Thursday, December 10, 2015

Shroud of Turin News - November 2015

Shroud of Turin News - November 2015
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: October 2015] [Next: December 2015]

To all my readers, I wish you and yours a happy and safe Christmas. This is the November 2015 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. See the April 2015 issue for more information about this series. Following my editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related November news articles to this post, latest uppermost, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine.

Contents (click on a link below to go to that article):
Editorial
Retirement
"Winners Announced for 2015 Paris Photo-Aperture Foundation PhotoBook Awards".


"Winners Announced for 2015 Paris Photo-Aperture Foundation PhotoBook Awards," TIME, Rachel Lowry, November 13, 2015 ... The 2015 Paris Photo-Aperture Foundation PhotoBook Awards winners were announced in Paris, with Daniel Mayrit receiving the $10,000 top prize for First PhotoBook. Other winners included Diane Dufour and Xavier Barral, Thomas Mailaender and Will Steacy. ... Diane Dufour and Xavier Barral's Images of Conviction: The Construction of Visual Evidence looks at how the photography has served as evidence of a crime for more than 150 years. The book examines 11 cases, from the famous Shroud of Turin images to ... cell phone shots of drone strikes in Afghanistan. The book was selected for this year's Photography Catalogue of the Year ... The following are a few examples of the ten case studies that appear in the exhibition. The Shroud of Turin Secondo Pia, an

[Above [enlarge): "Two enlarged views of Secondo Pia, The Holy Shroud, 1898"[2].]

amateur photographer, was the author of the first photographs of the Shroud of Turin as it was displayed in 1898. Apart from Pia's photographic positives being negatives, which showed that the Shroud image is a photograph negative (see future installment), Pia's photograph on the right above (enlarged) shows the hand bones of the man on the Shroud are x-ray images, because they reveal his beneath-the-skin finger, metacarpal and wrist bones! (see 14May07, 06Oct13, 01Dec07). That this was not a quirk of Pia's 1898 amateur photography is evident in that these x-ray images of the Shroud man's under-the-skin hand bones are also in a 1931 Shroud photograph by Giuseppe Enrie and in 2002 by Gian Carlo Durante (below). In 1982

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a 1931 Shroud negative photograph (flipped horizontally to correct for lateral inversion), by professional photographer Giuseppe Enrie (1886-1961), showing x-ray images of the Shroud man's under-the-skin hand bones[3].]

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a 2002 Shroud photograph by another professional photographer, Gian Carlo Durante, also showing xray images of the Shroud man's under-the-skin hand bones[4].]

Giles F. Carter (1930-2010), a Professor of Chemistry at Eastern Michigan University, proposed that the Shroud man's image was the result of "x-rays [which] emanated from the elements sodium, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, potassium, and calcium on the surface of the skin":

"Intensive study of the Shroud of Turin by previous investigators has shown that the image very probably was not formed by painting, dyeing, rubbing, or staining. Indeed no hypothesis satisfactorily explains all attributes of the image, such as its inherent three-dimensional information or its shallow depth. The new hypothesis suggests that x-rays emanated from the elements sodium, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, potassium, and calcium on the surface of the skin. These long-wavelength x-rays, which are easily absorbed by air, apparently account for most attributes of the body-image. Calculations show the x-ray image would be moderately, but not severely, out of focus. Iron, which is present over the entire Shroud in varying concentrations, catalyzes the image formation by x-rays or by scorching"[5]
In support of his hypothesis, Dr Carter noted that the Shroud image's "fingers are extremely long for a man of [his] ... height" and so "the finger images may be due ... to x-rays emanating from the bones [which] ... continue throughout much of the hand, and they could cause the fingers to look too long":
"Many observers have noted the `too-long' fingers in the Shroud image. The fingers are extremely long for a man of 1.73-1.78 m (5'8" - 5'10") height ... The probability is very small that a man of this height would have such long fingers ... A disease called Marfan's syndrome could also cause a person to have unusually long fingers but other parts of the body would be similarly affected; however, the Shroud body is muscular and not slender as is found in those afflicted with Marfan's syndrome, and this explanation seems improbable. ... The author's suggestion is that the finger images may be due at least in part to x-rays emanating from the bones in the body. Finger bones continue throughout much of the hand, and they could cause the fingers to look too long. In normal bodies, the ratio of the distance from the middle fingertip to the base of the finger divided by the distance from the middle fingertip to the wrist (wound area) is about 0.5. This compares with a ratio of about 0.6 for the image on the Shroud, meaning that the fingers are unusually long and the rest of the hand is grotesquely small. The probability for this to have occurred must be small."[6]

[Above (enlarge): Extract from Enrie 1931 negative photograph of the Shroud man's face showing under-the-skin teeth and bones including cheekbones, eye sockets and skull[7].]

Moreover, other beneath-the-skin features which are visible, include "teeth," "cheekbones," skull (see above), and even part of the "the backbone":

"A second curious part of the Shroud image is the mouth area. Close inspection, particularly of slides from a distance, shows the presence of what appear to be eight or more objects, two rows of four or six ... Perhaps these could be teeth images ... Because the lips probably covered the teeth of the body of the Shroud, any images of teeth may indicate that x-rays have been involved in the formation of the Shroud image ... A third observation indicating possible image formation by x-rays is the high, pronounced cheekbones. The face is somewhat skull-like .... Part of the backbone may be visible on the dorsal image ..."[8]
As can be seen in the enlargements below of the mouth area of the 1931 Enrie negative sepia print of the Shroud face, (flipped horizontally to correct for lateral inversion), and the Durante 2002 Face Only positive, there are at least three teeth-shaped images, visible where the man's

[Above (enlarge): Extracts of the mouth area of the Enrie 1931 sepia print of the Shroud face [9] (upper), flipped horizontally to correct for lateral inversion, and the Durante 2002 Face only Vertical photo on Shroud Scope[10] (lower). I used the Enrie sepia print of the Shroud face, which I had already scanned from Vignon's 1939 book (see [9]), because it is larger than the maximum enlargement of the Enrie Negative photograph in Shroud Scope.]

front upper teeth would have been, under the flesh of his mouth area. And when I printed the above enlarged composite photo on my colour printer, obtaining further enlargement without distortion, and traced over the objects on the print out of the lower Durante positive extract with a pencil, I found at least four pairs of upper and lower teeth-like objects, meeting at a line cross the mouth. These cannot be part of the weave as they cross over and through the weave. The improbability of there being teeth-like objects, exactly where the man's teeth would have been, in such a tiny area of the ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre Shroud, would be astronomical, unless it can be shown that there are similar shaped objects randomly distributed across the entire Shroud. I therefore conclude they are teeth, under the flesh of the man's mouth, and therefore, like the man's finger and other hand bones (see above), also x-ray images!

Prof. Carter's x-ray images hypothesis has since been confirmed by others[11], including Dr Alan Whanger[12], Dr John Jackson[13], and Dr. August Accetta[14]. Although a Professor of Psychiatry, Whanger was formerly a surgeon with extensive experience in interpreting x-rays[15]. In applying his Polarized Image Overlay technique to the Shroud man's hands, Whanger realised that he was seeing the bones in his fingers (phalanges) and his palms (metacarpals)[16].

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a comparison between an x-ray of hands, hands and the Shroud man's hands under Whanger's Polarized Image Overlay[17].]

Whanger took a photograph of his Polarized Image Overlay to a Professor of Skeletal Radiology who confirmed that the bones of the hand were visible[18]. Therefore Whanger concluded that the Shroud man's image is in part an autoradiograph, meaning there is some type of x-radiation coming from within the man's body and revealing part of his skeletal system on the Shroud[19]. Whanger then with his Polarized Image Overlay technique identified on the Shroud man's head features of his underlying skull[20], including:

"... the teeth with their roots, the nasal cavities, and the orbit of the eye ... The bony structure of the orbits of the eyes ... accounts for the large, staring eyes found on so many of the early icons. The nasal bone may be seen, as well as the nasal cavities and maxillary sinuses. Perhaps most surprising of all is that twenty-four teeth with their roots may be seen!"[21]

[Above (enlarge): Split image of Whanger's Polarized Image Overlay of the Shroud head (L), showing visible, under-the-skin, features and a three-dimensional x-ray of a a human skull (R)[22].]

Whanger's findings have been reviewed by a number of physicians, including three professors of radiology, who all agreed that the Shroud image is, in part, an autoradiograph, i.e. an x-ray![23].

As he developed his photographs, he discovered on the picture negative an imprint of a face and body, which he thought were those of Christ. Who else could it have been? Pia's photographs were not just of the Shroud "face" but also its "body." And even arch-sceptics Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) and Steven D. Schafersman (quoted approvingly by Joe Nickell) have admitted that because of the distinctive pattern of wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud man's face and body, he can only be Jesus or a deliberate artistic representation of Him:

"As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head, can still be clearly distinguished ... If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other person since the world began could these details be verified" (my emphasis)[24]

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[25] and Stevenson and Habermas[26] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[27]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'" (my emphasis)[28]
Strangely enough, face and body were positive imprints, as if the shroud itself, which has been dubbed "the first photograph of crime," was the negative. It is not "as if" the Shroud image (not "the Shroud") "was the negative." The Shroud image is a photographic negative! Which "raised the question of how any forger back in the Middle Ages could produce an image like that, without any means of checking his work, and without anyone ... able to appreciate it for another five hundred years":
"Pia had little if any expectation that its negative would prove any more meaningful - but he received the shock of his life. Under the developer there began to appear an image so extraordinarily lifelike that it was as if the Shroud itself was a negative, so that photography produced a `positive' photograph from it. To all appearances the Shroud man's face and body were `lit' with natural light and shade, with the blood-flows as from crucifixion and the wound in the chest showing up in white. This immediately raised the question of how any forger back in the Middle Ages could produce an image like that, without any means of checking his work, and without anyone properly able to appreciate it for another five hundred years."[29]
This was the start of a long-lasting debate on the authenticity of the relic. It was not merely the start of a "debate" on the authenticity of the Shroud. It was the start of modern scientific investigation of it:
"In 1898, when the Shroud was first photographed, the image was found to be a negative: its light and dark values were reversed when it was `printed' on a piece of photographic film. This `print' was far more detailed and lifelike than the original ... Millions of Christians became intensely interested in the Shroud when the photographs of the negative image were published in books, magazines, and newspapers throughout the world. These photos revealed a crucified body in extraordinary detail. Believers and nonbelievers alike could count the scourge wounds, observe a bloody wound in the man's side, see his pierced wrists and feet, and note the signs of a beating in the face. The man of the Shroud, it seemed, suffered and died very much the way the gospels say Jesus of Nazareth suffered and died. Thus began the phenomenon of the Shroud. ... The Shroud of Turin was an unexceptional relic until people began to examine it with modern scientific instruments. The result has been a remarkable possibility: the more we learn about the Shroud, the more likely it seems that the cloth is what it purports to be-the burial garment of Jesus Christ."[30]
In 1902, the biologist Paul Vignon published a detailed study of the photographs. My comment on this became so large that I will post it separately as, "Paul Vignon (1865-1943)".

In 1986, the shroud was tested with carbon 14 and the test revealed that the fabric only dated back to sometime between 1260 and 1390. It was 1988. And again (see 23Jul15, 24Aug15, 11Sep15, 24Nov15), because the Shroud is authentic (according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence), then it must be the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval. ... AD 1260-1390" which was wrong. But then because the improbability would be "astronomical"[31], "one in a thousand trillion"[32], "totally impossible"[33], and indeed "a miracle"[34], for the authentic, first-century, Shroud to have a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, it cannot have been a radiocarbon dating error. Especially since the midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65 years[35], which is a mere 25-30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c. 1355[36]. Therefore because of this `bull's eye' "1325 ± 65 years" date, the agnostic but pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow considers that fraud in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was a real possibility[37]. But since conventional forms of fraud such as switching a 13th century control sample for the Shroud sample are highly implausible, this leaves the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud being the result of a computer hacking as the best (if not the only viable) explanation!

Today the shroud still remains an object of veneration for the faithful, Again (see 24Nov15) this is an example of Naturalism's ("nature is all there is - there is no supernatural") false dichotomy between "the faithful" versus "scientific proof."

fascinated by the image and unconvinced by the scientific proof. The boot is on the other foot. The "scientific proof" is overwhelming on the side of the authenticity of the Shroud. And Shroud anti-authenticists are also "fascinated by the image." But as I pointed out in a comment under this post:

  • If the Shroud is authentic (as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), then it is a miraculous work of Jesus[38]

  • In the Gospels Jesus called on those who witnessed His miraculous works to believe in Him on the evidence of those works (Jn 10:25,37-38; 14:10-11).

  • Jesus warned those residents of towns in Israel who had witnessed His miraculous works, but still did not believe in Him, they will face a more severe judgment than unbelieving residents of other towns who had not witnessed Jesus' miracles (Mt 11:20-22; Lk 10:13-15).

  • By analogy this applies to those non-Christians who know the evidence of the Shroud's authenticity but refuse to accept it. They will face a more severe judgment from Jesus (2Cor 5:10; Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5) than they otherwise would have had they not known that evidence of Jesus' miraculous work.

  • Those non-Christians who don't accept the Shroud is authentic, but are ignorant of that evidence, are in the same position as those residents of towns in Israel who did not believe in Jesus but did not witness Jesus' miraculous works. They will still be judged by Jesus, if they remain non-Christians, but less severely.

  • This is according to Jesus' stated principle: "But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required ..." (Lk 12:48)

So Shroud sceptic, you who know the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but refuse to accept it, Jesus (the Man on the Shroud) commands YOU to "repent" (Gk. metanoia = change your mind) and believe in Him, who is God in human flesh (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1,14; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20), and died a horrific death on the cross for YOUR sins (Php 2:8; Heb 12:2), so that YOU may be saved from God's righteous Judgment (Jn 3:16-18), and receive from Jesus eternal life (Jn 3:15-16,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; Acts 13:48; 1Tim 1:16; 1Jn 5:13). [top]


Retirement. I have today, 11th December 2015, retired as a relief (aka substitute, supply) high school teacher! I will now

[Left: [39] I will be happy that the phone no longer will ring at 6am from a school asking if I am available to teach today!]

be able to (except for more holidays that my wife will insist upon!) invest more time blogging about the Shroud. [top]


Editorial. Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of Rex Morgan's Shroud News for Barrie Schwortz to put online on his Shroud News archive, continued in November up to issue #33, February 1986 [Right (enlarge)]. But it is still up to issue #28 on that archive. Topic index: I continued adding my old posts to my Topic Index in November up to and including my post of 4 February 2012. In November I blogged 6 posts: "Were struck in the face #6: Bible and the Shroud: Jesus and the man on the Shroud: Shroud of Turin quotes," "Shroud of Turin News - October 2015," "Carried their cross #7: Bible and the Shroud: Jesus and the man on the Shroud: Shroud of Turin quotes," "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #4," "News articles #1: Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud," and "News articles #2: Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud" Most pageviews: Google Analytics listed as my blog's most viewed pages for November as: "Shroud of Turin News - October 2015," Nov 10, 2015 - 138," "News articles #1: Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud," Nov 24, 2015 - 94, "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 90, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #4," Nov 18, 2015 - 73, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #6", Jun 24, 2014 - 72. I am pleased to see my hacking posts being currently read. I am quietly confident that eventually it will be widely accepted by Shroud pro-authenticists. If it is ever accepted by the secular world, it will rank as one of the greatest scientific frauds, and be a case study in philosophy/sociology of science of how scientists (and indeed the media) can suspend their normally sceptical mindset when it is something they want to believe. As was candidly admitted by Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall, "I have to admit I am an agnostic and I don't want at my time of life to have to change my ideas":

"The Holy Shroud of Turin - revered by Catholics for centuries - is a piece of linen woven between AD1260 and 1390. Therefore the image it bears cannot be the imprint of the bloodstained body of the crucified Jesus Christ ... At a press conference in London, Dr Michael Tite, keeper of the British Museum research laboratories, who masterminded the three tests, and Professor Edward Hall and Dr Robert Hedges of Oxford, who conducted the British radiocarbon dating, all confirmed that there could be no serious doubt in the results. ... Their finding, they said, was consistent with the known historical evidence for the shroud, which was first recorded in about 1389 by the Bishop of Troyes. He described it as a cunning forgery and said his predecessor had met the forger. Professor Hall, who heads the Oxford research laboratory in archaeology and the history of art, said he was not disappointed in the result. 'I have to admit I am an agnostic and I don't want at my time of life to have to change my ideas.'"[40]
There was an anonymous comment about a week ago from someone who knew the late Art Hatheway, an Engineer at the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory and a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper. I asked the commenter, "Have you any information you can give me on this?" but he has not replied. Comments: I rejected three comments in November that I considered sub-standard, as per my longstanding stated policies (see lower right). The first rejected comment was a quote of one line from one of my posts, with just a bare assertion that it was "completely false." I am happy to approve comments that criticise my posts but they must state their reasons. The second rejected comment was from a person with a Spanish sounding name to whom English apparently was his/her second language (or not even that because it could have been a Google translation). Apart from it being hard to understand, it was just a string of bare assertions, e.g. "the C14 test is overwhelming, the fibers are of medieval age," etc. The third rejected comment was from an individual who wanted me to add a link to to his webpage which stated that the Shroud was a forgery. Apart from I generally regard bare links as substandard comments, I read his page and it repeated the usual Shroud sceptics' false statements about the Shroud, relying largely on the "deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:13) false and self-deluded claims of Joe Nickell. If Shroud sceptics were true sceptics they would be sceptical

[Left (original): Shroud skeptic Joe Nickell, whose "Ph.D. is in English for graduate work focusing on literary investigation and folklore" posing as a white-coated scientist![41]. Presumably that is yet another of the already "1,064 `personas'" of Nickell, which include "stage magician ... blackjack dealer ... and paranormal investigator"[42].]

of what Nickell writes about the Shroud. By relying on Nickell, they are `the blind, being led by the blind' (Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39)! I take seriously the Apostle John's warning in 2 John 1:10-11 to not "receive ... into your house or give ... any greeting" to those bearing false teaching, because whoever does so, "takes part in his wicked works." So by analogy, I don't receive into my blog, or give its support to, those who would use it to spread their false teaching about the Shroud. [top]


Notes:
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]
2. Naggar, C., 2015, "Images of Conviction at Le Bal, Paris," Aperture, June 29. [return]
3. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," (flipped horizontally), Sindonology.org. [return]
4. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
5. Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., p.425. [return]
6. Carter, 1982, p.431. [return]
7. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
8. Carter, 1982, p.433. [return]
9. 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]
10. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
11. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.213-214. [return]
12. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, pp.114-115; Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.184-189, 184-185, 187-188. [return]
13. Jackson, J.P., 1990, "Is the Image on the Shroud Due to a Process Heretofore Unknown to Modern Science?," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 34, March, pp.3-29, p. 18; Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain All Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, p.325-344, pp.333-335. [return]
14. Accetta, A.D., Lyons, K. & Jackson, J., 1999, "Nuclear Medicine and its Relevance to the Shroud Of Turin," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.3-8. [return]
15. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.114; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.38. [return]
16. Whanger, 1998, p.187. [return]
17. "Image Gallery: Shroud University"; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.112-113. [return]
18. Whanger, 1998, p.187. [return]
19. Ibid. [return]
20. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.116-117; 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.29; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38. [return]
21. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.116-117. [return]
22. "Autoradiography - Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin," 2015; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.117. [return]
23. Wilson, I., 1994, "Special Feature - Four New Theories of How the Shroud Image May Have Been Formed," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 37, March/April; Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Knowing a Hawk from a Handsaw," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 47, May/July. [return]
24. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19, in Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.52. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, pp.51-53. [return]
26. 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.121-129. [return]
27. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
28. Schafersman, S.D., "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp.37-56, p.42 in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
29. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.29. [return]
30. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.4. [return]
31. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7. [return]
32. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.303. [return]
33. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.114-115. [return]
34. Tipler, F.J., 2007, "The Physics of Christianity," Doubleday: New York NY, pp.178-179; 216-217. [return]
35. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1,141,178,246; Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
36. Wilson, 1998, p.111,278; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.222-223. [return]
37. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," p.170. [return]
38. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin By an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.174-177. [return]
39. "Dallas County R-I School District - Info for Substitute Teachers." [return]
40. Radford, T., 1988, "Shroud dating leaves 'forgery' debate raging," The Guardian, October 14. [return]
41. Extract from photograph "Triptych," 2005, by Andrew A. Skolnick, joenickell.com. [return]
42. "Joe Nickell," Wikipedia, 21 November 2015. [return]

Posted: 10 December 2015. Updated: 15 September 2017.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Retirement- Hi Stephen, I appreciate the fact that you share some parts of your private life with your readers.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>Retirement- Hi Stephen, I appreciate the fact that you share some parts of your private life with your readers.

Thanks, but I only shared that I had retired to let my readers know that I now hope to blog more often about the Shroud.

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.

Anonymous said...

Dear Stephen,
How do you personally explain the "extremely long fingers" and "grotesquely small hand" ?
I have the impression that you quote Dr. Carter but don't offer a personal explanation.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>How do you personally explain the "extremely long fingers" and "grotesquely small hand" ?

What we see on the Shroud is not the man's fingers but X-RAY IMAGES of his finger BONES (phalanges), as well as of his metacarpals and wrist bones (carpels).

>I have the impression that you quote Dr. Carter but don't offer a personal explanation.

Your "impression" is WRONG, and indeed BASELESS. It would be clear to a "reasonable person" that I AGREE with Dr Carter's x-ray explanation of why the man on the Shroud has "extremely long fingers" and a "grotesquely small hand."

Apart from the fact that I had already stated, before I quoted Prof. Carter:

"Pia's photograph on the right above ... shows the hand bones of the man on the Shroud are xray images, because they reveal his beneath-the-skin finger, metacarpal and wrist bones! (see 14May07, 06Oct13, 01Dec07)"

my quotes ARE (unless I otherwise indicate) what I PERSONALLY believe. And therefore my quotes of Dr Carter, in support of his hypothesis that the Shroud man's fingers appear too long, and the rest of his hands appear too short, because they are X-RAY IMAGES of his under-the-skin finger, and other hand, bones, ARE my "personal explanation."

PS. Today, while I was in a shopping centre having lunch, having just read the above comment on my smartphone, and was thinking of my reply, it occurred to me that my assumption that the refusal of Shroud sceptics to accept the overwhelming evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, will be judged most severely by Jesus (2Cor 5:10; Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5), has a Biblical basis.

If the Shroud is authentic, as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates, then it is a MIRACULOUS WORK of Jesus:

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

"Whilst it is not miraculous that a piece of cloth should survive for two thousand years ... it is nevertheless remarkable that this cloth ... should still be available for us to see and to study. It is miraculous that it bears an image at all. It is miraculous that the image cannot be shown to have got there by any human means other than by instantaneous flash of ... energy ... It is miraculous that the image shows, in perfect anatomical detail ... the figure of a man, frontal and dorsal. It is miraculous that the image coincides precisely with the recorded events which occurred to ... Jesus Christ ... It is miraculous that the image on the cloth is in fact a photographic negative, put thereon nineteen hundred years before photography was invented. It is miraculous that this [image] ... also has the property of three-dimensionality, a technique for the interpretation of which has only been discovered in the last few years. It is miraculous that space-age technology has discovered information in the image that there are coins in the eye-sockets of the man ... that there is very probably real blood on the cloth ... Is not this cloth then Christ's last miracle? Did he not leave on the cloth a photographic negative of his bodily features waiting for the scientists of the twentieth century after his time to decode the data he left for us? Is not this data providing scientific proof of his existence and his powers? ... Here is Christ working again in the twentieth century in a manner far more spectacular and gripping than the ways of mere churches and religions. ..." (Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin By an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.174-177. My emphasis).

And in the Gospels Jesus called on those who witnessed His miraculous works to believe in Him on the basis of those works:

John 10:25,37-38. "Jesus answered them, `I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

John 14:10-11. "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves."

or else face a more severe judgment than they otherwise will, if they had been ordinary unbelievers:

Matthew 11:20-22. "Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. `Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you"

Luke 10:13-15. "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades."

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

By analogy this applies to those sceptics who know the evidence of the Shroud's authenticity but don't accept it. It does not apply to those who don't accept the Shroud is authentic, but are ignorant of that evidence. The former are in the same position as those residents in those towns in Israel who personally witnessed Jesus' miraculous works but didn't believe in him. The latter are in the same position as residents in other towns in Israel who did not personally witness Jesus' miraculous works. They will still be judged (if they are non-Christians), but less severely.

Jesus stated His principle: "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required." (Luke 12:48).

So Shroud sceptic, you who knows the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but refuses to accept it, Jesus invites you to "repent" (Gk. metanoia = change your mind) and believe in Him, who is God in human flesh (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1,14; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20), and died a horrific death on the cross for YOUR sins (Php 2:8; Heb 12:2), so that YOU may be saved, escape God's righteous Judgment (John 3:16-18), and receive from Jesus eternal life (Jn 3:15-16,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; Acts 13:48; 1Tim 1:16; 1Jn 5:13).

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.

Anonymous said...

Who do you think will be convinced by your X-RAY IMAGES explanation ? You should contact people who are accustomed to X-RAY IMAGES and they'll tell you.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>Who do you think will be convinced by your X-RAY IMAGES explanation ?

First, it is not MY "x-ray images explanation." I was persuaded by the evidence of the Shroud's authenticity only in 2005. It is Prof. Carter's x-ray images hypothesis, which was published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (which is what the book Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C." is) in 1984.

Second, it is IRRELEVANT to me if you (or anyone) is not convinced by this or any of my posts. All I can do is PRESENT THE EVIDENCE. The ball is in my readers' (YOUR) court to accept or reject it. But if they (YOU) reject it, and if the Shroud is authentic (as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), and they (YOU) are non-Christians, then they (YOU), will face the eternal consequences (as cited above).

>You should contact people who are accustomed to X-RAY IMAGES and they'll tell you.

Third, I will in a future installment supply names of "people who are accustomed to x-ray images," who accept Prof. Carter's x-ray hypothesis.

Fourth, the problem is not whether one is, or is not, "accustomed to x-ray images." Even a layman (like me) can see that the fingers of the man on the Shroud are finger BONES. The problem (as with the other (overwhelmingly evidence of the Shroud's authenticity), is REFUSAL TO ACCEPT that evidence. And that is called, "INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE":

"There does remain, nonetheless, a cast of mind which seems peculiarly closed to evidence. When confronted with such a mind, one feels helpless, for no amount of evidence seems to be clinching. Frequently the facts are simply ignored or brushed aside as somehow deceptive, and the principles are reaffirmed in unshakable conviction. One seems confronted with what has been called `invincible ignorance.'" (Fearnside, W.W. & Holther, W.B., 1959, "Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument," p.113. My emphasis).

You have had one more than the "normally ... only one comment per individual under" this post (see below). So this was 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.

Stephen E. Jones said...

>So Shroud sceptic, you who knows the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but refuses to accept it ...

That should have been, "... you who know the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but refuse to accept it ..."

Stephen E. Jones