that the supposed fabric shows a herringbone pattern, identical to the weaving pattern of the Shroud of Turin; and that the four tiny circles on the lower image, which appear to form a letter L, `perfectly reproduce four apparent "poker holes" on the Turin Shroud', which likewise appear to form a letter L. The Codex Pray illustration may serve as evidence for the existence of the Shroud of Turin prior to 1260–1390 AD, the fabrication date established [sic] in the radiocarbon-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988"[79].
1773 20 February. Death of King Charles Emmanuel III[80] and beginning of the reign of his eldest son, King Victor Amadeus III (r. 1773-96)[81].

1775a 30 September. Marriage of Prince Charles Emmanuel IV to Princess Marie Clotilde of France (1759–1802), a sister of King Louis XVI (r. 1774-92) but their marriage would be childless[82].

1775b 15 October. Exposition of the Shroud in Turin to mark the royal marriage[83].

1789a 21 April. Marriage of Prince Victor Emmanuel I to Archduchess Maria Teresa of Austria-Este (1773-1832)[84].

1789b 5 May. Beginning of the French Revolution (1789-99)[85].

1792a Revolutionaries break into the French royal relic collection in the Sainte Chapelle, Paris and a fragment of the Shroud is destroyed[86].

1792b The Kingdom of Sardinia and other Savoy states under Victor Amadeus III join the First Coalition against the French First Republic[87].

1793 21 January. King Louis XVI, Queen Clotilde's brother, is executed by guillotine[88], followed on 16 October by his wife, Queen Marie Antoinette (1755-1793)[89].

1794 24 May. French Revolutionaries destroy the painted copy of the Shroud at Besançon[90] [Above (enlarge): A 1634 depiction of the Besançon copy of the Shroud[91].]

1795 December. The Holy Face of Laon (Sainte Face de Laon) is taken

[Above (enlarge): "Icon of the Holy Face (Mandylion), bought in 1249 in Bari (Italy) by Jacques Pantaléon, archdeacon of the cathedral of Laon who later became Pope Urban IV. Exhibited in the cathedral of Laon"[92].]

out of hiding and placed in Laon cathedral[93]. The icon had been in Laon's Montreuil Abbey before the latter's destruction by French revolutionaries in December 1793[94]. Before that the icon had been given in 1249 by Jacques Pantaleon (c. 1195-1264), archdeacon of Laon Cathedral, but living in Rome as chaplain to Pope Innocent IV (r. 1243-54), and future Pope Urban IV (r. 1261-64)[95], to the Cistercian Abbey in Montreuil-en-Thiérache[96], via his sister Sybille who was Abbess of the Abbey's convent[97]. However, in 1636 a Spanish invasion compelled the Cistercian sisters to leave their abbey and in 1650 they and their precious treasure relocated to nearby Montreuil-sous-Laon[98] which became Montreuil Abbey. The Laon icon is a glazed panel[99], nearly square, 44 cm (17.3 in) high and 40 cm (15.7 in) wide[100]. It bears the inscription in Serbian, OBRAZ GSPDN NAUBRUSJE, "the image of the Lord on the cloth"[101]. Moreover it has at least thirteen (and by my count fourteen - see 23Apr12) of the fifteen Vignon markings[102] [see 25Jul07, 11Feb12, 18Mar12, 22Sep12, etc], more than any other known icon[103]. The Laon Face evidently came from Bari in southeastern Italy, where there was an Orthodox monastery with Serbian monks[104]. After the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the Fourth Crusade, the Serbian Orthodox Church had been liberated from the Byzantine Empire and sought a closer relationship with the Roman Catholic Church[104a]. Jacques Pantaleon carried out diplomatic missions on behalf of Pope Innocent so it would have been normal for him to visit the Orthodox Serbian monks of Bari which is not far from Rome[105]. It was on one of these missions that Pantaleon presumably received a gift of the Holy Face from the monks of Bari[106]. The icon's disembodied head[107], circular `halo'[108], fringe [109], trellis pattern[110] and sepia/brown monochrome colour[111], reveal that the Laon Face is a depiction of the Mandylion[112], that is the Image of Edessa[113]. Which was the Shroud "four-doubled" (Greek tetradiplon)[114] - see 15Sep12]! That the Laon icon contains more Vignon markings than any other known icon, together with the artist's statement that the portrait is that of "the Lord on the cloth" must mean that he was working directly from the Image of Edessa/Shroud[115]! In the upper left and upper right corners of the icon (see above) are the Greek letters "I C" (Iota and final sigma) and "X C" (Chi and final sigma)[116], which are the first and last letters of the words 'Iesous Xristos - "Jesus Christ" in Greek[117]. The icon was therefore likely painted in Greek-speaking Constantinople after the transfer of the Image of Edessa/Shroud from Edessa to Constantinople in 944[see "944b"][118]. Between 1094 and 1149 Serbia was a vassal state within the Byzantine Empire[119], so it is likely the icon was painted by a Serbian in Constantinople between those dates. So the Holy Face of Laon alone (and it is not alone! - see for example the Pray Codex above) is proof beyond reasonable doubt that it is a depiction of the face of the Shroud[120] even at 1249 predating by 11 years the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[121]. But to be a worthy gift from the Serbian Orthodox Church to the Roman Catholic Church, the Laon icon must have been painted many years, if not decades, before 1249[122]. Indeed, as we saw above, the Greek and Serbian letters on the icon indicate, it was most likely painted directly from the Shroud in Constantinople between 1094 and 1249, which is between 111 and 166 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date!

1796a April. The First Coalition is beaten by the 26 year-old general Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821) in northern Italy[123] and Victor Amadeus III is forced to sign the disadvantageous Treaty of Paris, which gives the French army free passage through Piedmont[124].

1796b 16 October. Victor Amadeus III dies[125] and is succeeded as King of Sardinia and Duke of Savoy by his eldest son, Charles Emmanuel IV (r. 1796-1802)[126].

1798a 2 October. Birth in Paris of the untitled Charles Albert of Savoy (1798–1849), a great-great-great-great-great-grandson of Duke Charles Emmanuel I (r. 1580-1630), and who due to a lack of surviving male heirs in the royal line,would become King of Sardinia and Duke of Savoy in 1831[127].

1798b 6 December. Napoleon's general Barthélemy Joubert (1769-99) occupies Turin and forces Charles Emmanuel IV to abdicate all his territories on the Italian mainland and to withdraw to the island of Sardinia, without the Shroud[128]. On 9 December Charles Emmanuel IV with the rest of the royal family privately venerate the Shroud and then depart for Sardinia[129]. From then on the Shroud would be effectively under the control of the Roman Catholic Church[130].

1799 9 November 1799. End of the French Revolution[131].

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 17 November 2020. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.271. [return]
4. "Anne of Austria," Wikipedia, 17 November 2020. [return]
5. "Louis XIV: War of the Spanish Succession," Wikipedia, 22 November 2020. [return]
6. Wilson, 2010, p.271. [return]
7. "War of the Spanish Succession: Savoy," Wikipedia, 23 November 2020. [return]
8. "Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia: War of the Spanish Succession," Wikipedia, 27 November 2020. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1997, "A Calendar of the Shroud for the Years 1694-1898," BSTS Newsletter, No. 45, June/July; 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.296. [return]
10. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.111. [return]
11. Scott, 2003, pp.111, 369 n.53. [return]
12. "War of the Spanish Succession: Savoy," Wikipedia, 23 November 2020. [return]
13. "War of the Spanish Succession: Italy," Wikipedia, 23 November 2020. [return]
14. "Siege of Turin: Background," Wikipedia, 19 September 2020. [return]
15. Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1998, p.296. [return]
16. "Siege of Turin: Background," Wikipedia, 19 September 2020. [return]
17. "Battle of Ramillies," Wikipedia, 22 November 2020. [return]
18. "Siege of Turin," Wikipedia, 19 September 2020. [return]
19. Oddone, A., n.d., "THE_HOLY_SHROUD_files/OSTENSION_ENGLISH 5.doc," Accademia Vis Vitalis, Turin (no longer online). [return]
20. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.47; Wilson, 2010, p.306; Cassanelli, A., 2002, "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK, p.14; Wilson, 2010, p.271. [return]
21. "Anne Marie d'Orléans: Duchess and Queen," Wikipedia, 27 November 2020 & "Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia: War of the Spanish Succession," Wikipedia, 27 November 2020. [return]
22. "Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours: Retirement and later life," Wikipedia, 27 May 2020 & "Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia: War of the Spanish Succession," Wikipedia, 27 November 2020. [return]
23. "War of the Spanish Succession: Military campaigns 1701–1708," Wikipedia, 23 November 2020. [return]
24. "Siege of Turin: Siege," Wikipedia, 19 September 2020. [return]
25. "File:Prinz Eugene of Savoy.PNG," Wikimedia Commons, 30 November 2020. [return]
26. "Prince Eugene of Savoy: Turin and Toulon," Wikipedia, 29 November 2020. [return]
27. Oddone, n.d. [return]
28. "Siege of Turin: Siege," Wikipedia, 19 September 2020. [return]
29. Ibid. [return]
30. "File:BattleofTurin.JPG," Wikimedia Commons, 27 July 2020. [return]
31. "Siege of Turin: Battle," Wikipedia, 19 September 2020. [return]
32. Oddone, n.d. [return]
33. "Duchy of Montferrat," Wikipedia, 5 July 2020. [return]
34. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.81; "Peace of Utrecht," Wikipedia, 9 November 2020. [return]
35. "Victor Amadeus, Prince of Piedmont," Wikipedia, 19 November 2019. [return]
36. "Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 19 November 2019. [return]
37. "War of the Quadruple Alliance," Wikipedia, 26 November 2020. [return]
38. "Treaty of The Hague (1720)," Wikipedia, 10 July 2020. [return]
39. "File:Vittorio Amedeo II in Maestà - Google Art Project.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 27 September 2020. [return]
40. Oxley, 2010, p.81; Wilson, 2010, p.271; Treaty of The Hague (1720)," Wikipedia, 10 July 2020. [return]
41. Oddone, n.d. [return]
42. "Anne Christine of Sulzbach, Princess of Piedmont," Wikipedia, 24 October 2020. [return]
43. Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1998, p.296. [return]
44. "Prince Vittorio Amedeo Teodoro, Duke of Aosta," Wikipedia, 24 October 2020. [return]
45. "Anne Christine of Sulzbach, Princess of Piedmont," Wikipedia, 24 October 2020. [return]
46. "Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours," Wikipedia, 27 May 2020. [return]
47. "Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg," Wikipedia, 7 August 2020. [return]
48. Prince Vittorio Amedeo Teodoro, Duke of Aosta," Wikipedia, 24 October 2020. [return]
49. "Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 13 December 2020. [return]
50. "Johann Heinrich Schulze," Wikipedia, 11 September 2020. [return]
51. "Anne Marie d'Orléans," Wikipedia, 27 November 2020. [return]
52. "Anna Canalis di Cumiana," Wikipedia, 27 August 2020. [return]
53. "Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia: Abdication and later years," Wikipedia, 27 November 2020. [return]
54. "File:Clementi - Charles Emmanuel III in armour.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 13 March 2020. [return]
55. Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1998, p.296; "Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 26 November 2020. [return]
56. "Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia: Abdication and later years," Wikipedia, 27 November 2020. [return]
57. Ibid. [return]
58. "Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 27 November 2020. [return]
59. "Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg," Wikipedia, 7 August 2020. [return]
60. Oddone, n.d.; Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1998, p.296; "Elisabeth Therese of Lorraine: Queen," Wikipedia, 10 December 2020. [return]
61. Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1998, p.296; "Elisabeth Therese of Lorraine: Queen," Wikipedia, 10 December 2020. [return]
62. "Palazzo Reale, già Palazzo Ducale o Palazzo Novo Grande," Museo Torino, 2010. [return]
63. Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1998, p.296; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.11; Wilson, 2010, p.306. [return]
64. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.98; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.62. [return]
65. "Maria Antonia Ferdinanda of Spain: Duchess of Savoy," Wikipedia, 8 December 2020. [return]
66. "Maria Antonia Ferdinanda of Spain: Issue," Wikipedia, 8 December 2020. [return]
67. Oddone, n.d.; Morgan, 1980, p.48; Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1998, p.296; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.21; Wilson, 2010, p.306. [return]
68. "Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 6 July 2020. [return]
69. "Pope Benedict XIV," Wikipedia, 10 December 2020. [return]
70. Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1998, p.297; Guerrera, 2001, p.26; Oxley, 2010, p.84. [return]
71. "Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 6 November 2020. [return]
72. "Charles Felix of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 8 October 2020. [return]
73. Oddone, n.d.; Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1998, p.297. [return]
74. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, p.19; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.114-115; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.150-151; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.154; Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.58-70, 63-64; Wilson, 1998, pp.146-147; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.288G. [return]
75. "File:Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 2 March 2019. [return]
76. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 23 January 2020. [return]
77. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
78. Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.59; "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 23 January 2020 (footnotes omitted). [return]
79. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 23 January 2020. [return]
80. Wilson, 1998, p.297; "Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 26 November 2020. [return]
81. "Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 13 December 2020. [return]
82. "Clotilde of France: Marriage," Wikipedia, 29 October 2020. [return]
83. Oddone, n.d.; Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1998, p.297; Wilson, 2010, p.271. [return]
84. "Maria Theresa of Austria-Este, Queen of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 16 June 2020. [return]
85. "French Revolution," Wikipedia, 25 December 2020. [return]
86. Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1998, p.297; Wilson, 2010, p.271. [return]
87. "Kingdom of Sardinia: Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna," Wikipedia, 15 December 2020. [return]
88. "Louis XVI: Imprisonment, execution and burial, 1792–1793," Wikipedia, 3 December 2020. [return]
89. "Marie Antoinette: Trial and execution (14–16 October 1793)," Wikipedia, 18 December 2020. [return]
90. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.57; Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.60; Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.9; Rinaldi, P.M., 1978, "The Man in the Shroud," [1972], Futura: London, Revised, p.54; Crispino, D.C, 1985, "Doubts along the Doubs," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 14, March, pp.10-24, 12-13; Scavone, 1989, pp.99, 101; Ruffin, 1999, p.62. [return]
91. "The Holy Shroud of Besançon," 1634, Jean de Loisy, The Art Institute of Chicago, 2013. [return]
92. "File:Icône Sainte Face Laon 150808.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 30 November 2020. Translated by Google. [return]
93. de Riedmatten, P., 2008, "The Holy Face of Laon," BSTS Newsletter, No. 68, December. [return]
94. de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
95. Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, No. 3, Autumn, pp.319-345; Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.21; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988a, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.157; Wilson, 1991, p.78H; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.21; de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
96. de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
97. Green, 1969; Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.157; Wilson, 1991, p.78H; de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
98. de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
99. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.59; Tribbe, 2006, p.21; . [return]
100. Wilson, 1991, p.78H; de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
101. Wilson, I., 1983, "Some Recent Society Meetings," BSTS Newsletter, No. 6, September/December, p.13; Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.21; Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.58; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988b, "Dating the Shroud - A Personal View," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.16-17; Tribbe, 2006, p.21. [return]
102. Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.58. [return]
103. Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.67. [return]
104. de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
104a. de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
105. de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
106. de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
107. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.114-115; Wilson, 1986, pp.110F, 136; Wilson, 1998, pp.150-151. [return]
108. Wilson, 1979, p.121; Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.23. [return]
109. Wilson, 1979, p.114; Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.21; Currer-Briggs, 1988a, pp.60, 157; Wilson, 1991, p.136. [return]
110. Wilson, 1979, pp.114, 121; Currer-Briggs, 1984, pp.22-23; Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.60; Wilson, 1991, p.136; Tribbe, 2006, p.21; de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
111. Wilson, 1979, pp.114-115; Wilson, 1998, p.150. [return]
112. Green, 1969; de Riedmatten, 2008; Oxley, 2010, p.108. [return]
113. "Image of Edessa," Wikipedia, 14 December 2020. [return]
114. Wilson, I., 1977, "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.31-49, 44; Wilson, 1979, pp.120-121, 307; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.36; Wilson, 1986, pp.112-113, 145; Scavone, 1989, pp.81-82; Scavone, D.C., 1991, "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, 1991, pp.171-204, 184; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 35; Iannone, 1998, pp.104-105, 115; Wilson, 1998, pp.152-153, 266-267; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.132-133; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.110-111; Guerrera, 2001, pp.2-3; Oxley, 2010, pp.23-247; Wilson, 2010, pp.140-141, 174; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.186-187, 288I. [return]
115. Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.68. [return]
116. "Greek alphabet," Wikipedia, 11 December 2020. [return]
117. Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.67; Tribbe, 2006, p.21; Jesus: Etymology," Wikipedia, 22 December 2020. [return]
118. Tribbe, 2006, p.21; de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
119. "Serbia in the Middle Ages: Byzantine suzerainty," Wikipedia, 22 December 2020. [return]
120. Wuenschel, 1954, p.59; de Riedmatten, 2008. [return]
121. Wilson, 1991, p.3; Wilson, I., 1996, "Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised, p.134; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.56-57; Wilson, 1998, pp.125, 141; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.113; Wilson, 2010, p.108; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
122. Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.57. [return]
123. Napoleon: First Italian campaign," Wikipedia, 17 December 2020. [return]
124. "Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 6 July 2020. [return]
125. "Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 13 December 2020. [return]
126. "Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 6 July 2020. [return]
127. "Charles Albert of Sardinia: Accession to the throne," Wikipedia, 16 December 2020. [return]
128. Scott, 2003, p.267; "Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 6 July 2020. [return]
129. Wilson, 1998, p.297; Scott, 2003, p.267; "Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 6 July 2020. [return]
130. Scott, 2003, p.268. [return]
131. "French Revolution: The Directory; 1795–1799," Wikipedia, 25 December 2020. [return]

Posted: 24 November 2020. Updated: 30 December 2020.