Monday, April 27, 2015

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (8)

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction. This is part #10, Summary (8), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. My next post in this series will be part #10(9). See the previous parts #10(1), #10(2), #10(3), #10(4), #10(5), #10(6) and #10(7). Other previous posts in this series were parts #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9, which posts this part #10 will summarise. It is my emphasis below unless otherwise indicated.

[Above: Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) control console computer terminal[2] just before, or just after, it had on 6 May 1988 displayed the alleged hacker's bogus radiocarbon age of the Shroud, "640 years"[3], which was then calibrated to "1350 AD"[4]. Dr. (now Prof.) Timothy Jull is in the green jumper, and the alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is in the black shirt[5].]


• The AMS computer at Arizona was a "DEC computer system." In the previously cited 1986 Radiocarbon paper Linick stated that Arizona's AMS computer was a "DEC computer system" which "largely controls the ... calculation of results for each 15-minute run":

"The DEC computer system largely controls the cycling of isotopes, accumulation of data, and calculation of results for each 15-minute run"[6]

This is consistent with the terminal in the photo above, from page 176H of Prof. Harry Gove's book, which appears to be a DEC VT-100 , which were typically networked

[Right (enlarge): A DEC VT-100 terminal[7].]

to a DEC minicomputer (i.e. a mini-mainframe-computer). "DEC" stands for Digital Equipment Corporation, the maker of the powerful PDP-11 and VAX-11 mini- computers which were popular in science laboratories in the 1980s.

• Arizona's Prof. Jull's misleading and even false response to my hacking proposal. A copy of a comment I made when I was on Dan Porter's blog, proposing that the radiocarbon dating laboratories may have been duped by a computer hacker (at that early stage I did not claim it was a theory) was sent without my permission to Prof. A.J. Timothy Jull, Director of the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory.

[Left: Prof. A.J.T. Jull: Hungarian Academy of Sciences[8]. Prof. Jull was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper[9] and is in Prof. Gove's photo above of those present at Arizona's first dating of the Shroud.]

and to Oxford's Prof. Christopher Ramsey, by the anti-authenticist Editor of the BSTS Newsletter, Hugh Farey[10]. Both Profs. Jull and Ramsey, surprisingly replied, and Porter posted those replies to his blog[11].

Prof. Jull's reply to Farey (as copied to my blog [12]) was as follows:

"This is impossible. In our case, the software for the calculations is offline. In any case, the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph, as I recall. Indeed, in 1988 the internet (as we know it today) didn't exist – there was a pre-existing network run by the US government which was quite restricted. Anyway, the machine we used at that time couldn't have been attached to it, and that one still isn't."

First I was (and still am) amazed that two Professors, who are Directors of major radiocarbon laboratories, would bother responding to anonymous (Farey said he did not give them my name) blog comments. That itself is evidence that they may have been aware, following Linick's `suicide', that their laboratories' AMS computers may have been hacked by Linick in the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud.

I don't know what Farey prefaced my comments with, but as I pointed out in my response when I was on Porter's blog (copied to my blog[13]), I said nothing about "the Internet" and Prof. Jull's "the software for the calculations is offline ... the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph" (his emphasis) is not only self-contradictory (if the "calculation does NOT require software," why is "the software for the calculations ... offline"?), it is misleading, and even false. As we saw above, in a 1996 Radiocarbon journal paper, the first author of which was "T.W. Linick" and its second author, "A.J.T. Jull" (see reference [6] below), while the final calibration was "done offline and plotted on a graph," as I did in part #5, the actual "calculation of results for each 15-minute run" was done by the "DEC computer system."

This was confirmed by Prof. Gove’s eyewitness account of Arizona's first Shroud dating run, published in 1986:

"The first sample run was OX1 [an oxalic acid control]. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen"[14].
and by David Sox’s 1988 account, presumably obtained from Gove, since Sox wasn't there:
"The calculations were produced on the computer, and displayed on the screen. Even the dendrochronological correction [the calibration] was immediately available. All eyes were on the screen. The date would be when the flax used for the linen relic was harvested."[15]

Prof. Jull must have known this, so his reply to Farey that "the software for the calculations is offline ... the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph" (his emphasis) is not only self-contradictory, but misleading and false.

However, from Prof. Ramsey's reply (see next) where he wrote, "Age calculation was done offline ...," I will charitably assume that by "calculations," Prof. Jull was referring not to the computer's calculation that Gove and Sox wrote about, but to the "offline" further processing, including calibration, of those computer calculations. If so, then while what Prof. Jull wrote in his reply above would not be deliberately false, it would still be difficult not to conclude that Jull was being deliberately misleading. That is because Prof. Jull must have known that it was "the calculations produced by the computer" which I was alleging had been hacked, not the further processing "offline" of those computer "calculations."

In which case this would itself be further evidence for my theory that the the radiocarbon laboratories were duped by a computer hacker (allegedly Timothy W. Linick). That is, following Linick's `suicide' on 4 June 1989, a little over three months after the 16 February 1989 Nature paper which claimed that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[16] appeared, Arizona laboratory leaders (of which Prof. Jull was not then among) may have discovered evidence that Linick had hacked Arizona's dating. If so, they would presumably not have been able to explain how Linick could have also hacked Zurich's and Oxford's datings. Which would in turn explain why Jull (and Ramsey-see next) emphasised that none of the three laboratories' AMS computers were online via "the Internet," which I hadn't mentioned. In which case the laboratories may have assumed that the Shroud was medieval after all and Linick's hacking of Arizona's dating made no difference to the final result. What other explanation is there for Prof. Jull's (and Prof. Ramsey's - see next) strange defensiveness, replying (and promptly at that) to an anonymous blogger's comments, misleadingly referring to "calculations ... offline," which are clearly irrelevant to my hacker claim, and going on at length about "the Internet" which I said nothing about?

• Oxford's Prof. Ramsey's misleading and even false response to my hacking proposal. My surprise that Prof. Jull had responded to an anonymous (to him) comment of mine on Dan Porter's blog turned to amazement when my further reading of those comments revealed that the Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating

[Right: Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey[17, 18], who as "C.R. Bronk" (for his original name Christopher Ramsey Bronk[19]) was also one of the signatories to the 1989 Nature paper[20].]

laboratory, Prof. Christopher Ramsey, had also responded to my comment sent to him by Farey, as follows:

"Yes – I agree with all that Tim [Jull] says. This would seem to be a suggestion from someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s. In the case of Oxford the AMS had no connection to any network (and indeed even today our AMS control computers have no network connections). The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured. Age calculation was done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS"[21]

The first question is, how did Ramsey know "all that Tim [Jull] says"? Did Farey, having received Jull's response, email it to Ramsey for his added response? Or did Farey send my comments to both Jull and Ramsey separately at the same time and one of them contacted the other to present a united front?

Ramsey states that he agrees "with all that Tim [Jull] says," despite Jull's "...the software for the calculations is offline. ... the calculation does NOT require software" being at least self-contradictory and misleading (see above).

Like Jull, Ramsey also strangely (if not suspiciously) downplayed the role of the AMS computer. Indeed some on Porter's blog (including Porter himself) took Prof. Ramsey to be claiming that the AMS computer was little better than a calculator, and Porter even questioned whether it was "programmable"! When, as we have seen, both Jull and Ramsey knew that it was a "DEC computer system," probably either a PDP-11 [right][22], or more likely a VAX-11 [below left][23], both of which were powerful, programmable, and therefore hackable computers! In fact as we shall see in part #10(9), some versions of VMS, the operating system of PDP/VAX computers, had a bug which made them vulnerable to hacking, and in fact were hacked.

Moreover, in his reply above, Prof. Ramsey's "This would seem to be a suggestion from someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s" is not only false, it is again difficult not to conclude that it is deliberately false, given that Ramsey, like Jull, knew that the AMS computer was a very powerful "DEC computer system." In fact, as I pointed out in my reply to Ramsey's response on Porter's blog, copied to my blog[24], far from me being "someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s":

"I was one of the first to have a personal computer in 1980. I pioneered the introduction of computers into Health Department of WA [Western Australia] hospitals in the mid-to late 1980s and in the late 1980s/early 1990s, I was the Systems Administrator of a network of 7 hospitals' UNIX systems."

Prof. Ramsey's ad hominem response cannot be explained by a lack of computer literacy, since he is the author of OxCal, a radiocarbon dating calibration computer program[25]. So, knowing that the AMS computers at the three laboratories were very powerful DEC minicomputers, what was Ramsey's point in claiming, falsely, that I was "someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s"? It is difficult not to conclude that Prof. Ramsey was deliberately trying to hide the fact that the AMS computers were indeed hackable. Which would be further evidence that after Linick's `suicide,' Arizona laboratory may have discovered evidence that its AMS computer, and hence its dating, had been hacked.

Prof. Ramsey's "The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured" confirms my key point that there was "software" between the Shroud samples and the "outputting counts of 14C" displayed on the AMS computer's control console terminal. And being "software" it was hackable. That the "software was very simple" is irrelevant, so why mention it? Again Prof. Ramsey's defensiveness suggests that he has something to hide.

As we saw above Prof. Ramsey's "Age calculation was done offline" clarified what Prof. Jull probably meant by "calculation." But as with Jull, it is irrelevant that the "counts of 14C" were further processed "offline". Prof. Ramsey, like Prof. Jull, must be highly intelligent, and so they would surely know that if there was a hacking it would be in those "counts of 14C" before they were further processed offline. Indeed, Prof. Ramsey's "...a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS," tacitly admits that the "numbers from the AMS" are from which the dating follows. If the Shroud samples' "numbers from the AMS" had been hacked, the further offline processing would inevitably reflect that hacked dating.

Nevertheless I did accept Profs. Jull and Ramsey's assurance that the AMS computers at Arizona and Oxford (and presumably also at Zurich) were never online. This however was not a problem for my theory because I had previously stated that if those computers never were online, they could still have been hacked manually and locally. Which in fact has been my theory from the very outset of it being a theory (see part #1 and next part #10(9)).

Continued in part #10(9).

1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176H. [return]
3. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
6. T.W., Linick, A.J.T. Jull, L.J. Toolin, and D.J. Donahue, 1986, "Operation of the NSF-Arizona accelerator facility for radioisotope analysis and results from selected collaborative research projects," Radiocarbon, Vol. 28, No. 2a, pp.522-533, p.524. [return]
7. "VT100," Wikipedia, 22 June 2014. [return]
8. "Prominent guest researchers arrive in Hungary," Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2013. [return]
9. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615. [return]
10. Farey, H., 2013, "Editorial - by Hugh Farey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 78, December. [return]
11. "Comment Promoted: On the Hacking Hypothesis," Shroud of Turin Blog, March 9, 2014. [return]
12. Jones, S.E., 2014, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," The Shroud of Turin blog, March 13. [return]
13. Jones, 2014. [return]
14. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
15. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," The Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147. [return]
16. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
17. "Professor Christopher Ramsey" Merton College, Oxford, 2014. [return]
18. "Christopher Bronk Ramsey," Wikipedia, 23 March 2014. [return]
19. Bronk, C.R., 1987, "Accelerator Mass Spectrometry for Radiocarbon Dating: Advances in Theory and Practice," PhD Dissertation University of Oxford. [return]
20. Damon, 1989, p. 611. [return]
21. Jones, 2014. [return]
22. "PDP-11," Wikipedia, 17 May 2014. [return]
23. "VAX," Wikipedia, 20 June 2014. [return]
24. Jones, 2014. [return]
25. Ramsey, C.B., 2014, "OxCal," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 24 May. [return]

Posted 27 April 2015. Updated 1 September 2023.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

"Fa-Fm": Turin Shroud Dictionary

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]


This is page "Fa-Fm" of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. I decided to split the "F" entry in two at the outset because the entry "Filas" (see below) is large and there is another large entry "Frei" in the pipeline. For more information about this dictionary see the "Main index A-Z" and page "A."

[Index] [Previous: "E"] [Next: "Fn-Fz"]

Felix V, Pope (see Amadeus VIII)

Filas, Francis L. Fr. Francis L. Filas (1915-85) was a Jesuit priest and Professor of Theology at Loyola University in Chicago. A founding member of the Holy Shroud Guild, Filas delivered a paper at the 1977 Shroud conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at which Jackson, et al, reported that three-dimensional imaging of a Shroud photograph

[Above (enlarge): Right eye in Enrie 1931 negative sepia photograph of the Shroud, magnified (left), showing letter "K" (red) and to its left angled letters "A" (orange) and "I" (yellow), the curl of the lituus (green arrow) and its staff (blue arrow). Each are in their correct relative position on a Pontius Pilate lepton (right), after I had horizontally flipped it because the Shroud image is laterally inverted in Enrie's negative photograph.]

with a VP-8 Image Analyzer had unexpectedly revealed images of small round `buttons' over the Shroud man's eyes. They concluded these were probably coins to keep the eyelids closed. Ian Wilson advised they were the size of a Pontius Pilate lepton (the "widow's mite" - Mk 12:41-44, Lk 21:1-4 KJV), which was acceptable to Jews as a Temple offering. A prominent lituus is only on coins minted by Pontius Pilate. Since Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea from AD 26–36, who sentenced Jesus to death (Mt 27:24-26; Mk 15:15; Lk 23:23-25; Jn 19:14-16) in AD 30, Jackson et al. realised that if these `buttons' were Pontius Pilate leptons this would date the Shroud to the time of Jesus. In 1979 Filas noticed on an enlargement of an Enrie 1931 photograph of the Shroud face, a design over the man's right eye. Frei consulted Michael Marx, a numismatist, who using his magnifier identified four tiny curved letters which looked like "ECAI." Filas checked a copy of Madden's "History Of Jewish Coinage" (1864) and found that a Pontius Pilate lepton (Madden's #14), struck in AD 30, was the nearest to the design (a lituus or astrologer's staff) and the letters (part of the inscription "TIBERIOUKAICAROC" - "of Tiberius Caesar"), in the correct angular rotation and relative position, over the right eye of the Shroud. Moreover, Tiberius Caesar, who reigned from 14 to 37 AD, was the Roman Emperor at the time of Jesus' death (see Luke 3:1). Filas theorised that "UCAI" was a variant inscription and numismatist Bill Yarborough later found for Filas a Pontius Pilate lepton with the variant "C" in place of the "K." In 1981 Filas had negatives of his Shroud face photographs digitised by Log/E Interpretation Systems, with the result that the letters and the lituus over the right eye were more clearly seen, but but there was no clear evidence for design or letters over the right eye. In 1983 Filas sent his coin and photos to Robert Haralick, Director of the Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, who in a 60-page report agreed that:

"The evidence is definitely supporting evidence, because there is some degree of match between what one would expect to find if the Shroud did indeed contain a faint image of the Pilate coin and what we can in fact observe in the original and in the digitally processed images."
But the numismatist Mario Moroni, using computer enhancement, found that Filas had mistaken part of the curl of the lituus for a "C" and the four letters over the right eye of the man on the Shroud are in fact the usual "UKAI." Filas, in response to his critics who claimed the letters and lituus were an artifact of Enrie's photographs, pointed out they can also be seen on other photographs of the Shroud. To critics who claimed they were just random quirks of the weave, Filas pointed out those features are not found anywhere else on the Shroud, and a mathematician calculated the probability of the four letters in the correct order, and in relative position to a lituus, of the correct size, position, angle and parity. The result was 1 in 6.2273 x 1042 or about one chance in 6 followed by 42 zeroes. To those who object that Jews would not place coins over the eyes of their dead, because pagans did it, coins have been found in first century Jewish skulls that can only have been placed over the eyes. The image of a coin over the man's left eye is less clear, but it may be a Julia lepton, minted only in AD 29 by Pilate in honour of Tiberius' mother Julia Augusta (58 BC - AD 29) who died that year. This image of a Pontius Pilate lepton, struck in AD 30, over the man on the Shroud's right eye, is further proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud of Turin is first century. While an invincibly ignorant Shroud sceptic could argue that still doesn't prove that the Shroud was Christ's, even the agnostic biologist Yves Delage (1854–1920) "estimated the probability that the image on the shroud was not caused by the body of Jesus Christ as 1 in 10 billion"! [1].

first century. Evidence that the Shroud is first century includes: 1) the image of a coin over the Shroud man's right eye which matches a Pontius Pilate lepton, struck in AD 30 (see above); 2) textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg's discovery that the stitching of the hem joining the sidestrip to the main body of the Shroud, and the selvedge (woven edge), are identical to that found at the Jewish first century fortress of Masada and nowhere else (see below); 3) Prof. Giulio Fanti's "three separate tests, when averaged, showed the linen fibers of the shroud to have been woven into cloth around 33 B.C., give or take 250 years, thus nicely bracketing the year 30, when most historians say Jesus died on the cross"; and 4) Ray Rogers' (1927–2005) discovery that the vanillin content of the Shroud linen "suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."

flagrum (scourge)
flogged (see scourged)

flower images see "Danin" and [1].


Flury-Lemberg, Mechthild. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (1929-) is a Swiss textile conservation expert. In 1998 she prepared the Shroud for its Exposition that year, and in doing so determined the Shroud's dimensions to be 437 cms by 111 cms. In 2002 Flury-Lemberg carried out a restoration of the Shroud, in which she removed charring from a fire in 1532 that was a threat to the cloth and the image, and also removed unsightly patches sewn over the burn marks. In removing the patches, Flury-Lemberg discovered the stitching of the hem joining the sidestrip to the main body of the Shroud, and the selvedge, are identical to that found at the Jewish first century fortress of Masada and nowhere else. Since destroyed by the Romans in AD 73-74 and never re-occupied, this is further evidence that the Shroud is first century. Flury-Lemberg proposed the best explanation of the sidestrip, that the linen bolt of cloth the Shroud was originally cut from was up to three times the Shroud's width (~3.3 metres or ~11 feet) and the cloth was then cut twice lengthwise, and then the two sections with a side selvedge were joined by a seam to form the cloth which became the Shroud. In removing the Shroud's Holland cloth backing sheet, and examining underside of the Shroud which had remained hidden since 1534, Flury-Lemberg found no evidence to support the Benford-Marino invisible repair theory. [1, 2].

1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Filas, Francis L.," not the whole page "Fa-Fm"), provided that a link and/or reference is included back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return]

Created: 25 April, 2015. Updated: 16 May, 2015.

Friday, April 17, 2015

Shroud of Turin News - April 2015

Shroud of Turin News - April 2015
© Stephen E. Jones

[Previous: October 2013] [Next: May 2015]

I have decided to re-start (again!) my Shroud of Turin News. The last issue was in October 2013. What prompted me was that I have started scanning the 118 issues of fellow Australian Rex Morgan's Shroud News, with his permission, for a new archive of that name on Barrie Schwortz' According to Schwortz the Shroud News archive should commence "this [northern] summer," and will be announced in his imminent late April/early May, update. Also, I had recently read Mark Guscin's "Interview With Rex Morgan" in the BSTS Newsletter No. 63 of June 2006, in which Morgan [right] said:

"There have been many letters asking me to resurrect Shroud News and I would much like to. The mountain of material I have assembled since the last one would enable me to produce issues for many more years."
While I do not claim that this is the successor to Morgan's Shroud News (which is one reason I have called it "Shroud of Turin News"), I do hope that this new (or re-started) series will help in some small way to fill the void left by Morgan's decision to not continue with his original Shroud News after December 2001. As before, I will add my comments to Shroud-related news and other articles in reverse chronological order (latest uppermost). My comments are in bold to distinguish them from the articles.

"Turin Shroud Displayed Despite Inauthenticity," The Huffington Post UK, Paul Vale, 21/04/2015 ... A piece of cloth scientifically proven to have no connection to Biblical times has gone on display in Italy, with millions expected to make the pilgrimage to see the medieval forgery.

[Above: "Shroud of Turin Goes on Display in Italy"]

The infamous Shroud of Turin -- a 14 foot piece of linen once believed to be Christ’s burial cloth -- went on public display on Sunday after a 5-year hiatus, with Pope Francis reportedly planning to see the "sacred" garb in June. The linen boasts a faded image of a bearded man, which for centuries was said to be an imprint of the face of Christ. However, in 1988 researchers dated the shroud with Carbon 14 testing, the results placing the garment's creation within the period 1260-1390. ... Recent Popes have been careful to avoid pronouncing on the issue, unwilling to reject the shroud while opting to highlight its more symbolic resonance. Yet despite its inauthenticity, the relic remains a big draw for tourists -- believers and non-believers. ... On the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to "within the period 1260-1390," see below on "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker." This anti- authenticist journalist's "Recent Popes have been careful to avoid pronouncing on the issue..." confirms my previous point that anti-authenticists cite the Vatican's refusal to affirm that the Shroud is authentic, as evidence that it is not. Jesus, who imprinted His image on the Shroud and has preserved it down through the millennia against all the odds, cannot be happy with the Vatican's persistent refusal to tell the truth in this matter.

More than a million already booked to see Turin Shroud," The Australian/AFP, April 20, 2015 ... The Turin Shroud will go on display

[Above: "Holy Shroud of Turin at Cathedral of Turin, Italy (APP)"]

for the first time in five years, with more than a million people already booked in to view one of Christianity's most celebrated relics. Devotees believe the shroud, which is imprinted with the image of a man who appears to have been crucified, to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. ... researchers have not been able to explain how the remarkable image was created, leaving space for theories of some sort of miraculous process to flourish. The church does not officially maintain that Christ's body was wrapped in the shroud ... But it does accord the cloth a special status which has helped to sustain its popularity as an object of veneration. "What counts the most is that this shroud, as you have seen, reflects in a clear and precise manner how the gospels describe the passion and death of Jesus," said Cesare Nosiglia, the Archbishop of Turin. ... 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. I am not being anti-Catholic in this, I am being pro-truth!

"Shroud of Turin goes back on display in Italian city's Cathedral, but does it show the face of Jesus Christ, or is it a medieval hoax?," The Independent, Loulla-Mae Eleftheriou-Smith, 19 April 2015. The Shroud of Turin, a 4.4 metre-long piece of cloth that many Christians believe was used to shroud Jesus's face and body, will go back on display on

[Above (enlarge): A negative (left) of a photograph (right) of the Shroud face, meaning that the Shroud image is a photographic negative. Since even the concept of photographic negativity was unknown until the 19th century, this alone proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Shroud is NOT "a medieval hoax" but does indeed "show the face of Jesus Christ"!]

Sunday in the Italian city's cathedral. The cloth, which appears to show the imprint of a man's face and the body markings that would match those of a person who was crucified, will be on display for the first time in five years from 19 April to 24 June. ... The story of cloth itself has been shrouded in mystery for centuries, with some Christians believing the marks of dried blood match where Jesus's hands and feet would have bled from his crucifixion wounds. It has also been said the dried blood around the head area of the cloth, where the markings of a man's face appear to be shown, are from Jesus's crown of thorns. Scientists in Italy a year ago claimed that a powerful magnitude 8.2 earthquake that took place in Jerusalem in 33 AD – the year Jesus is claimed to have been crucified - could have been strong enough to release neutron particles from crushed rock and caused the X-ray like image of the bearer's face to be imprinted on the cloth, leaving it with the appearance seen today. The scientists have said this radiation would have interfered with the carbon-dating process carried out in 1988, which claimed the shroud had been created in the 1300s and was the result of an elaborate medieval forgery – the theory that most sceptics stand by. ... The earthquake theory is UNBIBLICAL for starters (see "Could Ancient Earthquake Explain Face of Jesus?)." A better explanation why: 1) the overwhelming evidence is that the Shroud of Turin is authentic; 2) but the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud found "that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390," yet 3) the probability that the Shroud being 1st century, has a radiocarbon-date of 13th-14th century, is "about one in a thousand trillion," is provided by "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker."

"Pope makes a date to see Turin shroud as it goes back on public display," The Guardian, 19 April 2015, The Turin shroud is going back on display to the public for the first time in five years, and the Pope has

[Above: "Archbishop of Turin, Cesare Nosiglia, in front of the Turin Shroud during a preview ... Photograph: Elena Aquila ..."]

already made a date to see the burial cloth, which some believe covered Jesus ... The 4.3m (14ft) cloth goes on view from Sunday to 24 June, displayed in a climate-controlled case in Turin cathedral. Pope Francis will view it on 21 June ... Public viewings of the cloth were last held in 2010. "Many pilgrims who had already seen the shroud in past showings come back, even though some saw it just five years ago," the archbishop of Turin, Cesare Nosiglia, said on Saturday. "That's not a long time. And yet many of the bookings we have are people who have already seen the shroud. That means there is a fundamental need in people's hearts to renew this incredible experience that they had the first time they saw it," the prelate told reporters. Reservations to see the shroud are mandatory but free of charge. Turin's mayor said recently that more than one million people had made reservations. In 2010, some 2.5 million people came, according to organisers of the display. The Pope's predecessor, Benedict XVI, ... said there was "full correspondence with what the gospels tell us of Jesus". ... Sceptics say the linen bearing the figure of a crucified man is a medieval forgery. Nosiglia said people of all faiths will come to see the shroud, not just Christians. "Even non-believers will come. ... It is significant that the Shroud continues to have such an attraction for modern people, including even non-Christians. No other Roman Catholic relic has that, which itself is evidence of the Shroud's authenticity. To the sceptics who claim that the Shroud "is a medieval forgery," where is your comprehensive forgery theory that: 1. Positively explains WHO was the forger? HOW was the Shroud forged? WHEN was the Shroud forged? WHY was the Shroud forged? and REPLICATES the Shroud exactly in ALL its major features, using only medieval knowledge and technology? And 2. negatively explains away ALL the evidence for the Shroud having existed since the 1st century?

"Shroud of Turin Inspires Conversion and Deepens Faith," National Catholic Register, Joseph Pronechen, 8 April, 2015. TURIN, Italy - When the Shroud of Turin goes on display in Turin Cathedral beginning April 19, Pope Francis will be among the millions of visitors expected to see and venerate what is believed to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ ... Mark Antonacci ... is a leading authority on the shroud and a major speaker at conferences - quite a change from his starting

[Left: "Mark Antonacci: Founder and President, Test The Shroud Foundation."]

point: He was baptized a Catholic ... He went to church every Sunday, but once in college, he became agnostic. "Thirty-three years ago, I was a young agnostic lawyer in my early 30s and came across a summary of … the findings of the Shroud of Turin Research Project, deducted from their examination of the shroud in 1978 ... It really bothered me ... Finally ... It hit me: What's the problem here? It's a win-win-win situation every way you look at it ... The evidence is just remarkable, like nothing ever seen. It could not be forged. The attorney in me took over. The evidence from the shroud made me realize there is an objective and independent evidence to confirm that every element of the Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection occurred in precisely the ways described in the Gospels." ... Antonacci is an example (another is Ian Wilson) of an agnostic who was prepared to have an open mind on the authenticity of the Shroud and then on the basis of the evidence, came to accept that the Shroud is authentic, and then became a Christian. His 2001 book, "Resurrection of the Shroud" is a veritable library of information on the Shroud. Read the rest of the article for other examples.

"What Does the Shroud of Turin Prove about Easter?," Myra Adams, National Review Online, April 4, 2015 ... The basis for the world's largest religion is the belief that, in Jerusalem around A.D. 33, an itinerant Jewish rabbi died as a result of crucifixion and after three days rose from the dead, fulfilling his own and numerous other ancient Messianic prophecies found in the ... Old Testament ... this ... is easily dismissed by non-believers. However, millions of Christians firmly believe that material scientific proof of the Christ's resurrection actually exists today, and that evidence is called the Shroud of Turin.

[Above: "Shroud of Turin, front. Negative image, with burn marks from a fire, in 1532. Credit: Barrie Schwortz"]

The Shroud, alleged to be the burial cloth of Jesus, is the most studied, tested, and analyzed religious relic the world has ever known. It is preserved ... in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. Beginning April 19, the Shroud will be on a rare public display, through June 24. ... The Shroud's public exposition, highlighted by the Pope's visit, naturally will also generate a debate about the Shroud's authenticity. ... The key mystery of the Shroud centers on how and why there is a detailed negative photographic image of a beaten, crucified man, anatomically correct, front and back, head to toe, on a piece of fine linen cloth measuring 14.5 feet by 3.5 feet. ... pollen and dust found on the Shroud are native to where, according to the Bible, Jesus lived and walked. ... As one would expect, blood of that crucified male penetrates the linen cloth. But here is where science enhances the Shroud's mystery: Blood on the cloth preceded the image of the crucified man ... Here is a startling fact that makes the Shroud nearly impossible to be considered a forgery and enhances the mystery. Unlike his blood, the man's crucified image does not penetrate the cloth but rests on top. His image could be scraped away with a razor blade. Since any earthly substance used to create the man's image would seep into and adhere to the cloth, this lack of penetration continues to baffle modern science. Moreover, tests on the mysterious substance constituting the image have concluded that it was applied with 100 percent consistency, as it rests on the cloth's top two microfibers. Such consistency is a feat impossible to achieve with human hands ... Read the rest of this great article for more facts about the Shroud of Turin which prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is the very burial sheet of Jesus Christ, bearing the front and back, head to head image of His beaten, flogged, crowned with thorns, naked, crucified, dead, speared in the side, buried and resurrected body!

"The Shroud: Not a Painting, Not a Scorch, Not a Photograph," Catholic World Report, March, 27, 2015, Jim Graves. This June, Pope Francis will be making a pilgrimage to Turin, Italy, home of the famous Shroud of Turin, which many believe is the 2,000-year-old burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The Pope's June 21-22 visit will include time venerating the Shroud at the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist ... The Shroud, which is a 14.5' by 3.5' linen cloth bearing the image of the front and back of a man who has been scourged and crucified, has been kept in Turin since 1578. Barrie Schwortz is one

[Right: "Barrie Schwortz (CNS photo/Paul Haring)"]

of the world's leading experts on the Shroud. In 1978, Schwortz, a technical photographer, was invited to participate in the first ever in-depth scientific examination of the cloth, known as the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). A non-practicing Jew at the time, he reluctantly agreed to be part of STURP, fully expecting the team to prove that the Shroud was a painted image from the Middle Ages. But after many years of study and reflection he came to believe in its authenticity. ... The interview is well worth reading. That Barrie Schwortz, a Jew who distinguishes himself from Christians, is "one of the world's leading experts on the Shroud," and the owner of the world's biggest Shroud website,, believes on the basis of the evidence, that the Shroud is authentic (as does agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow), defeats the argument of Shroud anti-authenticists that only Christians believe the Shroud is authentic and that only for religious reasons.

1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]

Posted: 17 April 2015. Updated 13 May 2024.

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Locations of the Shroud: Turin 1578-1694: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones

Locations of the Shroud: Turin 1578-1694

This is the entry, "Locations of the Shroud: Turin 1578-1694," in my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. Previous entries in this series were: "Locations: Lirey c.1355-Chambéry 1471," and "Locations: Chambéry 1471-Turin 1578." I am working through the topics in the entry, "Shroud of Turin, expanding on them.

[Index] [Previous: Locations: Chambéry 1471-Turin 1578] [Next: Locations: Turin 1694-1918]

Introduction. This is the third of a five-part series of entries which will briefly trace the locations of the cloth today known as Shroud of Turin, from its first appearance in undisputed history (see previous) 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."

Chambéry-Turin (1578-1604). On 14 September 1578 the Shroud arrived in Turin, carried at the head of a triumphal procession by four Archbishops. Three weeks later Cardinal Charles Borromeo (1538–84), Archbishop of Milan, arrived after his pilgrimage on foot from Milan, which was originally to have been over the Alps to Chambéry. But Duke Emmanuel Philibert I of Savoy (1528–80) had seized this as an excuse to bring the Shroud from Chambéry to Turin which he had established as Savoy's capital. The Cardinal was given an informal private viewing of the Shroud where it was being kept, in the Duke's small Chapel of San Lorenzo adjacent to the his palace gardens, over which the

[Right (enlarge): Extract from a 1618-19 plan[1] showing the location (A) of the Duke's private Chapel of San Lorenzo, in which the Shroud was kept from 1578 until a new Chapel of the Holy Shroud (D) would be built between Turin's Cathedral of St John the Baptist (C) and the ducal Palace complex (E).]

current Church of San Lorenzo was built. It was on the Feast Day of St. Lawrence (San Lorenzo), 10 August, in 1557 (see previous) that Duke Emmanuel Philibert defeated the French at the Battle of St. Quentin. The Cardinal expressed his concern that such an important relic was being kept in a small chapel and offered the cathedral, but the Duke demurred as that would imply church jurisdiction over the Shroud. The next day the Cardinal and his retinue were given an official private viewing in Turin Cathedral followed by a public viewing in the the Piazza Castello, Turin's main square (see print below). In 1580 Duke Emmanuel Philibert died in Turin, and was succeeded by his only child, Duke Charles Emmanuel I (1562–1630). In 1582 Cardinal Borromeo had walked a second pilgrimage from Milan to venerate the Shroud in Turin and to mark that occasion the Shroud was first exhibited to the Cardinal and his retinue in a new, larger (but still small) chapel and

[Above (enlarge): Extract from a c.1640 map of Turin[2] by Giovenale Boetto (c.1603-78), showing the Shroud's processional route from the Cathedral (A) to the Piazza Castello (B) in front of the Castle (C). The domed structure upper left is believed to be the larger chapel where the Shroud was kept c.1580-7.]

later publicly in the cathedral and, when the crowds became too great, in the Piazza Castello (see below). But the Cardinal was still not happy

[Above (enlarge): Print depicting the public exposition of the Shroud in Turin on 13-15 June 1582[3], to mark the second pilgrimage by Cardinal Charles Borromeo (centre cleric holding the Shroud) to venerate the Shroud in Turin.]

that the Shroud was being kept in a small chapel. The new Duke Charles Emmanuel I agreed that the Shroud should be kept in the Cathedral until a permanent private Savoy Chapel of the Holy Shroud was built between the Palace and the Cathedral - see (D) above. Borromeo's idea was for the Shroud to be mounted above the Cathedral's high altar and to be continuously visible, to obviate it being damaged by continually folding and unfolding it. In 1585 the Duke married Catherine Michelle of Spain (1567–97), a daughter of King Philip II of Spain (1527–98) and Elisabeth de Valois (1545–68) a daughter of King Henry II of France (1519–59). Although Duchess Catherine only lived to age 31, she bore 10 children, 9 of which survived to adulthood. Their second son, Victor Amadeus I (1587–1637) would become the next Duke of Savoy. Cardinal Borromeo died in 1584, and in 1587 the Duke carried through with his idea (albeit less grandiosely) by locating the Shroud in Turin Cathedral, displayed continuously on a shrine supported by four wooden columns over the cathedral's high altar.

Turin (1587-1630). In 1588 Charles Emmanuel I occupied the adjoining Marquisate of Saluzzo, which had been annexed by France following the deposition and death of the last Marquis of Saluzzo, Gian Gabriel I (1501-48). A war with France ensued, until the Treaty of Lyon (1601), in which Saluzzo went to Savoy in exchange for Savoy territories in France. In 1602, Charles Emmanuel attempted a night raid on the city of Geneva to eradicate its Protestants, but it failed with the Savoy army forced to retreat and many Savoyards killed. In 1604, the Shroud was enclosed in a new 4 foot (~1.2 m) long wooden casket, decorated with silver and gold relief plaques of the instruments of the Passion, and rolled up around a velvet-covered staff. This casket would remain the Shroud's container until the 1990s. Every 4th of May, the Feast Day of the Holy Shroud, the Shroud was exhibited publicly in the Piazza Castello. An engraving by Antonio Tempesta (1555–1630) of the

[Above (enlarge): "Antonio Tempesta (1555-1630), View of the Piazza del Castello, Turin, during the ostension of the Holy Shroud, 1613"[4].]

4 May 1613 exposition captures their immense popularity. The Shroud was shown publicly in the Piazza Castello in 1620 to mark the marriage between the Duke Charles Emmanuel I's eldest surviving son, and future Duke, Victor Amadeus with Princess Christine de Bourbon (1606–63) a daughter of the late King Henry IV of France (1553–1610) and sister of the current King Louis XIII (1601–43). In 1630 Duke Charles Emmanuel I died and was succeeded as Duke by his eldest surviving son Victor Amadeus I.

Turin (1630-94). In 1637 Victor Amadeus I died and was succeeded as Duke by his 5 year-old son, Francis Hyacinth (1632–8), with his mother dowager Duchess Christine acting as regent. But Francis in turn died a year later, and was succeeded as Duke by his 4 year-old brother Charles Emmanuel II (1634-75) with Christine continuing to act as regent for him. But two of Victor Amadeus' brothers, Maurice (1593–1657) and Thomas (1596–1656) disputed Christine's regency and her French influence and so with Spanish support they started the Piedmontese Civil War (1639-41). However, Christine was victorious due to French military support. In April 1663 Duke Charles Emmanuel II married Christine's niece Françoise d'Orléans (1648–64). But Christine died in December 1663 and Françoise died childless a week later in January 1664. Charles married in 1665 Marie Jeanne Baptiste de Savoie-Nemours (1644-1724), a descendant of Duke Emmanuel Philibert's brother Jacques (1531–85). In 1666 their only child and future Duke, Victor Amadeus II (1666–1732) was born. In 1668 the architect Guarino Guarini (1624–83) was appointed to construct the Chapel of the Holy Shroud, between the Royal Palace and Turin cathedral, as envisaged in 1618-19 by Duke Charles Emmanuel II (see above). Duke Charles Emmanuel II died in 1675 and was succeeded as Duke by the 9 year-old Victor Amadeus II, with his mother dowager Duchess Marie acting as regent. On 6 May 1684 Duke Victor Amadeus II married Anne Marie de Orléans (1669–1728). She was a daughter of Philippe I, Duke of Orléans (1640–1701), who was a son of King Louis XIII of France, and Henrietta Stuart (1644-70), who was a daughter of the late King Charles I of England (1600-49). The marriage took place in Chambéry, and two days later the newlyweds entered Turin, celebrated by a public exposition of the Shroud (see below). However,

[Above (enlarge): Painting by Pieter Bolckmann (1640-1705)[5] of the public exposition of the Shroud in Turin's Piazza Castello on 8 May 1684, to mark the wedding of Duke Victor Amadeus II and Anne Marie de Orléans].

[Above (enlarge): Etching on silk, c. 1690, by Pietro Antonio Boglietto[6] depicting five bishops holding the Shroud at its abovementioned 1684 public exposition.]

Duchess Anne did not bear a son who survived to adulthood until 1701 (as we shall see).

Continued in the entry, "Locations of the Shroud: Turin 1694-1918."

1. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.63. [return]
2. Scott, 2003, pp.66, 225. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, plate 30b. [return]
4. "The Origins of the Shroud of Turin,", 24 October 2014. [return]
5. Wilson, 2010, plate 31a. [return]
6. Scott, 2003, p.239. [return]

• Jones, S.E., 2015, "Savoy Family Tree," (members only).
• Scott, 2003, pp.62-71.
• Wilson, I., 1996, "A Calendar of the Shroud for the years 1509-1694," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 44, November/ December.
• 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.290-293.
• Wilson, 2010, pp.246, 260-264, 304-305.

Created: 8 April 2015. Updated: 29 July 2020.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

"E": Turin Shroud Dictionary

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]


This is page "E" of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. For more information about this dictionary see the "Main index A-Z" and page "A."

[Index] [Previous: "D"] [Next: "Fa-Fm"]

[Above (enlarge): Sepia print of the Shroud face by Giuseppe Enrie in 1931[2] (see below).]

Edessa is the ancient name of a city, now called Sanliurfa, in what today is southeastern Turkey. The fourth century Christian historian Eusebius (c.260–340) recorded in his Ecclesiastic History, that Edessan King Abgar V (c.4 BC–AD 50) [see "Abgar V"] wrote to Jesus asking Him to come and heal him, and Jesus replied in a dictated letter that after His Ascension He would send one of His disciples to heal Abgar and give eternal life to him and his. Accordingly, as preserved in the fourth century Syriac text, Doctrine of Addai, one of the seventy-two disciples (Lk 10:1-17), Thaddeus (Syriac Addai), did visit Abgar, healed him and started Christianity in Edessa. However, there is no mention of the Shroud or a cloth in that account until the tenth century, and the story of the Edessa Cloth (see next) is probably a reading back into Edessan history the rediscovery of the Shroud (doubled in four as the Mandylion), at Antioch after its great earthquake in 525, according to the theory of historian Jack Markwardt. Also according to Markwardt's theory, the Shroud as the Mandylion was then taken to Edessa, where it was later employed successfully as a last resort in repelling the Persian seige of Edessa in 544. After which the Shroud/Mandylion took the place of Jesus' letter to Abgar as Edessa's palladium and the story of its rediscovery at Antioch in 525 was retrospectively inserted into Edessan history.

Edessa Cloth (see "Mandylion"
Edessa image (see "Image of Edessa").
eighth century.
eleventh century.

Emmanuel Philibert (1528–80) was a Duke of Savoy. He became Duke and the owner of the Shroud in 1553 upon the death of his father, Duke Charles III (1486–1553). Emmanuel Philibert was born in Chambéry, France in 1528, but when he was 7 the French invaded the Duchy of Savoy in a phase of the Italian Wars between Francis I (1494–1547) King of France and the Hapsburg Emperor Charles V (1500–1558). The Savoys abandoned Chambéry in late 1535 ahead of the advancing French army, taking the Shroud with them into northern Italy. Emmanuel Philibert served in Charles V's army in the war against France, distinguishing himself by leading a force which captured the northern French town of Hesdin in 1553. A month later, he became Duke of Savoy on the death of his father, but he continued fighting, leading a force which defeated the French at the crucial Battle of St. Quentin in 1557, which ended the Italian Wars. Having won the victory which ended the war, Duke Emmanuel Philibert earned a place at the table where the Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis (1558) was signed. The terms of the treaty included that the Duchy of Savoy would be independent and most of Savoy's lands would be returned to the Duke. Moreover, as part of the peace terms, Duke Emmanuel Philibert married in 1559 Marguerite de Valois (1523-74), a daughter of the late King Francis I and a sister of King Henry II 1519–59) of France. Between 1561-63 the Duke moved his capital from Chambéry across the Alps to Turin making Savoy an Italian state. In 1562, Emmanuel Philibert and Marguerite's only child, the future Duke Charles Emmanuel I (1562–1630), was born in Turin. Duchess Marguerite died in Turin in 1574. In 1578, on the pretext of saving the saintly Cardinal Charles Borromeo (1538–84), the Archbishop of Milan, from having to walk from Milan to Chambéry to fulfill a vow to venerate the Shroud, Emmanuel Philibert had the Shroud brought to Turin, from where it never returned. Duke Emmanuel Philibert died in Turin 1580, having spent his remaining years re-acquiring former Savoy lands that had not been returned and adding others, as well as fortifying Turin and its surrounds.

Enrie, Giuseppe. Giuseppe Enrie (1886-1961) was an Italian professional photographer. He was commissioned by Cardinal Maurilio Fossati (1876-1965), the Archbishop of Turin, to take a series of photographs of the Shroud in conjunction with a public exposition of the Shroud in May 1931. The exposition marked the wedding of Prince Umberto II of Savoy (1904-83) and Princess Maria José of Belgium (1906–2001). Enrie's photographs confirmed those taken in 1898 by Secondo Pia (1855–1941) that the man's image on the Shroud was a photographic negative. Enrie's photographs are much clearer than Pia's, due to advances in photography since Pia's time, and Enrie was permitted to photograph the Shroud direct, not through a protective glass barrier. Because of the sharper detail they revealed, Enrie's photographs becamee the basis of much modern scientific study of the Shroud, including medical and anatomical, three-dimensionality, coin(s) over the eyes, flower and plant images, and computer enhancement, until STURP's 1978 investigation. In fact, Enrie's photographs reveal details of the Shroud image, such as the letters "UCAI" on the Pontius Pilate lepton coin over the man's right eye, that later photographs reveal less clearly. This is because Enrie photographed the optimum distance from the Shroud, onto large glass plates, his emulsion was high-contrast, and he smoothed wrinkles in the cloth by using tacks.

Evagrius scholasticus.
expositions and exhibitions.

1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Edessa," not the whole page "E"), provided that a link and/or reference is included back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return]
2. Vignon, P., 1939, "Le Saint Suaire de Turin: Devant La Science, L'archéologie, L'histoire, L'iconographie, La Logique," Masson et Cie. Éditeurs: Paris, Second edition, plate I. [return]

Created: 7 April, 2015. Updated: 25 April, 2015.