Thursday, December 22, 2016

Negative #19: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The man on the Shroud
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #19, "The man on the Shroud: Negative," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" See the "Main index #1" and "The man on the Shroud #8" for more information about this series. As previously stated, the order of topics in this "The man on the Shroud," section is from what a person looking at the Shroud would notice first, e.g. the man is naked, through to what is less obvious, e.g. his image is a photographic negative. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Superficial. #18] [Next: Three-dimensional #20]

  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Negative #19

Introduction. The image of the man on the Shroud is a photographic negative[2].

[Right (enlarge): The negative of Secondo Pia's full-length photograph of the Shroud [provided by Barrie Schwortz] taken in Turin Cathedral on the evening of 28 May 1898 during the 1898 Exposition. That this is a true negative is evident in that the black burnt areas from the 1532 fire are white and the white patches applied in the 1534 repair [see 25Feb13] are black[3]. And yet the Shroud man's image in Pia's photograph is a positive, which means that the image is a photographic negative! (see below).]

In 1898 Secondo Pia took the first official photograph of the Shroud. During the 1898 Exposition of the Shroud from 25 May to 2 June[4], Turin lawyer[5], city councillor[6] and amateur[7] but expert[8] photographer, Secondo Pia (1855–1941), photographed the Shroud[9]. Pia's first attempt to photograph the Shroud on 25 May was only partially successful[10]. But he "managed two exposures and although they were less than perfect, already evident on these negatives was a rather strange effect"[11].

"On the evening of 28 May he [Pia] returned to the cathedral and tried again. This time his equipment worked perfectly. Having exposed four photographic plates, he returned to his studio around midnight and began the process of developing them. What Pia saw that night in his darkroom astounded him. For, as the image on the negative plate took shape before his eyes, he found himself staring not at a confusing array of lights and darks, the usual effect of a photographic negative, but at a coherent likeness of a crucified man. Instead of the flat, enigmatic image seen on the cloth, the negative plate gave the impression of a substantial figure emerging from the background, a figure that looked like a real human body lit from in front ... Instead of the glaring mask of the Shroud, the negative revealed a remarkably convincing, three-dimensional image of man's face, his eyelids closed ... It was as if the Shroud itself was a photographic negative that could be developed into a breathtaking, positive image of the crucified Jesus. `Shut up in my darkroom,' Pia later recalled, 'all intent on my work, I experienced a very strong emotion when, during the development, I saw for the first time the Holy Face appear on the plate, with such clarity that I was dumbfounded by it..."[12].
Unofficial photographs of the Shroud were also taken during the 1898

[Left (enlarge): Negative of an unofficial photograph of the Shroud face taken by Fr. Giovanni Sanna Solaro (1824-1908) during the 1898 Exposition[13]. As can be seen, Solaro's negative is also a positive, confirming even in 1898 that Pia's photographs were not frauds (as claimed by sceptics-see below) and the Shroud image really is a photographic negative!]

exposition by members of the Turin amateur photographers' club that Pia belonged to: Prof. Noguier de Malijay (whose idea it was to photograph the Shroud[14]), Lt. Felice Fino (the cathedral's head of security) and Fr Giovanni Sanna Solaro[15]. The negatives of Fino's and de Malijay's photographs also showed a positive image[16].

The Shroud man's image is a photographic negative. Since on

[Above (enlarge): Secondo Pia's 1898 negative photograph of the Shroud face[17]. Note that the bloodstains, which are dark red on the Shroud as one looks at it, being white on this negative, proves that the blood is not part of the image[18].]

the negative of Pia's (and Solaro's) photograph, the Shroud man's image is a photographic positive, then the image itself must be a photographic negative[19]! A negative of a negative is a positive[20]. The Shroud body image seen with the unaided eye is itself a photographic negative that becomes a photographic positive image only when photographed[21]. On Pia's and Solaro's negatives the bloodstains appear as white blotches (see above), the camera therefore does record a negative image of these positive stains[22], which means that on the Shroud the bloodstains are not an image of blood, but the remains of blood[23].

The general public became aware of the Shroud. The Shroud had become an obscure relic by 1898, its owners the House of Savoy having before 1898 publicly exhibited it only five times in the nineteenth century[24], in 1814, 1815, 1822, 1842 and 1868[25]. But Pia's photographs made the Shroud famous[26]. The realization that the Shroud contained a negative image was shocking not only to Pia but to the owner of the Shroud, King Victor-Emmanuel III (1869–1947) and his advisors[27]. They agreed that no public announcement should be made until they had considered the implications, but the news soon leaked out anyway[28]. Newspapers around the world announced Pia's exciting discovery and the reading public was tantalized by the description of the mysterious, if not miraculous, nature of the Shroud's image[29]. However, no newspaper published Pia's photographs in 1898-99, as photographs had not yet begun to appear in that medium[30]. Only two magazines carried Pia's photographs, but one was a very poor reproduction of the full-length Shroud and the other was only of the face[31]. Nevertheless as newspapers and journals around the world began to publish Pia's photographs, a better understanding of his discovery and the Shroud gradually spread[32].

Beginning of scientific study of the Shroud. The Shroud entered the field of science on 28 May 1898, when Secondo Pia found that the image of the man on the Shroud was a photographic negative[33]. Indeed it was not until the advent of photography in the 19th century that scientific study of the Shroud could begin[34]. Pia's photographing the Shroud was the first scientific experiment on the Shroud without him realising it[35]. The clarity of detail in Pia's negative photographs of the Shroud enabled it to be an object of serious scientific study for the first time[36]. Scientific interest was aroused by the fact that Secondo Pia's photographic negative of the body showed details more clearly and gave a more natural appearance than the visually observed image on the cloth[37]. Medical experts studied Pia's photographs and discovered that the image on the Shroud contained a degree of anatomical detail that far surpassed the medical knowledge of the fourteenth century[38]. As the Shroud's known history from the mid-1350s predated by over 400 years the invention of photography in the 1820s, this observation stimulated scientific inquiry[39]. In 1900, Yves Delage (1854–1920), an agnostic professor of anatomy at the Sorbonne and a director of the Museum of Natural History, showed his assistant, Paul Vignon (1865-1943), a Roman Catholic[40], the Pia photographs and encouraged him to begin a scientific investigation of the Shroud[41]. From 1900 to 1902, Vignon and Delage, assisted by other scientists, undertook their investigation, based solely on Pia's Shroud photographs[42]. In 1902 Delage reported to the French Academy of Science their findings which concluded that, "The man of the shroud was the Christ"[43]!

Sceptics attacked Pia and his photograph Scholars were also forced to take notice of Pia's photographs[44]. Those scholars who were opposed to the Shroud's authenticity accused Pia of having forged his photographs[45] or dismissed it as a a hoax[46]. Even the evidence of Solaro's negative photograph of the Shroud (above) was not sufficient to convince those who didn't want the Shroud to be authentic[47]. Doubts were expressed about Pia's amateur status as a photographer[48]. In an age when most were still ignorant of photography, some claimed that Pia's photographic plate had been 'over-exposed'[49]; others that it had been made by `transparency' with the light source behind the cloth[50]. But as Pia pointed out, the Shroud had a red silk backing sewn on to it (in 1868 by Princess Clotilde of Savoy (1843–1911)[51]), which had not been removed and would have prevented any transparency[52].

In 1899, in response to Pia's photographs, a Roman Catholic historian, Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923), published his edition of a memorandum purportedly written c.1389 by a Bishop of Troyes Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395), which claimed that one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) had in c. 1355 investigated and discovered that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" and had even obtained the confession of "the artist who had painted it"[11Jul16]. But in this Chevalier was guilty of "intellectual dishonesty"[53] in that he failed to disclose that the d'Arcis memorandum was an unsigned, undated, unaddressed, draft[11Jul16]. And what's more Chevalier committed academic fraud in that he had without disclosing it, combined two documents and had added a date of "1389" and an address to Pope Clement VII (r. 1342-94) on the new combined document[11Jul16]. Moreover there is no evidence for (and much evidence against) that Bishop de Poitiers conducted an investigation into, or had a problem with, the Shroud[11Jul16]. The final refutation of the d'Arcis memorandum is that the Shroud image is not painted[11Jul16]! Chevalier's attack on the authenticity of the Shroud was taken up in England by Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939), who translated Bishop d'Arcis memorandum from the Latin into English[11Jul16]. Thurston therefore must have known that Chevalier was guilty of dishonesty and fraud regarding the d'Arcis memorandum but covered it up and therefore Thurston was also guilty of being an accessory to Chevalier's dishonesty and fraud. And just as the d'Arcis memorandum was wrong about the Shroud being a painting, so were Chevalier and Thurston also wrong about that, which was the basis of their entire argument! Chevalier did present one item of non-literary evidence against Pia's photographs, an opinion by a friend, amateur photographer Hippolyte Chopin[54]. But Dorothy Crispino (1916-2014) called Chopin's 1900 letter of reply to Chevalier a "dizzy juggling of positive-negative," "a photographer's nightmare" and a "pretentious muddle"[55]! Vignon summarised Chopin's argument into two parts[56]. First, "under certain conditions ... [photographic] plates may give direct positives," but as Vignon pointed out, "Such exceptional conditions were not present, since M. Pia's plate is really a negative"[57] (see above Pia's photograph where the black burn marks on the Shroud are white and the white repair patches are black). Second, "although a plate may be generally negative, certain parts of it may not be perfectly so, owing to the effect of colour — yellow, for instance, often comes out black"[58]. But as Vignon pointed out, "The argument is only tenable if parts of the object are many coloured, which is not the case here"[59] (see "Colour #12" of this series that, "The colour of the image of the man on the Shroud is a uniform straw-yellow.")

Confirmed in 1931 by Giuseppe Enrie Despite what we now know was the weakness and indeed fraudulence (see above) of the Chevalier-Thurston arguments against Pia's photographs, it was they who prevailed in scholarly and public opinion[60]. Chevalier was even awarded in 1901 a gold medal of 1,000 francs by the Academie des Inscriptions with a censure against any future attempt to impose upon the credulity of the faithful by a fraudulent misrepresentation[61]! In 1912 Thurston wrote an article against the Shroud for the Catholic Encyclopedia[62]. (which is still there in the online edition) and for the next three decades few Roman Catholics and even fewer Christians of other denominations, believed in the authenticity of the Shroud[63]. Then, after 33 years[64] the Shroud was exhibited in 1931[65] for 21 days[66] from 4 to 24 May[67] in Turin cathedral[68]. The exposition was to mark the wedding on 8 January 1930[69] of the Crown Prince and later King of Italy, Umberto II (1904–83) and Princess Marie Jose of Belgium (1906– 2001)[70]. A Turin professional photographer, Giuseppe Enrie (1886-1961)[71], was commissioned by the Shroud's

[Left (enlarge): Negative of the full-length photograph of the Shroud taken in 1931 by Giuseppe Enrie[72]. As can be seen, it is essentially identical to Secondo Pia's negative photograph above, including black burnt areas white and white repair patches black, thus confirming that Pia was right and his anti-authenticist critics like Chevalier and Thurston were wrong!]

owner, King Victor-Emmanuel III (1869–1947)[73] to take a new definitive[74] set of black-and-white photographs of the Shroud[75]. They were to confirm (or otherwise) the results Pia had obtained over 30 years previously[76] and to improve on them given the technical advances in photography over that time[77]. Enrie was one of the foremost photographers in Italy[78],the editor of Vita Photographica ltaliana and owner of a studio and laboratory in Turin[79]. On the night of 3 May 1931[80], Enrie took twelve photographs of the Shroud[81]: four of the whole Shroud, three of sections of the image, the whole dorsal image, the face and chest, the face two-thirds size; the face full-size and the nail wound in the left wrist enlarged sevenfold[82]. Enrie's camera had large glass photographic plates with filters designed to enhance image details[83]. Princess Clotilde had insisted that there be a glass screen between Pia's camera and the Shroud[84] but there was nothing between the Shroud and Enrie's camera[85]. Enrie's photographs turned out to be of excellent quality[86] and far superior to Pia's[87]. Enrie's photographs [88] and many others taken by visitors to the 1931 exposition, proved that the Shroud image is a photographic negative[89] (compare Pia's full-length negative with Enrie's) and disproved anti-authenticists' accusations of fraud and a hoax against Pia[90]. To prevent any accusation of fraud against Enrie, as had been made against Pia[91], Enrie developed his photographs immediately in a dark-room set up in the sacristy of the cathedral[92]. Also Enrie took and developed his photographs in the presence of many witnesses[93], among whom were Prince Umberto II, Paul Vignon and Secondo Pia aged 76[94]! In addition, Enrie had invited five professional photographers to attend and study his plates to verify his work[95]. They each testified in writing before an invited public notary that none of Enrie's plates had been retouched and all had accurately captured what they could see on the Shroud[96].

Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #16, #17 & #18). The virulence of the anti-authenticists' attack on Pia and his photographs is itself evidence that they were a major problem for the forgery theory! The agnostic, yet pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow has stated that "The negative photo of the Shroud is Exhibit A in the case for the cloth's authenticity":

"The negative photo of the Shroud is Exhibit A in the case for the cloth's authenticity. It demonstrates that the image possesses a hidden structure, which could hardly have been conceived in the fourteenth century, when the relic is first documented in Europe. Simply glancing at the automatic inversion of the image is enough to dispel the idea that it is a regular work of art. If it is a fake, it would have to be the most ingenious and improbable fake in history, a work of supreme skill and cunning. If it is not a fake, then the chances are that it is connected, as traditionally supposed, with the death and burial of Jesus."[97]
■ First, since photographic negativity was not invented until the early nineteenth century[98], a medieval artist/forger could not have conceived of the Shroud man's image being a photographic negative. The very concept of a photographic negative only came into existence with the discovery of photography in the early nineteenth century[99]. A negative image therefore would have been an unimaginable conception before the invention of photography[100]. Those who maintain that the Shroud is a medieval forgery, must assume that it was made by an artist whose grasp of the negative-positive properties of photography was five centuries in advance of his time[101]!

■ Second, a medieval artist/forger could not have created a photographic negative of the Shroud man. Since the very concept of photographic negativity only came into the range of human knowledge when photography was invented in the early nineteenth century, it is impossible that a medieval artist/forger could have created the Shroud's photographic negative image[102]. A medieval artist/forger creating a photographic negative of the Shroud man would not have been able to see what he was doing, so he could not have included the fine detail that there is on the Shroud[103]. Moreover, a medieval forger creating a photographic negative Shroud image, centuries before the age of photography, would have had no means of checking his work[104]. Modern artists who have tried to depict the Shroud with its negative image have all failed, even though they had a copy of the Shroud's negative photograph before them, their positive copies of the Shroud when photographed were very different from that of the Shroud[105]. They all failed because the Shroud's photographic negative has a realistic perfection that no artist can achieve and which is only found in photographs[106]. Indeed, when in the late 1970s the British artist John Weston, an agnostic, was commissioned to produce, tone by tone, a duplicate Shroud for the television documentary The Silent Witness, he became convinced of the Shroud's genuineness[107]!

■ Third, a medieval artist/forger would not have wanted to create a photographic negative of the Shroud man, Jesus. An artist/forger depicting Jesus' body as it might have appeared on his burial garment, would not have chosen to do so with an artistry and detail that would have not been discovered for another 500 years, until the invention of photography which his age knew nothing about[108]. Even if a medieval artist/forger could have created the Shroud image as a photographic negative, why would he have done so when no one of his time would have been able to appreciate his cleverness[109]?

Resurrection The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic[110]! That is, it is the very burial sheet of Jesus Christ, bearing the photographically negative imprint of His dead body as it lay wrapped in a linen shroud in His tomb (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) awaiting His resurrection (Mt 28:6-7; Mk 16:5-7; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:5-9). And therefore that photographically negative image is "a literal `snapshot' of the [Jesus'] Resurrection"!:

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... its image ... becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection."[111]
That is, the photographically negative image on the Shroud is that of "the body of the Lord Jesus" imprinted on His burial shroud when He "was raised [from the dead] by the glory of the Father'":
"... in the Turin Shroud we have not only the linen cloth in which the body of the Lord Jesus was wrapped, but also a representation of that body portrayed by other than human hands, by some supernatural process which confounds all explanation. ... the radiant incandescence of that almighty act of love and power when the Son of God `was raised by the glory of the Father' [Rom 6:4] has scorched his image and likeness on the Shroud, a sign for our scientific century which demands scientific proof ..."[112].
That the Shroud image is a photographic negative is explained by STURPs John P. Jackson's "Cloth Collapse Theory":
"Jackson believes that today, twenty centuries later, we may have in our possession an image analogous to [a photograph taken by] a camera that recorded, in the darkness of the tomb, something that no human eye had ever seen. What John describes in the tomb [Jn 20:5-7] is that the burial cloths of Jesus were seen lying on the shelf where the body had been placed, but clearly flattened or deflated, without the body that they once contained. For Jackson, this is precisely the end condition of the Shroud after it has fallen through the body it wrapped, according to his hypothesis of image formation."[113].
See also 22Dec11, where "to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height," would require "a total power of VUV [vacuum ultraviolet] radiation" of "34 thousand billion watts!"

Objections The standard anti-authenticist objection to the Shroud man's image being a photographic negative is that the man's hair (and blood) are not negative because their normal light and dark values are not reversed. For example Steven Schafersman (1998):

"The alleged photographic negative quality of the Shroud image has been championed by Shroud enthusiasts as evidence for authenticity since 1898 when the feature was first discovered. According to these accounts, a photographic negative of the Shroud image reveals a photographic positive, and both the original image and its photographic negative have been repeatedly published in books devoted to the Shroud. However, a number of investigators have documented the fact that the Shroud image is NOT a true photographic negative but only an apparent one - a faux-photographic negative. As with a true negative, light features such as skin are dark on it and light on the positive and shadows are light on it and dark on the positive. Unlike a true photographic negative, however, dark features like the beard, mustache, hair, and blood are dark on it and light on the positive. So unless Jesus was blond or white-haired and his blood was white, the Shroud image cannot be a true photographic negative"[114].
And Joe Nickell (2007):
"In 1898 the shroud was photographed for the first time, and the glass-plate negatives showed a more lifelike image of a man ... Thus began the modern era of shroud inquiry, with proponents asking how a mere medieval forger could have produced a perfect `photographic' negative before the development of photography. In fact, the analogy with photographic images is misleading: the `positive' image shows a figure with white hair and beard, the opposite of what would be expected of a Palestinian Jew in his thirties"[115].
First, as can be seen in the positive and negative photographs of the Shroud face below, Schafersman is simply wrong! The "blood" is not

[Above (enlarge): Comparison of photographs of the Shroud face positive (L)[116] and negative (R)[117], showing that the blood is dark on the positive (as one looks at the Shroud) and light on the negative, therefore proving that the blood is not part of the image and that the negative photograph of the Shroud is a true photographic negative.]

"dark on it" (the negative) "and light on the positive." In fact the blood is light on the negative and dark on the positive and so the Shroud image is indeed "a true photographic negative"! And, like the preacher whose sermon notes said, "argument weak here - shout!", Schafersman cites three features, "the beard, mustache, hair" when they are only one - "hair." (see next). Nickell at least does not cite the blood as a problem for the Shroud image being a photographic negative. But he does cite as two features, "white hair and beard" when again it is only one - "hair." And note that both Schafersman and Nickell don't address the fact that the Shroud body image is in fact a photographic negative!

Fanti explains that "the hair that in the Pia's plate are almost white" as most probably the effect of a "corona discharge":

"Even if the body image is not a true negative of the reproduced body, it globally appears as such, in a first approximation. For example the hair that in the Pia's plate are almost white, then typical of an old man, they were not probably of that color. This result was achieved on the Relic because all the anatomic elements enveloped in the Cloth interacted with the linen fabric in a similar way independently from their own color. The most probable effect that caused that image, as it was previously discussed, was the corona discharge (Fanti, Lattarulo and Scheuermann, 2005): in this context it must be evidenced that the point effect (that yields in correspondence of little curvature radii) which causes a local increase of the electrical discharges intensity, well explains why the hair, geometrically constituted by many cylinders having very little radii, imprinted their image better than many other body parts"[118]
And of course dead bodies don't generate a corona discharge but a resurrected body might have[119]!

Indeed, Shroud researcher, medical doctor Gilbert R. Lavoie points out that there is Biblical evidence that Jesus' hair was white at the instant of His resurrection:

"Dr. Gilbert R. Lavoie ... Another observation he makes is that it is most interesting is that the hair of this man is dark in the negative impression of the Shroud, an indication that the color of the hair in reality was white or light blond. If one keeps in mind the dazzling whiteness spoken of in the Gospels in the narratives about the Transfiguration [Mt 17:1-13; Mk 9:2-13; Lk 9:28-36], could this be the image of the resurrected Jesus, suspended for a moment as He passed through the cloth of the shroud?"[120]
So, far from it being a problem for the Shroud's image being a photographic negative, that the man on the Shroud's hair is dark on the negative of a Shroud photograph, it is further evidence for the Shroud's authenticity!

Continued in the next part #20 of this series.

1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.133, 175; Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve...The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.730-753, 743; Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous-the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-65, 45; Tribbe, F., 1988, "Has Science Judged the Shroud to be a Fake?," Shroud News, No. 50, pp.32-39, 37; Yurchey, D., 2002, "Shroud of Turin or Carbon 14," The Shroud of Turin,; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.6; Brennan, P.V., 2011, "The Holiest of Relics or the Hoariest of Hoaxes?," April 22; Longenecker, D., 2015, "The Shroud the Pope and the `Strip of Cloth'," Patheos, June 23; San Martín, I., 2015, "Is the Shroud of Turin real? Some say it doesn't matter," Crux, April 23. [return]
3. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.111. [return]
4. Otterbein, A.J., "Introduction," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.3-9,4; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.264-265; 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.298-299; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.306-307. [return]
5. Morgan, 1980, p.120; 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, p.56; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, pp.68-69; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.70. [return]
6. Wilson, 1979, p.26; Wilson, 1998, p.17; Wilson, 2010, p.306. [return]
7. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, p.3; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.5; Ruffin, 1999, p.69; Wilson, 1998, p.17; Wilson, 2010, p.18. [return]
8. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.15; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.49; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.29; Oxley, 2010, p.5; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.18; Wilson, 2010, p.306. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1992, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 30, December 1991/January, 1992, p.12. [return]
10. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.20-22; Wilson, 1979, pp.27, 264; Morgan, 1980, pp.122-123; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.10; Wilson, I., 1992, p.12; Ruffin, 1999, p.69; Wilson, 2010, p.18; de Wesselow, 2012, p.18. [return]
11. Wilson, 2010, p.18. [return]
12. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.18-19. See also Walsh, 1963, pp.22-25; McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.26; Wilson, 1979, pp.27, 265; Morgan, 1980, pp.123-124; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.56; Wilson, 1986, p.10; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.167-168; Wilson, 1998, pp.17-18; Ruffin, 1999, pp.13,69. [return]
13. Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.71. [return]
14. Van Haelst, R., 1987, "Honouring an Almost Forgotten Shroud Scholar," Shroud News, No. 40, April, pp.8-10,9. [return]
15. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, p.50; Van Haelst, 1987, p.9; Wilson, 1998, p.298; Wilson, 2010, p.18; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.71. [return]
16. O'Rahilly & Gaughan, 1985, p.50; Van Haelst, 1987, p.9; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.71. [return]
17. "Holy Face of Jesus," Wikipedia, 28 September 2016. [return]
18. Drews, 1984, p.15. [return]
19. Vignon, 1902, p.35; Walsh, 1963, pp.25-27; Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J., Mottern, R.W. & Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, 1977, pp.74-94, 74; Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, 236; McNair, 1978, p.27; Wilson, 1979, p.30; Morgan, 1980, pp.63, 124; Weaver, 1980, p.743; Drews, 1984, p.3; Wilson, 1986, p.10; Habermas, G.R., 1987, "Affirmative Statement: Gary R. Habermas," in Habermas, G.R., Flew A.G.N., & Miethe, T.L., ed., "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.28; Trenn, T., "The Shroud of Turin: Resetting the Carbon-14 Clock," in van der Meer, J.M., ed., 1996, "Facets of Faith and Science: Vol. 3: The Role of Beliefs in the Natural Sciences," University Press of America: Lanham, MD, p.119; Iannone, 1998, p.5; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.9; Wilson, 1998, p.18; Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.26; Oxley, 2010, p.ix. [return]
20. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.35. [return]
21. Antonacci, 2000, p.35. [return]
22. Iannone, 1998, p.5. [return]
23. Drews, 1984, p.15. [return]
24. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.56. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, pp.297-298. [return]
26. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.56. [return]
27. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.54. [return]
28. Walsh, 1963, pp.28-31; Adams, 1982, p.54. [return]
29. Shepard, L., 1970, "New Foreword," Vignon, 1902,; Drews, 1984, p.3. [return]
30. Antonacci, 2000, p.282. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.18. [return]
33. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.20; Wilson, I., 1993, "The II International Scientific Symposium on the Shroud of Turin Rome, 10, 11, 12, June 1993 - Why go to Rome?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 33, February 1993, p.3; Whanger, A.D. & M.W., "Revisiting the Eye Images: What are They?," in Fanti, G., ed., 2009, "The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, p.134. [return]
34. Oxley, 2010, p.195. [return]
35. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh NC, p.17; de Wesselow, 2012, p.100. [return]
36. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.56; de Wesselow, 2012, p.100. [return]
37. Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.113-127, 115; de Wesselow, 2012, p.100. [return]
38. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.31. [return]
39. Otterbein, 1977, p.4; Adler, 2000a, p.115. [return]
40. Shepard, 1970, p.vii. [return]
41. Shepard, 1970, p.vii; Antonacci, 2000, p.4; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.19-20. [return]
42. Otterbein, 1977, p.4; Antonacci, 2000, p.4; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.70. [return]
43. Walsh, 1963, pp.98-101; Otterbein, 1977, p.4; Scavone, 1989, p.22; Antonacci, 2000, p.4; de Wesselow, 2012, p.20. [return]
44. Drews, 1984, p.3. [return]
45. Wilson, 1998, p.18; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.71. [return]
46. Wilson, 1998, p.18. [return]
47. Ibid. [return]
48. Wilson, 1998, p.18. [return]
49. Ibid. [return]
50. Walsh, 1963, pp.25-27; Wilson, 1998, p.18. [return]
51. Wilson, 1979, pp.24, 264; Iannone, 1998, p.4; Oxley, 2010, p.5; Wilson, 2010, p.273. [return]
52. Vignon, 1902, pp.110-111; Crispino, D.C., 1986, "A Letter from Secondo Pia," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 18, March, pp.7-11, 7. [return]
53. "Ulysse Chevalier," Wikipedia, 2 November 2016. [return]
54. Crispino, D.C., 1992, "A New Look at Two Incompatible Views," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 41, December, pp.22-28, 22; O'Rahilly & Gaughan, 1985, p.50 [return]
55. Crispino, 1992, p.22 [return]
56. Vignon, 1902, p.112. [return]
57. Vignon, 1902, pp.112-113. [return]
58. Vignon, 1902, p.113. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. McNair, 1978, p.27; Adams, 1982, pp.54-55; Drews, 1984, p5; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.30; Wilson, 2010, p.20. [return]
61. Walsh, 1963, p.57; Adams, 1982, pp.54-55; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, p.7; de Wesselow, 2012, p.19. [return]
62. Wilcox, 2010, p.121. [return]
63. Scavone, 1989, p.23. [return]
64. Morgan, 1980, p.127; Adams, 1982, p.56; Wilson, 1998, p.18; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.71. [return]
65. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.5; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.71. [return]
66. Wilcox, 1977, p.5; McNair, 1978, p.27; Wilson, 1979, p.265; Adams, 1982, p.56; Wilson, 1998, p.18; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.31. [return]
67. Wilson, 1979, p.265; Fanti, G. & Basso, R., 2008, "Turin Shroud: Optical Research in the Past Present and Future," Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, p.15; Wilson, 2010, p.307. [return]
68. Wilcox, 1977, p.5; Wilson, 2010, p.307. [return]
69. Moretto, 1999, p.27. [return]
70. Wilson, 1979, p.265; Morgan, 1980, p.127; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.168-169; Moretto, 1999, p.27; Wilson, 2010, pp.20, 307; de Wesselow, 2012, p.21. [return]
71. McNair, 1978, p.27; Wilson, 1979, p.265; Scavone, 1989, p.23; Wilson, 1998, p.18; Wilson, 2010, p.20; de Wesselow, 2012, p.21; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.71; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.31. [return]
72. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Horizontal," (rotated left 90 degrees), [return]
73. Otterbein, 1977, p.5; Wilson, 1998, p.18. [return]
74. Wilson, 1979, p.265; Wilson, 2010, pp.20, 307. [return]
75. Otterbein, 1977, p.5; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.31; Wilson, 2010, p.307. [return]
76. Morgan, 1980, p.127; Wilson, 2010, p.20. [return]
77. Otterbein, 1977, p.5; Morgan, 1980, p.127; Adams, 1982, p.56; Wilson, 1998, p.18; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.31; Wilson, 2010, p.20. [return]
78. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.25; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.169; Iannone, 1998, p.5. [return]
79. Wilcox, 1977, p.5; Adams, 1982, p.56. [return]
80. Wilcox, 1977, p.5; Fanti & Basso, 2008, p.15. [return]
81. McNair, 1978, p.27; Morgan, 1980, p.127; Fanti & Basso, 2008, p.15; Wilson, 2010, p.20. [return]
82. Morgan, 1980, p.127; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.169; Iannone, 1998, p.5; Wilson, 1998, p.18; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.31; Wilson, 2010, p.20. [return]
83. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.9; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.11; Fanti & Basso, 2008, p.15; Whanger & Whanger, 2009, p.134. [return]
84. Morgan, 1980, p.123; Wilson, 1998, p.298. [return]
85. McNair, 1978, p.27; Adams, 1982, p.56; Wilson, 1998, p.18; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.31. [return]
86. Bulst, 1957, p.25; McNair, 1978, p.27; Morgan, 1980, p.127; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.9. [return]
87. Otterbein, 1977, p.5. [return]
88. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.169; de Wesselow, 2012, p.21. [return]
89. Bulst, 1957, p.25; Wilson, 1998, p.18; Antonacci, 2000, p.47; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.31; Wilson, 2010, p.21. [return]
90. Adams, 1982, p.57; Antonacci, 2000, p.47; Wilson, 2010, p.21. [return]
91. Adams, 1982, p.56; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.169. [return]
92. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.169. [return]
93. Bulst, 1957, p.25; Morgan, 1980, p.128; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.169. [return]
94. Morgan, 1980, p.127; Adams, 1982, pp.56-57; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.31; Wilson, 2010, p.20. [return]
95. Bulst, 1957, p.25; Adams, 1982, p.56. [return]
96. Bulst, 1957, p.25; Adams, 1982, p.56, Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.169; Wilson, 2010, p.21. [return]
97. de Wesselow, 2012, p.100. [return]
98. "History of photography: Development of chemical photography," Wikipedia, 9 December 2016. [return]
99. Bulst, 1957, p.33; Morgan, 1980, p.64; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.31, 57; Antonacci, 2000, pp.35-36. [return]
100. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, p.30. [return]
101. Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese/Doubleday: New York NY, p.291. [return]
102. Morgan, 1980, pp.64-65. [return]
103. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.36. [return]
104. Wilson, 1986, pp.10-11, 13. [return]
105. Barbet, 1953, p.30; Wilson, 1986, p.13. [return]
106. Barbet, 1953, p.30. [return]
107. Wilson, 1986, p.13; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.121. [return]
108. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.57. [return]
109. Wilson, 1986, pp.10-11, 13; de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
110. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.14; Morgan, 1980, pp.116-117, 141; Adams, 1982, p.86; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.60; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.27; Antonacci, 2000, p.6. [return]
111. Wilson, 1979, p.251; Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
112. McNair, 1978, p.39. [return]
113. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, pp.167-168. [return]
114. Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2. Footnote omitted. [return]
115. Nickell, J., 2007, "Relics of the Christ," The University Press of Kentucky: Lexington KY, p.140. [return]
116. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," [return]
117. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," [return]
118. Fanti & Basso, 2008, p.14. [return]
119. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.40-41. [return]
120. Bennett, 2001, p.168. [return]

Posted: 22 December 2016. Updated: 5 March 2021.


Ivan said...

Dear Mr Jones,

Thank you for your Christmas wishes! I wish you and yours, a Happy and Blessed Christmas! Thank you for the gift that keeps on giving, the most awesome source of information on the Holy Shroud of Turin!

Steve Calovich

Stephen E. Jones said...


>Thank you for your Christmas wishes! I wish you and yours, a Happy and Blessed Christmas!

Thank you. And the same again to you and yours,

>Thank you for the gift that keeps on giving, the most awesome source of information on the Holy Shroud of Turin!

Thank you again. But it is Jesus' Shroud which is the real gift that keeps on giving.

The Shroud is further proof that Jesus truly is "him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think ..." (Ephesians 3:20 KJV).

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 one Shroud-related topic. To avoid time-wasting debate I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.

Anonymous said...

I hope to read your new year editorial.

Stephen E. Jones said...


>I hope to read your new year editorial.

Thanks. If you mean my December 2016 Editorial, which is as at 31 December 2016, that will be the next post after this current "Negative #19" post.

I had already written it on 1 January 2017, but I can't post it until I finish the latter.

I had originally estimated I would finish my "Negative #19" post on 5 January, but I found it requires much more research time than I first thought.

But it is an important topic so I should not skimp it.

Stephen E. Jones
"By way of guidance as to what I mean by `offensive' and `sub-standard,' I regard comments to my blog as analogous to letters to the Editor of a newspaper. If the Editor of a newspaper would not publish a comment because it is `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' then neither will I. It does not mean that if I disagree with a comment I won't publish it. I have published anti-authenticist comments and other comments that I disagreed with, and I have deleted `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' comments that are pro-authenticist. `Sub-standard' includes attempting to use my blog as a platform to publish a block of text of the commenter's own views, and also bare links to other sites with little or no actual comments. By `off-topic' I mean if a comment has little or nothing to do with the topic(s) in the post it is under (except for the latest post-see above)." [05Jan16]