© Stephen E. Jones
Locations of the Shroud: Lirey c.1355 - Chambéry 1471
This is the entry, "Locations of the Shroud: Lirey c.1355 - Chambéry 1471." I am working through the topics in the entry, "Shroud of Turin, expanding on them.
[Index] [Previous: Dimensions of the Shroud] [Next: Locations of the Shroud: Chambéry 1471 - Turin 1578]
Introduction. This five-part series of entries will trace the locations of the cloth today known as Shroud of Turin, from its first appearance in undisputed history[1] at Lirey, France in c.1355, to its current location, since 1578 (apart from short periods due to wars) in or around St John the Baptist Cathedral, Turin, Italy. It is partly based on my 2012 post, "The Shroud's location."
[Above: Extract from Ian Wilson's "Travels of the Shroud" map[2]. The left-most arrowed route to "Paris 1307" should be ignored as it was part of Wilson's Templar theory, which he no longer holds[3]. Also the "1418" after "Montfort" is incorrect as the Shroud was at a different "Montfort" in 1418 (see below).]
Lirey (c.1355-1357). The first undisputed 
appearance of the Shroud was at Lirey collegiate church, in c.1355 when it
[Right (enlarge): Pilgrim's badge from the Shroud's first undisputed exhibition at Lirey, France in c.1355-57[4].]
was exhibited by Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-1356) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332-1428). And after Geoffroy's 1356 death in the Battle of Poitiers, the Shroud continued to be exhibited by Jeanne de Vergy until at least 1357 [Lirey (1)].]
Montfort (c.1358-1359). In 1358, following the French defeat 
at the 1356 Battle of Poitiers in which Geoffroy I died,
[Left (enlarge): The east tower of Montfort-en-Auxois castle: Burgundy Tourism.]
marauding bands of English soldiers attacked French towns, including nearby Troyes. So Jeanne probably took her young son Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–1398), and the Shroud, from Lirey south to the comparative safety of her castle at Montfort-en-Auxois[5].
Anthon (c.1359-1388) . In c.1359 Jeanne married the wealthy Aymon IV of Geneva (c. 1324-1388) and took Geoffroy II and the Shroud from Montfort to one of Aymon's estates in High Savoy (that part of France bordering both Switzerland and Italy), probably Anthon.
[Right (enlarge): Chateau at Anthon Isère (not Anthon High Savoy) built in 1315 by Guichard d'Anthon[6], presumably Aymon IV's great uncle Guichard VI d'Anthon (c. 1278-1320), which Aymon inherited through his mother Isabelle d'Anthon (c.1307-1335). Being part of Aymon IV's estates, it is possible (albeit less likely) that Jeanne, Geoffroy II and Aymon IV lived here with the Shroud for ~29 years between 1359 and 1388.]
Aymon was an uncle of Robert of Geneva (1342–1394), the future first Avignon Pope Clement VII (r. 1378-1394). And Aymon's domains were close to Annecy where Clement VII had been born and grew up. It is likely that Jeanne had arranged a private viewing of the Shroud to Robert before, or upon him becoming Pope in 1378 (see next). Both Aymon IV and Geoffroy II were knights of the Order of the Collar of Savoy, as was Humbert de Villersexel (1385-1437), the second husband of Geoffroy II's daughter Marguerite de Charny (1390-1460). That, and the many years that Jeanne and Geoffroy II lived in High Savoy, helps explain the transfer of the Shroud by the childless Marguerite to the House of Savoy in 1453.
Lirey (1389-c.1418). Aymon died in 1388 and so Jeanne returned to Lirey with the Shroud. Which explains the complaint of the local Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis' (c. 1300-95), in his c.1389 Memorandum, that following the Shroud's first exhibition at Lirey in c.1355, it had been "kept ... hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year [1389]"[7]. Jeanne then passed the Shroud over to her son Geoffroy II, who had presumably returned to Lirey when he attained his age of majority in 1373. Geoffroy married Marguerite de Poitiers (1362-1418), Bishop Henri's niece, in c.1389, so the Shroud may have been Jeanne's wedding present to him! Geoffroy then sought and received permission to exhibit the Shroud from Pope Clement VII, through his Savoy-born legate Cardinal Pierre de Thury, bypassing Bishop d'Arcis. According to Bishop d'Arcis' Memorandum, 
[Left (enlarge): Part of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis' c.1389 Memorandum, showing that it is only a rough draft. And since no other record exists of d'Arcis' appeal to the Pope, but the Pope did reply to d'Arcis, it is likely that the Bishop made his complaint verbally through Cardinal Thury.]
which is only a draft, unsigned, and undated, he claimed that one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (c.1327-1370), had investigated the Shroud when it was first exhibited at Lirey in c.1355, and had found that it was just a painting. But there is no evidence that Bishop de Poitiers had a problem with the Shroud, rather the contrary, and the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) in 1978 conclusively proved that the Shroud is not a painting. Unknown to Bishop d'Arcis, Pope Clement evidently knew the truth about the Shroud, from Jeanne, the wife of his near neighbour and uncle Aymon (see above). And indeed in correspondence with Bishop d'Arcis, the Pope let it slip that he had personally corresponded with Geoffroy II on the matter. So in what must have been a surprise to the Bishop (to put it mildly), Pope Clement VII sided with Geoffroy II against him, and decreed that the second Lirey exhibition should continue, albeit with less ceremony and toned-down claims. Moreover, the Pope ordered "perpetual silence" from Bishop d'Arcis on this matter, or be excommunicated! It is not known for how long the second Lirey exhibition of the Shroud continued. The Hundred Years War between England and France had entered an extended period of peace from 1389–1415. So there is no reason why the second Lirey exhibition of the Shroud did not continue until Geoffroy II's death in 1398, or even beyond it until 1418, since the Shroud was until that year under the control of the canons of Lirey church (see below).
St. Hippolyte-sur-le-Doubs (1418-37). Following Geoffrey II's death in 1398, his eldest child, the ~8 year-old Marguerite de Charny inherited the Shroud. Geoffrey II's widow, Marguerite de Poitiers (c.1362 -1418) married Guillaume de Noyers (c.1360-1409) and they had a son, Charles de Noyers (c.1401-1459). Presumably Marguerite and her two younger sisters Henriette (c.1395-1460) and Jeanne (1397-1406) went to live with their mother on Guillaume's estates in Bergundy, and the Shroud remained in Lirey under the control of the canons of Lirey church. Marguerite married Jean de Bauffremont (1380-1415), who was killed without issue at the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415, which marked the resumption of the Hundred Years' War between England and France. Marguerite then in 1416 married Humbert de Villersexel, a knight of the Order of the Collar of Savoy, as was Aymon IV and Geoffroy II (as we saw above). Marguerite lived with Humbert at his castle also called "Montfort"
[Right (enlarge): 1670 depiction of the Grotto Chateau de la Roche, St. Hippolyte-sur-le-Doubs[8], which was destroyed in 1665. Presumably this was the "Montfort" in which Marguerite de Charny and Humbert de Villersexel lived with the Shroud between 1418-38.]
at Saint-Hippolyte-sur-le-Doubs, near the border of Savoy, and the borders of Germany and Switzerland. As before after the Battle of Poitiers (see above), after their crushing victory at Agincourt, English soldiers remained in France, looting defenceless French towns. In 1418 Lirey itself came under threat and so the canons of Lirey church asked Humbert to temporarily take the Shroud to the safety of his castle in far eastern France. This was done and in a letter dated 6 July 1418, Humbert acknowledged receiving various relics from the Lirey church including, "a cloth, on which is the figure or representation of the Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is in a casket emblazoned with the de Charny crest"[9]. The Shroud in its casket was deposited in Humbert's Chapel des Buessarts, and for the next twenty years the Shroud was brought out each year for display (see plaque below). In her time at St. Hippolyte, Marguerite lost her daughter Jeanne de Charny in c.1406, her mother Marguerite de Poitiers in 1418, and her grandmother Jeanne de Vergy in 1428 (aged ~96!).
With Marguerite de Charny (1437-1453). Humbert died in 1437, with Marguerite now aged ~48 and still childless. Although Humbert had been previously married, he had no children from that marriage either, so Humbert's properties were inherited by his nearest male relative, François de la Palud (?-1456), who was also Marguerite's nephew by marriage. Humbert's will provided that Marguerite was trustee of the Shroud. So Marguerite left St. Hippolyte taking the Shroud with her, holding known public exhibitions at Liege, Belgium (1449) and Germolles (1452) - see map above. But Humbert in his 1418 letter (above) had promised that he would return to the Lirey church
[Left: Modern day plaque in the church of St Hippolyte sur Doubs[10], which translated, states that: "The Holy Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, brought to France during the 4th crusade and given to the Count Humbert de la Roche of St Hippolyte by the canons of Lirey was venerated in this chapel for 34 years then given to the Duke Louis of Savoy by Marguerite de Charny, widow of count Humbert"[11].]
all its relics, including the Shroud, when the English threat to it had ended. So upon Humbert's death the canons of Lirey demanded that Marguerite return the relics, including the Shroud, to them. But Marguerite refused, pointing out that she did not sign Humbert's letter and the Shroud was her property, not his. So in 1443 she was summoned by the Lirey canons before the parliament of Dole, France, which had jurisdiction over St. Hippolyte. Marguerite agreed to return the other relics, but she refused to hand over the Shroud, on the grounds that the danger from the English had not yet passed and the wooden Lirey church had become dilapidated. She again insisted that the Shroud was a personal possession of her family, acquired by her grandfather, Geoffroy I de Charny as a spoil of war ("conquis par feu" = "conquered by fire"), and that it never belonged to the Lirey church (it was never listed on the church's inventories). With the legal assistance of her half-brother Charles de Noyers, this was extended until 1446 and then extended further to 1449 and 1451, by other courts and officials, on the agreed condition that Marguerite made payments for the repair and upkeep of the Lirey church. But in 1452, with the danger to Lirey from the English having passed, and the church having been fully repaired, Marguerite was excommunicated by a Besançon ecclesiastical court, because of her continued refusal to hand over the Shroud to the Lirey church. By 1453 the childless, twice-widowed Marguerite was in her sixties, and had been the custodian of the Shroud for 35 years. Marguerite de Charny never did hand over the Shroud to the Lirey church, and (see next), she did not bequeath it to any of her relatives either, but in 1353 transferred the Shroud to the House of Savoy.
Geneva (22 March 1453). On 22 March 1453, in Geneva (presumably at Château de Chillon or Chillon Castle)
[Right (enlarge): The Château de Chillon (or Chillon Castle)[12] which presumably was the place in Geneva where Marguerite de Charny handed over the Shroud to Duke Louis I of Savoy.]
Marguerite transferred ownership of the Shroud to Duke Louis I of Savoy (1413-1465) and his wife Anne de Lusignan of Cyprus (1415–1462). In return, the Duke ceded to Marguerite his castle at Varambon and the revenues of his estate of Miribel, both in eastern France, in return for unspecified "valuable services." This can only have been the transfer of ownership of the Shroud. Varambon had been for generations the seat of the de la Palud family until it was confiscated by Duke Louis I from Marguerite's nephew and Humbert's heir, François de la Palud. Marguerite had previously petitioned King Charles VII (1403–61), that Louis pay compensation for what he had taken from her nephew, so presumably this was a face-saving way for Louis to return Varambon to its rightful owner. The revenues from Miribel were already exhausted, so in 1455 Louis took it back replaced it with the town and manor of Flumet, in High Savoy. Marguerite did not profit from the exchange. It was not a commercial transaction (if it had been Marguerite could have asked and received much more for the Shroud) but the Duke and Duchess wanted to express their gratitude to Marguerite in a tangible way, and also to be able to confirm in law that they now owned the Shroud. Therefore the repeated claim by professional Shroud sceptic, Joe Nickell, that Marguerite "sold" the Shroud for "two castles"[13] is false. As Ian Wilson pointed out, "Margaret was now in her seventies, and one can scarcely suppose that at this stage in her life she should have been particularly interested in acquiring real estate"[14]! The Duke's wife, Anne de Lusignan, had previously expressed an interest in the Shroud and was eager to possess it. Until her marriage Anne had lived in Cyprus, and the Church of the Acheiropoietos (Greek "made without hands"), at Lapithos, Cyprus, dedicated to the Mandylion (the Shroud "doubled-in-four"), was not far from where she had lived. So it is likely that Anne recognised the resemblance between the face on the Mandylion and that on Marguerite de Charny's Shroud. If Anne also knew the story that Marguerite's Shroud had been looted from Constantinople (see plaque above) then she may have realised that the Shroud was the lost Mandylion (or at least a very old copy of it)! Similarly, Marguerite would likely have seen in Anne a kindred spirit, who truly valued the Shroud. That, coupled with Duke Louis and Anne's well-known piety, and their power to ensure the safety of the Shroud, would have all been factors in persuading Marguerite to pass on the Shroud to the House of Savoy, who went on to own it for the next 530 years! When the canons of Lirey discovered in 1457 that Marguerite had ceded the Shroud to the Savoys, they had her excommunicated by the ecclesiastical court of Besançon, unless the Shroud was returned to them. They were again paid off again temporarily by Marguerite, and in 1459 lifted the excommunication, having been paid off by Duke Louis.
Geneva - Chambéry (1453-65). After the Shroud became the property of the Dukes of Savoy on 22 March 1453, it initially had no fixed abode. The Savoy family carried the Shroud around with them on their travels. However, it is likely that the Shroud was within a few days transferred from Duke Louis' Geneva castle to his Chateau in the Savoy
[Left (enlarge): Château of the Dukes of Chambéry[15]. In the 15th century this was the principal residence of the Savoys. So initially the Shroud would have been held here, when it was not travelling with a Duke.]
capital Chambéry, in far south-eastern France, near the borders of Italy and Switzerland.
Marguerite de Charny died on 7 October 1460, having bequeathed her titles and lands, including Lirey, to her cousin and godson, Antoine Guerry des Essarts (c. 1408-74), the son of Bishop Henri de Poitiers' illegitimate daughter Guillemette (c. 1380-1450). As there would be no legal requirement for Marguerite to leave her titles and lands to the son of an illegitimate child, she must have done so because she was a close friend of her aunt Guillemette. This is further evidence that, contrary to Bishop d'Arcis' claim in his 1389 Memorandum, Bishop de Poitiers had no problem with the exhibition of the Shroud at Lirey in c. 1355. Even after Marguerite's death the canons of Lirey kept demanding the Shroud be returned to them. Finally in 1464 Duke Louis paid them out with a large sum of money, and an annual rent from the revenues of his one of his castles as compensation for their loss of the Shroud. Considering that the Lirey church never owned the Shroud, it having been left in their hands when Geoffroy II unexpectedly died in 1398, and Marguerite was his heir and so was the Shroud's rightful owner, the Lirey canons' continual demands over a long period of time that the Shroud be returned to them, or Marguerite would be excommunicated, unless they were paid large sums of money, was simply extortion! On 11 November 1462 Anne died in Geneva, followed on 29 January 1465 by Duke Louis at Lyon.
Chambéry (1465-71). On Duke Louis I's death in 1465, his eldest child, Amadeus IX (1435-72), inherited his father's title and properties, including the Shroud. He shared with his wife Duchess Yolande de Valois (1434-1478), a devotion to the Shroud. Yolande was a daughter of the late King Charles VII of France(1403-61) and a sister of the reigning King Louis XI (1423-83), whose Queen was Charlotte of Savoy (1441-83), Amadeus' sister! Yolande had been betrothed to Amadeus in 1436, when she was four years old, and she had lived at the Savoy court since then, as was the custom. So she would have been ~19 when her grandfather Louis I received the Shroud in 1453. In 1452, Amadeus and Yolande were married, and after that they had walked from Vercelli, Italy to Chambéry, a distance of ~ 280 km (~170 miles), in an act of veneration of the Shroud. In 1471, a year before his death, Amadeus IX began the enlargement and embellishment of the Dukes' chapel at Chambéry, to make it a worthy home for the Shroud. But Amadeus suffered from epilepsy and had delegated to Yolande the government of his territories. In 1471 Yolande founded the convent in Chambéry of the Poor Clare nuns. In that same year Francesco della Rovere (1414-84), one of Duke Louis I's Franciscan retinue, was elected Pope Sixtus IV (†1471-84).
Continued in, "Locations of the Shroud: Chambéry 1471-Turin 1578."
Notes
1. The term "undisputed history" is Ian Wilson's, in his 1996, "Highlights of the Undisputed History." By "undisputed" Wilson means, "documented history of the Shroud of Turin," not that no one disputes it. But in fact the overwhelming majority of leading Shroud sceptics accept that the Lirey Shroud was the Shroud of Turin. The sole exception (as far as I am aware) is that of professional conspiracy theorists Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, who claim that the Shroud was faked photographically by Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). But Leonardo was born almost a century after the Shroud's first exhibition at Lirey in c.1355, so Picknett and Prince have to maintain, against all the evidence, that the Shroud of Turin is Leonardo's 1492 fake which had been substituted by the House of Savoy for the supposedly `inferior' Shroud of Lirey, which was then destroyed. [return]
2. Wilson, I. 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Gollancz: London, inside cover. [return]
3. "So obviously there remains an unexplained gap between 1204 and the 1350s (and my suggestion of Templar ownership during this period has never been more than tentative and provisional - please note that I no longer support the claims for this ..." Wilson, I., 2012, "Discovering more of the Shroud's Early History: A promising new approach ...," Talk for the International Congress on the Holy Shroud in Spain, Aula Magna of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 28-30 April, 2012, p.2. [return]
4. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
5. Montfort-en-Auxois, aka Montigny-Montfort. In the map above it is at the location shown as "Montfort 1418" but the "1418" is wrong, being confused with Montfort castle at St. Hippolyte-sur-le-Doubs. [return]
6. "Château des Panettes," Châteaux de France, 8 October 2014. Translated by Google. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.228, 241. [return]
8. "Grotte de la Roche: Histoire et Mysteres...," Office de tourisme de la Communauté de communes de Saint-Hippolyte (Doubs). [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.212. [return]
10. Jean Espirat, "Photos of Saint-Hippolyte," France-Voyage.com. [return]
11. Duncan, H., 2006, " The Turin Shroud in a 15th century Fresco in St Hippolyte," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 63, June. [return]
12. "Château de Chillon," Wikipedia, 1 February 2015. Photograph, "Castle_of_Chillon_N.jpg"," by Zacharie Grossen, 3 July 2014. [return]
13. Nickell, J., 1993, "Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, p.23; Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.18-19 & Nickell, J., 2007, "Relics of the Christ," The University Press of Kentucky: Lexington KY, p.133. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, p.214. [return]
15. "Château des Ducs de Savoie à Chambéry," Chambéry Tourisme & Congrès. [return]
References
• "Chambéry," Wikipedia, 14 February 2015.
• "Yolande of Valois," Wikipedia, 13 March 2014.
• Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.33
• Brucker, E., 1998, "Thy Holy Face: My 39 Years of Lecturing on the Shroud of Turin," Brucker: Tucson AZ, pp.15-16
• Crispino, D.C., 1981, "Why Did Geoffroy de Charny Change His Mind?," Shroud Spectrum International, #1, December, pp.28-34, p.29.
• Crispino, D.C., 1982, "The Report of the Poor Clare Nuns," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 2, March, pp.19-28, pp.20, 22.
• Crispino, D.C., 1983a, "Louis I, Duke of Savoy," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 7, June, pp.7-14, pp.9, 13.
• Crispino, D.C., 1983b, "The Castle of Montfort," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 8, September, pp.35-40.
• Crispino, D.C., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, #28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, p.38.
• Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, pp.35-37, 44-46, 65.
• Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.16-17, 35, 220-221.
• de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.15-17.
• Duncan, H., 2013, "The Shroud in Montfort, 1418-?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 77, June.
• Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.12-13, 14-16.
• Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, pp.103-105.
• Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.129.
• Jones, S.E., 2015, "de Charny Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au (members only).
• Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.49, 53, 64-65.
• Piana, A., 2007, "The Shroud's "Missing Years," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 66. December.
• 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.66.
• Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, pp.41-43.
• Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.47-48, 102-103.
• Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.42-43, 46-47.
• Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, pp.41, 50-51, 53.
• Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.85-87, 193, 203-210, 214-218, 260-261.
• Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.12-13.
• Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.14-21. • Wilson, 1994, pp.20-25.
• Wilson, I., 1994, "A Chronology of the Shroud 1452-1509," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 38, August/September, pp.20-25, pp.19-20.
• 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, pp.4, 116-122, 126-128, 130, 132, 210-211, 279-283.
• Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.221-222, 229-245, 302-303.
Posted 16 February 2015. Updated 3 April 2024.
Posts
18 comments:
Stephen, you really should pay attention to my blog. You are making many mistakes that could be corrected. For instance, after I reposted your text on Montfort and Anthon, Hugh Farey posted the following comment. You might want to fix your posting.
Considering this is attempt to produce a definitive Encyclopaedia of the Shroud, a worthy cause, it is a shame that it is illustrated by a map which is admittedly misleading in at least two respects, namely the Templar route to ‘Paris 1307′, which has apparently been discarded, and the position of “Montfort 1418″, which turns out to be in the wrong place. Jones thinks that the Shroud did spend some time in the marked Montfort, but in 1358-1359, after which it moved to Anthon. However he gives no reference for this. The root of the various discussions regarding the Shroud’s movement at this time seems to be M. Bergeret’s Ohio Conference paper on ‘Linceul de Turin – Le Trou Historique’ which says that the Shroud moved to Montfort in 1360 and stayed there till 1389, and Dorothy Crispino’s ‘To know the Truth’ which says that it may have moved directly to Anthon in 1357 and stayed there till 1388. No doubt there are other variations on the theme.
While the ruined Castle of Montfort is correctly illustrated, the photo of the Anthon Chateau is at Anthon, Isères, not Anthon, Haute Savoie, and is not associated with Aimon de Genève.
Wishing you well, Stephen.
Dan Porter
Dan
>Stephen, you really should pay attention to my blog.
If I read your blog (which I haven't since 8 May 2014), I would have to comment, and then on past experience I would be personally attacked with you not lifting a finger. No thanks!
Besides, I barely have time to research and write my blog.
>You are making many mistakes that could be corrected.
That is your and Farey's opinions, which is not borne out below.
>For instance, after I reposted your text on Montfort and Anthon, Hugh Farey posted the following comment.
The same Hugh Farey who claims that the Shroud is a 14th century accident! He needs to remove the log in his own eye so that he can see clearly to take the speck out of my eye (Mt 7:3-5).
>You might want to fix your posting.
>
>Considering this is attempt to produce a definitive Encyclopaedia of the Shroud, a worthy cause, it is a shame that it is illustrated by a map which is admittedly misleading in at least two respects, namely the Templar route to ‘Paris 1307′, which has apparently been discarded, and the position of “Montfort 1418″, which turns out to be in the wrong place.
That's what I WROTE in my caption below the map! Wilson's map is still useful with those corrections I had flagged.
>Jones thinks that the Shroud did spend some time in the marked Montfort, but in 1358-1359, after which it moved to Anthon. However he gives no reference for this.
Wilson, for one, agrees with the Montfort-en-Auxois interim move between Lirey and Anthon after Geoffroy I's death in 1356. And that source is in my "References."
>The root of the various discussions regarding the Shroud’s movement at this time seems to be M. Bergeret’s Ohio Conference paper on ‘Linceul de Turin – Le Trou Historique’ which says that the Shroud moved to Montfort in 1360.
I will stick with 1358, which was the year of the attack on Troyes, only 12 miles away from Lirey.
>and stayed there till 1389,
He's wrong in my opinion, for that reason.
In my references below, a number of sources (including Wilson) state that the Shroud was with Jeanne in Aymon's High Savoy domain from their marriage until Aymon's death in 1388. And that fits with the other evidence I cited.
[continued]
[continued]
>and Dorothy Crispino’s ‘To know the Truth’ which says that it may have moved directly to Anthon in 1357 and stayed there till 1388. No doubt there are other variations on the theme.
That disagrees with what Farey had just written! Which is it?
And all that Crispino wrote was: "Can we assume that when Jeanne de Vergy married Aimon de Geneve, probably in 1357,3 she left Lirey to reside with her second husband in his mountainous domains?"
Crispino's footnote "3" does not say anything about Jeanne marrying Aymon. In fact it implies she hadn't yet in 1357. Check it out online for yourself.
According to my sources and best estimate, Jeanne married Aymon IV in 1359.
But if anyone has any hard evidence that it was in 1357, I will change the Shroud's time at Anthon accordingly.
>While the ruined Castle of Montfort is correctly illustrated,
Thanks.
>the photo of the Anthon Chateau is at Anthon, Isères, not Anthon, Haute Savoie, and is not associated with Aimon de Genève.
Thanks, but half-right. I will make the appropriate minor correction.
It still could be near the "Anthon" in which Aymon IV and Jeanne lived with the Shroud.
And far from it being "not associated with Aimon de Genève,"
as I wrote (does Farey have a reading problem?), it says the chateau was built in 1315 by "Guichard d'Anthon." As I wrote, presumably that was Guichard VI d'Anthon (c. 1278-1320), who was Aymon IV's great uncle. And Aymon's mother Isabelle d'Anthon (c.1307-1335), did inherit Guichard VI's lands and titles through her father, Aymar d'Anthon (1286-1325).
So most of the alleged "mistakes" Farey raised were either Farey's own mistakes or debatable. Only the minor point about which "Anthon" the chateau was near requires a clarification.
That's not worth me wasting my time wading through all the dross on your blog (let alone the personal attacks) to find the odd speck of gold!
Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
Reader, if you like this my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its Google PageRank number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.
Hi Stephen,
I'm sorry I have caused such excitement. My point about the map was not that it was incorrect; as I said you admitted it was wrong. My point was that you used an incorrect map at all. Why not draw a better one?
As for the statements about the movement of the Shroud between 1357 and 1388, there are at least three sensible possibilities, one of them being yours. However, in a comprehensive encyclopaedia I think there is a duty to be a bit more precise about the reason for your choice. I tried all over the place to justify it from primary sources, including Ian Wilson's more recent books (1998 and 2010) where he doesn't mention it, and his seminal 1978 book, where he doesn't mention Anthon (Just my luck if he mentions both in Holy Places, which I haven't got with me!) I was sorry not to find M. Bergeret's paper online, as that might quote a 14th century source. Perhaps you have a specific source, or perhaps you were making an educated guess - and a perfectly good one it is - but I think you should make clear which.
As for the date of Jeanne de Vergy's marriage to Aymon IV, I think Crispino is guessing that the indulgences granted in 1357 were in order to celebrate it. What makes you think it was in 1359?
You're probably correct about Guichard d'Anthon - it may well be that Anthon Haute-Savoie was named after Anthon Isère, but the castle of the former is not otherwise associated with the chatelain of the latter. I'm glad you will change the photo, although I could not find one of a castle in Haute Savoie. Perhaps it no longer exists.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi Stephen,
>
>I'm sorry I have caused such excitement.
I doubt it.
>My point about the map was not that it was incorrect; as I said you admitted it was wrong. My point was that you used an incorrect map at all. Why not draw a better one?
I felt that Wilson's old, incorrect, map was instructive. For one, it gave me an opportunity to mention his abandonment of his Templar theory.
>As for the statements about the movement of the Shroud between 1357 and 1388, there are at least three sensible possibilities, one of them being yours.
Thanks.
>However, in a comprehensive encyclopaedia I think there is a duty to be a bit more precise about the reason for your choice.
You misunderstand my new, re-started encyclopedia. As I stated in its first index page, my aim is to spend less time on each entry, so I can post more entries:
"This is ... my new Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. It supersedes my old fully referenced Turin Shroud Encyclopedia which was too slow ... This new Encyclopedia will have less footnotes to statements within entries .... My aim will be to post a topic every few days. ...
>I tried all over the place to justify it from primary sources, including Ian Wilson's more recent books (1998 and 2010)
It seems that you DO have a reading problem! "Anthon" is in the index of Wilson's 2010 book: "Anthon 229." And in that place Wilson discusses Jeanne and Aymon's marriage "within a few years" of 1358, and Jeanne's taking the Shroud to Aymon's High Savoy estates.
As I replied to Dan, you need to remove the log from your eye (your ABSURD 14th century accident theory) before you presume to remove the specks from my eye (Mt 7:3-5).
>where he doesn't mention it, and his seminal 1978 book, where he doesn't mention Anthon (Just my luck if he mentions both in Holy Places, which I haven't got with me!)
It is in that book too. If you are going to be a critic of my posts on detail, you need to do your homework THOROUGHLY.
>I was sorry not to find M. Bergeret's paper online, as that might quote a 14th century source. Perhaps you have a specific source, or perhaps you were making an educated guess - and a perfectly good one it is - but I think you should make clear which.
See above about you first removing the log out your eye, Hugh. Until you address your ABSURD 14th century accident theory, you have little credibility with me.
[continued]
[continued]
>As for the date of Jeanne de Vergy's marriage to Aymon IV, I think Crispino is guessing that the indulgences granted in 1357 were in order to celebrate it.
She doesn't SAY it, nor do any of my other sources which mention it, and she is no longer here to ask her what she meant by it.
But I doubt that the 12 bishops of the Avignon court would grant indulgences in 1357 to pilgrims who visited Lirey church, to mark the occasion of Jeanne and Aymon IV's wedding, yet only mention "Jeanne de Vergy" and not Aymon IV.
>What makes you think it was in 1359?
Absent any hard evidence when Jeanne married Aymon IV, I felt that it would more likely be a few years after her husband Geoffroy I's death in late 1356.
>You're probably correct about Guichard d'Anthon - it may well be that Anthon Haute-Savoie was named after Anthon Isère, but the castle of the former is not otherwise associated with the chatelain of the latter.
In order of your points: thanks, I doubt it, so what?
>I'm glad you will change the photo, although I could not find one of a castle in Haute Savoie. Perhaps it no longer exists.
I am not going to change the photo. As I said, I am going to make a minor clarification under it.
And again Hugh, I find it almost UNBELIEVABLE that you, of all people, strain at the gnats of the minor points of my posts, yet swallow the camel (Mt 23:24) of claiming that the Shroud was a 14th century accident!
>Best wishes,
>Hugh
I doubt it.
According to my normally one comment per individual policy (see below), to save me time from endless debates, this has been your last comment under this post.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.
If there is overwhelming evidence that the Shroud is authentic , why is it then that so many people, some of them very intelligent and very cultured, say that the shroud is a medieval fake ?
Anonymous
>If there is overwhelming evidence that the Shroud is authentic , why is it then that so many people, some of them very intelligent and very cultured, say that the shroud is a medieval fake ?
First, there are some very intelligent and very cultured people, who have STUDIED THE EVIDENCE for the Shroud's authenticity FOR THEMSELVES and have concluded from that evidence that the Shroud of Turin is authentic and NOT a medieval fake.
Second, the very intelligent and very cultured people who say that the Shroud is a medieval fake, don't WANT the Shroud to be authentic, because that would be strong evidence (if not proof) that Christianity is true.
In which case they sense that they would need to change their non-Christian lifestyle, and that many of their "very intelligent and very cultured" friends would disown them.
And so, like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand, they take the line of least resistance and CHOSE TO IGNORE that overwhelming evidence for the Shroud's authenticity. As though ignoring it will somehow make it not true!
Stephen E. Jones
My guess is that hugh thinks that these very intelligent people who believe in the shrouds authenticity are obviously delusional because hugh farey thinks its a 14th century forgery mistake lol.
I bet hugh also things the congruent points between the shroud and sudarium were also a mistake or that the sudarium's history is a lie ;)
But then again making false accusations against Stephen claiming what he said against Catholics was also proven by Stephen to be untrue.
Hugh actually u didn't cause much excitement to me. I've come to expect these things from u as completely normal behavior
Best wishes to you also ;)
For the record , I'm just a peasant who believes in the authenticity of the shroud .
Bippy
Bippy123
>My guess is that hugh thinks that these very intelligent people who believe in the shrouds authenticity are obviously delusional because hugh farey thinks its a 14th century forgery mistake lol.
It wasn't Hugh Farey who wrote the above about, "so many people, some of them very intelligent and very cultured, say that the shroud is a medieval fake." It was an anonymous commenter.
>I bet hugh also things the congruent points between the shroud and sudarium were also a mistake or that the sudarium's history is a lie ;)
Presumably Farey just dismisses it as a coincidence. If one WANTS the Shroud to be a fake, as Farey evidently does (in the same `progressive' anti-supernaturalist Roman Catholic tradition as Canon Ulysses Chevalier (1841–1923) and Fr Herbert Thurston (1856–1939))), then one can just ignore and dismiss the OVERWHELMING evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, and in its place cling to an ABSURD anti-authenticity `explanation'.
Jesus' commands about first removing the log from one's own eye before one presumes to remove the speck from another's eye (Mt 7:3-5); and straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel (Mt 23:24); apply in spades to Farey and his ABSURD 14th century accident theory.
>But then again making false accusations against Stephen claiming what he said against Catholics was also proven by Stephen to be untrue.
Farey acknowledged that he was mistaken. The matter is now closed.
>Hugh actually u didn't cause much excitement to me. I've come to expect these things from u as completely normal behavior
I could say more about Farey (and Porter claiming that I should read his blog to correct my "many mistakes" - ROTFL!!), but I have a policy against commenting on my blog about Porter, his blog, and his blog's members, beyond what is necessary to respond to their comments on my blog.
>Best wishes to you also ;)
Thanks.
[continued]
[continued]
>For the record , I'm just a peasant who believes in the authenticity of the shroud .
There was a trap in that commenter's implication that people who are "very intelligent and very cultured, say that the shroud [sic] is a medieval fake" and therefore those who claim that the Shroud is authentic are not "very intelligent and very cultured." I avoided that trap at the starts of my response above.
Jesus made the point in His "Parable of the Rich Young Ruler" (Mt 19:16-30; Mk 10:17–31; Lk 18:18–30) that a major reason for rejecting Christianity is not being willing to give up one's "great possessions." And the late, great, Christian evangelical apologist, Bernard L. Ramm (1916-1992), pointed out that they include "intellectual riches" (and "cultural riches" too), which are an obstacle to saving faith in Jesus:
"In the Gospels a very wealthy young man refused to make the motions of faith. He was intrigued by Jesus Christ, but when the issue became sharply one of Christ or his possessions, the tug of his possessions was the stronger, and sorrowfully he left Jesus Christ. He wanted religion without the motions of faith. It is not a rash presumption to believe that many scientists and educated men wish for peace of mind, relief from a guilty conscience, hope for the life to come, and the blessedness of faith in God. But they find themselves caught between their science and their religious hopes, unable to move. Being possessed of great intellectual riches which manage to come first in their sentiments, they leave Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus refused to pursue the rich young man and make other terms, so today we cannot lessen or cheapen or alter the terms of the gospel for our men of science. There is no other Saviour than Jesus Christ, and there is no other means of having Him than by the motions of repentance and faith. Therefore, if a scientist comes to God he must come in the same way as any other person comes to God. He must make the appropriate spiritual motions. He must repent; he must confess his sin to God; he must believe in Jesus Christ with all his heart." (Ramm, B.L., 1955, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," p.245).
Jesus also added at the end of His parable above, that those who are prepared to give up their "great possessions" to gain Him, "will receive a hundredfold" in this life "and will inherit eternal life" as well! (Mt 19:29; Mk 10:28–30; Lk 18:28–30).
Regards.
Stephen E. Jones
Hugh Farey is also a LIAR.
On the International Skeptics Forum, in a thread, "Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming" one "hugh farey Critical Thinker" wrote on 7th March 2015:
-----------------------------------
Should you find yourself at http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.co.uk, you will find that your "Possibly at least one of the lab techs at each of the three labs was a yeti/'Squatch/human hybrid, a sleeper agent put in place to protect the secret" is seriously proposed by one Stephen E. Jones. As far as I know he is totally alone in this belief, but it's there none the less!
----------------------------------
Of course I wrote no such thing. In "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" I propose that:
-----------------------------------
Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-4 June 1989) was allegedly the primary hacker, who: 1) allegedly wrote and installed on Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS computer a program which ensured that the Shroud of Turin samples' actual radiocarbon dates would be replaced by dates which, when calibrated, clustered around 1325; and 2) allegedly passed that program on to the KGB, for which he was allegedly working, to be installed by confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–3 June 1989) on the AMS computers at Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories ...
-----------------------------------
You know your theory is standing up well when your opponents don't answer it fair and square, but resort to ad hominems, strawmen, and poisoning of the well, fallacies!
Farey might be a teacher at a Roman Catholic school, but he evidently deceives himself that the commandment, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour" (Ex 20:16), and reaffirmed by Jesus (Mt 19:18; Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20), does not apply to him!
Stephen E. Jones
Just read your latest Stephen. Of course I was not referring to sasquatches or anything so ridiculous, but to the term "sleeper agent" which I take to mean somebody who was acting clandestinely to falsify the radiocarbon date, who was part of the team and who no one suspected. This, as I understand it, describes your position perfectly. As far as I know you are totally alone in this belief. If either of the above statements is wrong, I apologise, but I was certainly not lying, nor setting up a strawman, nor poisoning your well. I wish you could see that it is possible for someone to disagree with you without bearing any personal animosity, and I wish you well in all your Shroud endeavours.
Hugh
>Just read your latest Stephen.
My response to your claim on the International Skeptics Forum, that I propose that "one of the lab techs at each of the three labs was a yeti/'Squatch/human hybrid, a sleeper agent put in place to protect the secret ..."
This is a LIE. 1) I do not propose that "one of the lab techs at each of the three labs," i.e. were THREE lab techs who were hackers. I propose that only ONE of the lab techs, Timothy W. Linick was a hacker.
2) I do not propose that one lab tech was a "yeti/'Squatch/human hybrid." I propose that the hacker was an ordinary human being, motivated by extreme ant-authenticism and money.
3) I do not propose that Linick was "a sleeper agent put in place." I propose that Linick approached the Soviets with an offer to guarantee the Shroud would return a date that was agreed with widely known predictions of McCrone and others that the Shroud would date around or before the 1350s.
>Of course I was not referring to sasquatches or anything so ridiculous,
They were your words. As they stand, they are a LIE.
>but to the term "sleeper agent" which I take to mean somebody who was acting clandestinely to falsify the radiocarbon date, who was part of the team and who no one suspected.
That is NOT what a "sleeper agent" is. "A sleeper agent is A SPY WHO IS PLACED in a target country or organization, not to undertake an immediate mission, but rather to act as a potential asset if activated." ("Sleeper agent," Wikipedia, 24 February 2015). Which is what you wrote, "a sleeper agent PUT IN PLACE."
>This, as I understand it, describes your position perfectly.
That is also a LIE. Far from describing my "position perfectly," it is a STRAWMAN CARICATURE of my position. If you were interested in the truth, you would have correctly stated my position (see my previous comment above).
>As far as I know you are totally alone in this belief.
I am not "totally alone in this belief" as you FALSELY stated it. I don't even believe it.
And I am NOT "totally alone in" in my theory that the 1325 +/- 65 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a result of a computer hacking. At least two prominent Shroud pro-authenticists have emailed me privately that my theory may well be true.
And I am sure that some of the 60+ readers a day of my blog provisionally agree with my theory. But it is early days and they are understandably reluctant to publicly agree with it.
Besides, as a science teacher you would be aware that many (if not most) major scientific theories, which are now accepted as true, were initially believed only by the proposer and vigorously attacked by the majority.
What matters in science is not a popular vote of how many believe a theory but whether it FITS THE EVIDENCE better than any other theory. And my theory does that.
[continued]
[continued]
>If either of the above statements is wrong, I apologise,
They ARE wrong (see above). And I don't accept your apology because I don't believe you mean it. But you should apologise to your fellow "critical thinkers" on the forum you made them, correctly stating my theory in my previous comment above.
>but I was certainly not lying, nor setting up a strawman, nor poisoning your well.
You WERE doing all three, Hugh.
>I wish you could see that it is possible for someone to disagree with you without bearing any personal animosity,
I would have no problem if you fairly stated my theory and then stated why you disagree with it.
But as the one on the receiving end of it, you clearly bear me "personal animosity."
>and I wish you well in all your Shroud endeavours.
That is a LIE too. As I have said before, I follow the wise advice of one of my university lecturers: "Don't believe what people SAY, believe only what they DO." And what you DO, Hugh, is oppose all my Shroud endeavours, even stooping to "bearing false witness," i.e. LYING.
One day soon you will need to give account to Jesus (Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5) for your evident animosity towards me and to His Shroud.
Stephen E. Jones
>for your evident animosity towards me and to His Shroud.
That should be evident animosity towards Jesus' Shroud (Hugh believes it had "an accidental 14th century origin"!) and towards me, who only seeks to serve Jesus by presenting the evidence for His Shroud's authenticity.
But ironically it may have backfired on Hugh. Early this month my blog's Sitemeter visits jumped from the 60s a day to over 100 a day. I thought it was the result of the CNN `documentary' on the Shroud with more people interested in the Shroud and searching the Web for more information about it, and it still may have been.
But part of that marked jump in visits to my blog may have been Hugh's LYING comment on 7th March about my theory to that Skeptics forum. And after more than a week, visits to my blog are still in the high 90s a day!
Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
Reader, if you like this my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its Google PageRank number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.
On the International Skeptics Forum thread, "Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming" Hugh Farey wrote on 13th March:
>I have recently read a comment by Stephen Jones on his website referring to my remark, in which he calls me a liar and asks me to apologise.
I did NOT ask Hugh to apologise to ME. I regard asking for apologies as a mark of weakness and my long-standing practice has been to NEVER ask for apologies.
I only suggested (not ASKED) that Farey: "should apologise to your fellow `critical thinkers' on the forum you made them, correctly stating my theory in my previous comment above."
>Putting aside the "yeti/'Squatch/human hybrid" nonsense, which I hope nobody took seriously,
Why write it then?
>he says specifically that he does not propose that there was "a sleeper agent put in place to protect the secret."
As Farey well KNEW. So it was a deliberate LIE on a forum where most (if not all) would not know what I did propose.
>He says that: "A sleeper agent is A SPY WHO IS PLACED in a target country or organization, not to undertake an immediate mission, but rather to act as a potential asset if activated."
That is not what I say - it is what WIKIPEDIA says.
>But he believes that: "Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-4 June 1989) was allegedly the primary hacker, who: 1) allegedly wrote and installed on Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS computer a program which ensured that the Shroud of Turin samples' actual radiocarbon dates would be replaced by dates which, when calibrated, clustered around 1325; and 2) allegedly passed that program on to the KGB, for which he was allegedly working, to be installed by confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–3 June 1989) on the AMS computers at Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories."
Farey should have stated this from the outset. But I give him credit for quoting my words stating my theory eventually.
>I am happy to make clear the distinction and apologise unreservedly for any confusion.
I also give credit to Farey for apologising to the Forum members for misleading them.
>He also says that: "I am NOT "totally alone in" in my theory that the 1325 +/- 65 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a result of a computer hacking. At least two prominent Shroud pro-authenticists have emailed me privately that my theory may well be true.
Later I regretted the "At least two..." as `gilding the lily'. It was only two, but they ARE " two prominent Shroud pro- authenticists."
[continued]
continued]
>And I am sure that some of the 60+ readers a day of my blog provisionally agree with my theory. But it is early days and they are understandably reluctant to publicly agree with it."
From memory I have had no comments on my blog disagreeing with my theory. If commenters on Dan Porter's blog are disagreeing with it, I am not aware of it, because I haven't read his blog's posts or comments since 8 May.
>I have no wish to upset anybody, least of all Stephen,
I regard this as a LIE (unless it is self-delusion). From the outset of my commenting on my theory on Porter's blog, Farey has gone out of his way to PERSONALLY ATTACK me:
1) On Porter's blog Farey on several occasions PERSONALLY ATTACKED me, casting doubt on my mental state, which was one of the main reasons I left Porter's blog.
2) Farey sent early comments of mine on Porter's blog WITHOUT MY PERMISSION to Profs Jull and Ramsey, Directors of Arizona and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories. Which backfired because their unexpectedly prompt replies contained evidence for my theory!
3) Farey FALSELY accused me of linking the Pope with Satan, when they were my entirely separate comments on Shroud news items.
4) Farey wasted no time in attacking me and my theory in only his second issue as Editor of the BSTS Newsletter.
5) In (4) above, Farey omitted to mention that I had scanned back issues #1-42 of the BSTS Newsletter for Barrie Schwortz to add them to his online archive, when it was highly relevant in the context for Farey to do so. I regard that OMISSION AS DELIBERATE by Farey.
6) Farey's LYING comment on the above Skeptic's forum is just part of a pattern of personal attack and denigration of me and my theory by Farey, which I expect will continue.
>who is a tireless worker on behalf of the Shroud,
Farey regards the Shroud as having had "an accidental 14th century origin," so WHY WOULD he think it was good that I am "a tireless worker on behalf of the Shroud"? From his EXTREME ANTI-AUTHENTICIST position he must regard all pro-authenticists (including me) as wasting their time at best and being hopelessly deluded enemies of the truth at worst.
>and am happy to be corrected.
Now that he had been found out!
The point is that AN HONEST PERSON (at least in Shroud matters) COULD NOT have posted what Farey did, when he thought no one on that forum would know that his comments were a LIE.
Stephen E. Jones
Post a Comment