Tuesday, August 21, 2018

`Poker holes' #29: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

`POKER HOLES' #29
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the sixteenth and final installment of part #29, "Other marks and images: `Poker holes'," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. See also, "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (2): Poker holes ."

[Main index #1] [Previous: Water stains #28] [Next: Dirt #30]


    Other marks and images #26
      `Poker holes' #29

Introduction The Shroud has four sets of three small "L"-shaped' burn holes[2]. They are in two parallel groups located on the front image near the hands of the man on the Shroud and on the dorsal (back) image on each side of the man's thighs[3]. They are known (after Wilson[4]) as the "poker holes"[5].

[Right (enlarge)[6]: The poker holes outlined in yellow on the full-length Shroud.]

`Poker holes'. The holes match up exactly at the very centre of the cloth when it is folded in four once lengthwise and once widthwise[7]. Therefore they appear to be the result of a deliberate act[8], although they could have been the result of an accident in a ceremony (or even ceremonies [see below]) over the centre of the folded-in-four cloth[9]. It is not known when the holes were made[10], as there is no historical record of their origin[11].

Origin. Ian Wilson proposed that the holes were caused by repeated thrusts with a red hot poker[12] in a trial by fire[13]. But the holes are not circular (see below). And they also show a gradually diminishing degree of burning over the depth of only four folds[14]. According to Fr. Andre Dubarle (1910-2002) they were caused by burning coal sparks from a censer[15]. Markwardt proposed that the holes were caused by "a pitch-soaked firebrand" thrust four times into the Shroud to lift the 544 siege of Edessa by the Persian king Khosrow I (496-579)[16]. Pitch has been detected near the holes[17] and the charring of the edges of the holes is blacker than the burns from 1532 fire[18]. However STURP's Schwalbe and Rogers in 1982 considered the theory that the holes were burned through with a

[Above (enlarge)[19]: The four sets of `poker holes' on the Shroud in a clockwise descending order of damage. First (dorsal left side) top left; second (dorsal right side) top right; third (frontal right side) bottom right; and fourth (frontal left side) bottom left. Note the steep rate of reduction of hole size between the first and fourth set of holes, even though each hole would have been only about 1.3 mm above its counterpart when the theorised "red hot poker" (Wilson) or "pitch soaked firebrand" (Markwardt) was thrust through all four layers of the folded-in-four Shroud (see above).]

hot poker as "probably incorrect"[20]. It was them who pointed out that a close up inspection (see below) of the "peripheral areas reveals a foreign material there, resembling pitch"[21]. They proposed that the

[Above (enlarge)[22]: Close-up of the left dorsal `poker holes' which was `ground zero' of the proposed burning pitch that fell onto the Shroud from a flaming pitch-soaked torch in a regular (Easter Sunday?) ceremony. The charred edges and burnt spots were removed in the 2002 restoration[23].]

damage was more consistent with "burning pitch that ... fell onto the Shroud from a torch"[24]. I agree with this and that the minor pitch burns indicate that burning pitch from a flaming torch had fallen onto the Shroud at other times as part of a regular (Easter Sunday pre-dawn in the tomb resurrection re-enactment?) ceremony. In support of this, what English-speaking writers see as "L"-shaped in the pattern of the holes, may be the Greek capital letter gamma (Γ) which resembles an inverted "L"[25]. In the Byzantine era around the sixth century, when the Image of Edessa (i.e. the Shroud "doubled in four" = tetradiplon) made its appearance, the gamma marking was used on altar cloths which were known as gammadia to indicate their holiness[26].

Lier copy 1516. There is a painted copy of the Shroud dated 1516[27], attributed to Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528)[28], and kept in the Church of St. Gommaire, Lier, Belgium[29]. This Lier copy pre-dated the 1532 fire by about 16 years[30]. It has four sets of three L-shaped

[Left (enlarge)[31]: Painted copy of the Shroud, dated 1516, kept in the Church of St. Gommaire, Belgium, clearly depicting the four sets of L-shaped `poker holes' on the Shroud.]

`poker holes'[32], which shows that the poker holes damage occurred before 1516[33].

Pray Codex 1192-5. The Pray Codex is dated 1192-95[34]. In the lower half of one of its ink drawings (see 11Jan10) it depicts the scene in Mark 16:1-6 where the three women at the Tomb were told by an angel[35]:

"You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him."
The angel is pointing to an empty sarcophagus and its lid, representing the empty Tomb[36]. The sarcophagus and its lid have two sets of `poker holes' (very similar to those on the Shroud - see below)[37].

[Left (enlarge)[38]: Part of the Pray Codex (1192-95) depicting two set of `poker holes': one inverted "L"-shaped, and the other a five-hole shape, each very similar to one of the two basic shapes of the `poker holes' found on the Shroud (see above upper and lower).]

These are one of at least eight (and by my count twelve [see 27May12), telling correspondences between the Pray Codex and the Shroud[39]. Nobel prize-winning geneticist Jérôme Lejeune (1926-1994) who in 1993 was granted a rare private viewing of the Pray Codex in Budapest's National Széchenyi Library[40], wrote of the Codex in general and the `poker holes' in particular:

"Such precise details are not to be found on any other known [Christ] image - except the Shroud that is in Turin. One is therefore forced to conclude that the artist of the Pray Manuscript had before his eyes ... some model which possessed all the characteristics of the Shroud which is in Turin"[41].
Sceptics' explanations. Leading Shroud sceptic Joe Nickell in his book, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin" (1987), briefly covered the "small, round burn holes, as from a hot poker" without mentioning (dishonestly), either "Pray Codex" or "poker holes," so they don't appear in the book's index:
"Ian Wilson suggests that one of the earliest examinations of the shroud — not a scientific one, to be sure— may have been a `primitive "trial by fire"'1 ["1. Wilson, The Shroud of Turin, 25."] ... But Wilson's notion suffered a setback when the 1978 investigation found what appeared to be traces of pitch at the edges of the holes, suggesting rather that they resulted from burning pitch falling on the cloth from a torch.3 ["3. Schwalbe and Rogers (see note 21, Chapter 3), 47, note 7."]"[42].
Note also that Nickell, by his references "1" and "3" is well aware of the Pray Codex and the `poker holes' which are covered there, but again, (dishonestly), Nickell concealed that from his sceptic readers. Also, a Google search of "Joe Nickell" and "Pray Codex" returned no hits (apart from two of my posts). "impostors... deceiving and being deceived" (2Tim 3:13)!

Wikipedia's article, "Pray Codex," after:

"... the four tiny circles on the lower image, which appear to form a letter L, "perfectly reproduce four apparent "poker holes" on the Turin Shroud", which likewise appear to form a letter L. The Codex Pray illustration may serve as evidence for the existence of the Shroud of Turin prior to 1260–1390 AD, the alleged fabrication date established in the radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988"[43].
does give the response of leading Italian Shroud sceptic and "CICAP consultant," Gian Marco Rinaldi, to the Pray Codex and its `poker holes':
"Critics of this idea point out, that the item that is sometimes identified as the Shroud is probably a rectangular tombstone as seen on other sacred images. The alleged holes may just be decorative elements, as seen, for example, on the angel's wing. Moreover, the alleged shroud in the Pray codex does not contain any image"[44].
I refuted these sceptics' explanations in my 2012 post, "My critique of `The Pray Codex,' Wikipedia, 1 May 2011," and as can be seen some of them have been withdrawn. Here is my refutation of what remains (bold) in Wikipedia's current, "Pray Codex" of 12 April 2017:

Critics of this idea point out, There is only one critic referenced, Gian Marco Rinaldi. Where are the others?

... that the item that is sometimes identified as the Shroud is probably a rectangular tombstone as seen on other sacred images. In the upper burial scene (Berkovits, 1969, plate III. See below), Jesus is about to be wrapped in a double body length shroud (coloured green by me). So there could not be an image in that.

[Above (enlarge): Jesus is about to be wrapped in a double body length shroud (highlighted green) in the Pray Codex Entombment scene (see 11Jan10 upper ).]

In the lower half (below) of Berkovits, 1969, plate III (see 11Jan10 lower), the visit of the three women disciples, it is a rectangular

[Above (enlarge): Visit of the three women to the empty tomb in Berkovits, 1969, plate III (lower). The scene depicts Mark 16:1-6 where an angel tells the women that "Jesus ... is not here. See the place where they laid him," and points to a sarcophagus and its lid to represent the empty Tomb. As mentioned above The lid has an inverted "L"-shaped pattern of four tiny circles and the sarcophagus itself has a pattern of five tiny circles which are each very similar to one of the two basic shapes of the `poker holes' found on the Shroud (see above).].

sarcophagus and its lid representing, not the Shroud, but the empty Tomb, which the angel is pointing to (as in Mark 16:1-6 above). The Shroud is there, but represented symbolically (see below).

The alleged holes may just be decorative elements, as seen, for example, on the angel's wing. No. The decorative elements on the angel's wings are a simple repeating pattern of circles [Left] which don't resemble anything else. But the inverted "L" four circles and the five hole shaped circles patterns on the sarcophagus lid and the sarcophagus, respectively, are each different and they do resemble something else: the two basic patterns of 'poker holes' on the Shroud. Moreover they are together only one of the eight (and by my count twelve - see again above) telling correspondences between these four ink drawings in the 1192-5 Pray Codex and the Shroud.

Moreover, the alleged shroud in the Pray codex does not contain any image. In the upper drawing of Berkovits plate III (above), the double body length Shroud is depicted before Jesus is wrapped in it, so there would not be any image of Jesus on it. And in the lower drawing the image is depicted symbolically:

"The realization that the Pray Codex contains a depiction of the Shroud begs an obvious question: why did the artist not depict the cloth's figure? There are several likely reasons. As someone privileged to view the relic, the artist may have been bound by the same code of secrecy as Nicholas Mesarites. He may have wanted to provide himself with a vivid portrayal of the events of Good Friday and Easter morning, focusing on the Shroud, but without revealing the secret to others. Knowledge of the 'miraculous' image was not to be divulged to all and sundry. Moreover, he would have found the Shroud figure virtually impossible to draw. It could be defined, as we have seen, by its lack of outline (aperilepton), but, like every other draughtsman of the age, the Pray Codex artist depended on outline. If he had simply ignored this problem and drawn the figure in anyway, it would have looked as if the body of Christ was still lying in the tomb - a heretical idea. Fortunately, he had a much better solution. Instead of representing the Shroud figuratively, he could represent it symbolically"[45].

The image itself is depicted symbolically in the Pray Codex. In Berkovits plate III (upper) (see above), as on the Shroudman's image: 1. Jesus is nude[46]; 2. His hands are crossed awkwardly at the wrists, right over left, covering His genitals[47]; 3. Thumbs are not visible on Jesus' hands[48]; 4. His fingers are unnaturally long (see "X-Rays #22")[49]; 5. Red marks on Jesus' scalp and forehead are in the same position as the bloodstains (including the "reversed 3") on the Shroud (see below)[50].

[Above: The Shroud Man's face (left)[51] compared with that of the Pray Codex (right) (Berkovits plate III upper-see above - rotated right 90 degrees). Note the faintly tinged red mark on the Jesus' right forehead, exactly where the `reversed 3' bloodstain is on the Shroud and, like it, slightly angled in a `northeast-southwest' direction! Note also the crown of thorns bloodstains in Jesus' hair, corresponding with those on the Shroud.]

In the lower half of Berkovits plate III (see above): 6. Red zigzags match the inverted V-shaped blood trickles down the Shroud man's arms[52].

On Berkovits plate IV (below), 7. The nail in the wrist of the right hand (as it appears on the Shroud) is in Jesus' wrist (see below).

[Above (enlarge): Extract of plate IV in Berkovits (1969), showing the nail wound in the wrist of Jesus' right hand [Right] (as it appears on the Shroud-it is actually the left hand because the image is a photographic negative-see Negative #19), while the nail wound in the other hand (which is covered on the Shroud) is shown as traditionally in the palm. So the artist, knowing the traditional, but wrong, view that the nails were in Jesus' palms, deliberately chose to depict the nail in Jesus' wrist because that is what he saw on the Shroud!]

So the "Critics" (Gian Marco Rinaldi) were wrong on every point! If this is the best that sceptics can do in explaining away the `poker holes' in the Pray Codex as not being depictions of the original burn holes in the Shroud (not to mention the other telling correspondences between the Pray Codex and the Shroud!), then they have utterly failed! In which case, what agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow, in the context of the Pray Codex, wrote is true:

"The Shroud existed and was already damaged, then, by 1192-5, when the illustrations in the Pray Codex were drawn. Given the close links at the time between Hungary and Byzantium, it can hardly be doubted that the artist saw the relic in Constantinople. The Shroud was the Byzantine Sindon ... Historical records show that the Sindon was kept in the Pharos Chapel as part of the imperial relic collection, being first documented there in 958 [see "958"], 400 years before it was put on show in the small French village of Lirey"[53]!
Radiocarbon dating. The Pray Codex, with its at least eight (and by my count twelve - see above) telling correspondences (including the `poker holes') between it and the Shroud, dating from at least 1195, proves that Shroud existed at least 65 years before[54] its earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[55]. And then conservatively at least 100 years would have to be subtracted from 1195 to allow for the development of a tradition that the cloth portrayed by the artist was in fact the burial cloth of Christ[56]. But then the Shroud would have been in Constantinople when the Pray codex artist saw and drew it[57]. And since the Shroud, as the Image of Edessa "four-doubled" (tetradiplon), came to Constantinople from Edessa in 944 [see "944b"], it must be more than three centuries older than its earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[58]. But then the Image of Edessa/Shroud was continuously in Edessa from 544 to 944[see "544"], so the Shroud must be at least seven centuries older than its earliest 1260 radiocarbon date! Therefore the "poker-hole patterns represented in the Pray Codex drawing ... are the final nail in the coffin of the carbon-dating result"[59]!

Problem for the forgery theory. (see previous three: #25, #27 and #28). Even 65 years (let alone seven centuries) before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date, 1195, would be a total refutation of the claim by a Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395), that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" by an unnamed artist who had lived in the time of one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370), in about 1355[60]. See also 11Jul16 that the Shroudman's image is not painted, and 03Jul18 that there is no evidence that Bishop de Poitiers had a problem with the Shroud.

Just as the no later than 1195 Pray Codex refutes the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, so it also further refutes the `Medieval photography' theory of Prof. Nicholas Allen (see 07Aug16). That is because Allen bases his theory on the 1988 radiocarbon dating's 1260-1390 date range of the Shroud's creation[61].

Allen confirmed that the Pray Codex was a problem for his theory. When a Br. Michael Buttigieg (c.1916-99) of Malta challenged a 1994 Times article outlining Allen's `medieval photograph' Shroud theory[62]:

"Prof J Lejeune (who died only a few months ago) when interviewed by the same magazine [30 Days], had shown that 'historically' the Turin Shroud existed before 1192. `This', he emphasised, `is a definite historic certainty. There can be no further discussion on that point"[63].
Allen responded by dismissing Lejeune's Pray codex evidence as merely his "views" and "irrelevant":
"Prof J Le Jeune's views concerning the pedigree of the Shroud are irrelevant to my argument. I have deduced that iconographically the Shroud must date from sometime after the beginning of the 13th century. Due to the documented references of the Shroud's existence by the mid-fourteenth century together with the 1988 carbon-dating, I feel safe in stating that the Shroud was most likely produced sometime between 1280-1320"[64].
But then a Paul R. Smith of Australia responded to Allen:
"Dr Allen states that Prof. J. Lejeune's views concerning the pedigree of the Shroud are irrelevant to his argument. The contrary is true. Lejeune's showed that the Shroud was in existence between 1100 AD and 1200 AD (Shroud News 80). Once this was established it was possible to show that the piece of cloth now housed in Turin was in existence before 944 AD [see above]. Dr Allen gives no reason for dismissing Lejeune's claim, but to admit that Lejeune was right would bring into question the carbon dating tests"[65].

The no later than 1195 Pray Codex also further refutes Picknett and Prince's `Leonardo da Vinci replaced the original Shroud with a photograph in 1492' theory[66]. For starters Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) would not have known about the Pray codex which was written in Old Hungarian and was unknown even in Hungary until it was discovered by György Pray (1723-1801) in 1770, presumably in the archives of the University of Nagy-Szombat in Slovakia (which was then part of Hungary), where Pray was a professor of theology from 1750 to 1777.

Picknett and Prince also confirmed that the Pray Codex was a problem for their theory, by dismissing it on the fallacious grounds that because there are other 12th century artworks which show Jesus naked with his hands crossed awkwardly in front, as on the Shroud (e.g. a 12th century fresco depiction of the martyrdom of St Vincent of Saragossa (d. c.304) (see below) which has those Shroud features in common with the Pray Codex), that therefore means the Pray Codex was depicting St Vincent:

"Other researchers look for characteristics that are different from artistic convention, arguing that these show that the Shroud image was genuine. One such is the nakedness of the man on the Shroud and the unusual and unnatural way in which his hands are crossed. Wilson cites examples to underline this, such as an illustration in a late-twelfth-century manuscript in Budapest — known as the Pray Manuscript ... [which shows] Jesus' hands crossed as on the Shroud, and ... completely naked. The trouble with this argument is that there are also paintings showing people other than Jesus with these characteristics. In a church at Berze-la-Ville in southeast France, for example, a wall painting dating from 1110 shows Saint Vincent naked and in a pose exactly like that on the Shroud. Using Shroudies' logic, this proves that the man on the Shroud is in fact Saint Vincent"[67].
But Picknett and Prince have `shot themselves in the foot' on this one. I hadn't heard of this early 12th century Shroud-like depiction (albeit of a saint instead of Jesus). It is obviously a non sequitur fallacy that just

[Above (enlarge)[68]: Martyrdom of St Vincent of Saragossa in c. 304, depicted in a c. 1100 fresco in the Chapel of the Monks of Berzé-la-Ville, France.]

because a medieval artist depicted the martyrdom of an ancient saint, St Vincent, whose actual appearance is unknown, in terms of the burial scene of Jesus in the Pray Codex, that the artist is thereby claiming "the man on the Shroud is in fact Saint Vincent"!

This fresco joins 11th-12th century Shroud-like depictions of Jesus, naked, with hands crossed awkwardly in front: Nicholas of Verdun's Klosterneuburg Monastery altar panel, an ivory panel in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, and the Pray Codex. It and other frescoes were discovered in 1887 under whitewash in the Chapel of the monks of Berzé-la-Ville[69]. They were painted under the direction of Hugues de Semur, abbot of Cluny (1049-1109), who significantly "was an active diplomat to Germany and Hungary on behalf of the church"[70]. So he could have seen the Pray Codex drawings in Hungary before 1100, which were later incorporated into the Pray Codex in 1192-95. If so, that would date those drawings earlier than 1100! So thank you Picknett and Prince!

Conclusion. As we saw above, there are at least eight (8), and by my count a further four (4), making a total of at least twelve (12), telling correspondences between two ink drawings in the 1192-95 Pray Codex (Berkovitz, 1969, plates III and IV) and the Shroud. Those two ink drawings are therefore at least 65 years older than the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud. And then we saw above that the Shroud original must be at least a 100 years older than the Pray Codex drawings of it. Which means that the Shroud is at least 165 years older than the earliest 1260 radiocarbon dating of it. That is, dated at least 1095. But as we saw, in 1095 the Shroud, as the Image of Edessa "four-doubled" (tetradiplon) was in Constantinople, having arrived there from Edessa in 944. That makes the Shroud at least 316 years older than its earliest 1260 radiocarbon dating. But then the Image of Edessa/Shroud had been continuously in Edessa since 544, that is at least 716 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud! So the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is hopelessly wrong!

In 2008 the Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, admitted that:

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow ..."[71].
Prof. Ramsey, who was a member of Oxford's team which radiocarbon dated the Shroud in 1988, and was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper, must be aware that the Pray Codex is part of that "lot of other evidence."

Archaeologist William Meacham confirmed that it is "common" for archeologists to reject as "rogue" radiocarbon dates which are in conflict with well-established other evidence:

"As an archaeologist, I had used C-14 dating many dozens of times on excavated samples, and found that it does generally but not always give accurate results. Most other archaeologists and geologists that I know have the same view; a few are more skeptical of its reliability ... Rogue results were normally discarded without any follow-up research, when it was abundantly clear that something was amiss ... Such rogue dates are common in archaeology and geology and they are usually not subjected to any further detailed study ... Such has been my experience as an archaeologist: I have excavated, submitted and interpreted around one hundred fifty C-14 samples from Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Historical sites. Of these dates obtained, about 110 were considered credible, 30 were rejected as unreliable and 10 were problematic. I mention this merely to inform the non-specialist that rogue dates are quite common in the general application of C-14 in archaeology. As fate would have it, I had dealt with more rogue samples than most other archaeologists, and furthermore had been involved with several C-14 labs in investigating why some of these samples yielded results which simply could not be correct in terms of their real calendar date"[72].
Prof. Ramsey must be aware of this, as must Arizona laboratory's Director Dr. Timothy Jull, who also was a member of his laboratory's team which dated the Shroud in 1988 and also was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper. So Prof. Ramsey and Dr Jull should write to Nature asking that the paper be retracted, due to it being in conflict with well-established other evidence, including the 1192-95 Pray Codex. Their continued failure to do this can only be to avoid the embarrassment of that high-profile paper having been wrong for nearly 30 years and having mislead a very great many.

I will therefore write an open letter to Prof. Ramsey and Dr Jull, posted here and emailed (as well as snail mailed) to them, providing them with the above evidence that the 1192-95 Pray Codex alone proves that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was hopelessly wrong and calling on them to write to Nature requesting that the 1989 Nature paper be retracted.

To be continued in the next part #30 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.25; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.78; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.34; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.13; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.4; Markwardt, J.J., 1998, "The Fire and the Portrait," 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.320-334, 320; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.4; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.13, 180. [return]
3. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.162; Markwardt, 1998, p.320; Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," in Minor, Adler, & Piczek, 2002, pp.58-70, 64; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.105; Oxley, 2010, p.4 [return]
4. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
5. 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.66; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.60; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.115; Oxley, 2010, p.5; de Wesselow, 2012, p.13. [return]
6. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal: Overlays: Poker Holes" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Wilson, 1986, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Markwardt, 1998, p.320; Wilson, 1998, p.66; Oxley, 2010, pp.4, 24. [return]
8. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Wilson, 1986, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Markwardt, 1998, p.321. [return]
9. Morgan, R., 1986, "New Information on the 'Poker Marks'," Shroud News, No 36, August, pp.16-19,16-17; Markwardt, 1998, p.321. [return]
10. Wilson, 1986, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Oxley, 2010, p.25. [return]
11. Wilson, 1998, p.66; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," 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.10-27, 13. [return]
12. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Wilson, 1986, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Wilson, 1998, p.66; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Wilson, 1986, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Iannone, 1998, p.4; Markwardt, 1998, p.320; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Markwardt, 1998, p.320; Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
15. Morgan, 1986, pp.16-17; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
16. Markwardt, 1998, p.324; Oxley, 2010, p.24. [return]
17. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, p.46 n.7; Wilson, 1986, pp.78, 128; Guerrera, 2001, p.106; Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
18. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
19. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
20. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.46 n.7. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
22. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
23. Oxley, 2010, p.263. [return]
24. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.46 n.7. [return]
25. Oxley, 2010, p.25. [return]
26. Oxley, 2010, p.25. [return]
27. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
28. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.11; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.37; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.4. [return]
29. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.34; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Wilson, 1998, p.66; Oxley, 2010, pp.4, 76. [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Markwardt, 1998, p.320; Guerrera, 2001, p.106; Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
31. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.18. [return]
32. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Scavone, 1998, p.64; Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.25; Wilson, 1986, p.78; Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
34. Wilson, 1979, p.160; Wilson, 1986, pp.114-115; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.154; Markwardt, 1998, pp.320-321; Scavone, 1998, p.64; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.115-116; Whiting, 2006, p.92; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178, 180; "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. [return]
35. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.160; Iannone, 1998, pp.154-155; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.115; Oxley, 2010, p.37; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
36. Scavone, D., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, p.321; Wilson, 1991, pp.160-161; Iannone, 1998, pp.154-155; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.116; Oxley, 2010, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
37. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Oxley, 2010, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
38. Extract from Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, plate III. [return]
39. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
40. Lejeune, J., in Pacl, S.M., 1993, "All those carbon 14 errors," 30 Days, No 9, 1993, in Shroud News, No 80, December, pp.3-8, 6. [return]
41. Wilson, 1998, p.147; Oxley, 2010, p.38. [return]
42. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.107, 174. [return]
43. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. [return]
44. Ibid. [return]
45. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.180-181. [return]
46. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Oxley, 2010, p.37; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
47. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.91; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
48. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Scavone, 1998, p.63; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Ruffin, 1999, pp.59-60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Whiting, 2006, p.91; Oxley, 2010, p.37; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
49. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Whiting, 2006, p.91. [return]
50. Wilson, 1998, p.146; Ruffin, 1999, p.60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Oxley, 2010, p.38; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
51. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical". [return]
52. Maloney, P.C., 1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, Adler, & Piczek, 2002, pp.16-47, 33; Scavone, 1998, p.64. [return]
53. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.180-181. [return]
54. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 613. [return]
55. Wilson, 1991, p.161; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.115; Marino, J.G., 2011, "Wrapped up in the Shroud: Chronicle of a Passion," Cradle Press: St. Louis MO, p.53. [return]
56. Maloney, 1998, p.33. [return]
57. Scavone, 1998, pp.63-64; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178, 180-181. [return]
58. de Wesselow, 2012, p.183. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, p.267; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.17; Wilson, 1998, p.126; Ruffin, 1999, p.65; Wilson, 2010, p.303. [return]
61. Allen, N.P.L., 1993, "Is the Shroud of Turin the first recorded photograph?," The South African Journal of Art History, 11, November, pp.23-32; Allen, N.P.L., 1995, "Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photonegative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin," De Arte, 51, Pretoria, UNISA, pp.21-35; Allen, N.P.L., 1998, "The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens: Testament to a Lost Technology," Empowerment Technologies: Port Elizabeth, South Africa, pp.xiii, 33, 40; Allen, N.P.L., 2009, "How Leonardo did not fake the Shroud of Turin," Unisa Press: South Africa. [return]
62. "New findings on Turin shroud," The Times, 16 September, 1994, in Shroud News, No. 87, February 1995, p.14. [return]
63. Buttigieg, M., 1995, "Challenge to Allen's findings," Shroud News, No 87, February, pp.15-17, 16. [return]
64. Allen, N., 1995, "Letter from Dr Nicholas Allen," Shroud News, No. 92, October, pp.20-23, 23. [return]
65. Smith, P.R., 1996, "A scientific appraisal of the Allen hypothesis for the formation of the image on the Shroud of Turin," Shroud News, No. 94, April, pp.10-14, 11. [return]
66. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 1994, "Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?: The Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.68, 107, 115, 188; Scavone, D.C., 1996, "Book Review of `The Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?'", Shroud.com; Markwardt, 1998, p.321; Wilson, 1998, p.211; Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, pp.91, 131, 135, 138, 210; Oxley, 2010, p.75; de Wesselow, 2012, p.139. [return]
67. Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.59. Footnotes omitted. [return]
68. "File:Berze la Ville Maertyrer.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 31 August 2010. [return]
69. "Chapel of the monks of Berzé-la-Ville," Wikipedia, 11 July 2018 (translated by Google). [return]
70. "Hugh of Cluny: Political influence," Wikipedia, 27 November 2017. [return]
71. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March, Version 152, Issued 16 June 2015. [return]
72. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, pp.53-54. [return]

Posted: 21 August 2018. Updated: 6 September 2018.

4 comments:

Szarvas, Tibor said...

Wrong is the radiocarbon dating of Shroud of Turin, because radiocarbon was enriched by microbes wich are present on the Shroud. See :detiles in the artikel : Model experiment and remarks on the radiocarbon dating of Shroud of Turin, Szarvas et al. 2007.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Tibor

See my note in my August 2018 Shroud of Turin News: "I have just now discovered that Blogger has not been notifying me by email of comments and therefore I have a backlog of 37 of them! I will start publishing those that I consider worth replying to from the most recent backwards."

>Wrong is the radiocarbon dating of Shroud of Turin, because radiocarbon was enriched by microbes wich are present on the Shroud. See :detiles in the artikel : Model experiment and remarks on the radiocarbon dating of Shroud of Turin, Szarvas et al. 2007.

No. Microbe contamination (e.g. a bioplastic coating) might explain why the Shroud would not date 1st century (e.g. 4th century), but it would not explain why the 1st century Shroud's radiocarbon date was shifted 12-13 centuries into the future, let alone to the `bull's eye' date 1325 ±65.

Only my hacker theory explains that (i.e. it did not happen: the Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date was the result of hacking the functionally identical AMS computers at the three laboratories: Arizona, Zurich and Oxford).

See my posts 24May15, 16Jul15, 23Jul15, 19May16 and 15Jul18, where I critique Garza-Valdes "bioplastic coating" theory, which would apply to any "Microbe contamination" theory which attempts to explain why the 1st century Shroud has not only a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date, but a `bull's eye' 1325 date.

Pro-authenticist chemistry professor Alan D. Adler (1931-2000) listed the problems with Garza-Valdes' "bioplastic coating" theory: 1) for a bioplastic coating to have shifted the Shroud's 1st century carbon date to the 13-14th century would require "about a 50% increase in the C14," which would be "a prodigious amount of bacterial metabolism"; 2) but "where does all this energy for growth come from?"; 3) "Where does the mass come from?"; 4) "Does this microorganism fix the nitrogen from air as required for its growth and metabolism?," and 5) "Where does it get its sulfur, phosphorus, and minerals from and to where have they disappeared?" Adler further pointed out that the Shroud's shiny appearance that Garza-Valdes thought was a bioplastic coating was in fact what "all linen looks like ... It is called luster," and Garza-Valdes' photomicrographs "of what appear to be entubulated fibers" are "simply out of focus":

[continued

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued

"In `The DNA of God?' Garza-Valdez makes a large number of extravagant claims, many of them self-contradictory, at odds with accepted Shroud scientific literature, or at odds with basic accepted biochemical, chemical, or physical knowledge. ... His ... contention is that the entire cloth is more or less covered by a bioplastic coating deposited by a novel microbe that he himself has discovered in the Shroud samples in his possession. He claims this bioplastic has corrupted the radiocarbon date .. It should be noted that to corrupt the observed radiodate from a first century date to that reported requires about a 50% increase in the C14 mole fraction. This is a prodigious amount of bacterial metabolism. Even if we ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics and only satisfy the First Law, where does all this energy for growth come from? Are the organisms photosynthetic? Where does the mass come from? Does this microorganism fix the nitrogen from air as required for its growth and metabolism? Where does it get its sulfur, phosphorus, and minerals from and to where have they disappeared? The bioplastic has been identified as a polyester. This is of interest since although he claims it is pervasive this amount of polyester is not seen in the whole cloth infrared spectral studies, nor in the micro FTIR fiber studies, nor in the enzymatic studies described above. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion as to the amounts of this material that are on the cloth. There is also a problem with his claim that this material resists attack by alkali and that has prevented the decontamination of the radiocarbon samples. The care labels on polyester fabrics make it clear that they are subject to attack by alkalis and it should be noted that the ready alkaline hydrolysis of esters is the whole basis of the soap industry. It seems that his evidence for large amounts is based on what he sees in a microscope. Looking at his micrographs, however, gives us pause for new concerns. He shows us a magnified picture of the weave of the whole cloth and says see how shiny it is — bioplastic coated. Unfortunately, he seems to be unaware that all linen looks like this. It is called luster and it is one of the characteristics by which linen is distinguished from other fabrics. For many of the pictures of what appear to be entubulated fibers a question arises as to whether one is really seeing tubes or only diffraction artifacts, as the smaller objects in the field show pronounced diffraction rings, indicating that the field is simply out of focus. His work lacks hard convincing quantitative evidence on which one can judge the merit of his claims ..." (Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.103-112, 109)

[continued

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued

Anti-authenticist Walter McCrone (1916-2002) claimed that, Garza-Valdes couldn't find enough lichenothelia (the fungi genus that Garza-Vadez claimed was the bioplastic coating on the Shroud) on his sample of the Shroud linen to send pro-authenticist archaeologist Paul C. Maloney (1936-2018):

"I was interested to hear from Paul Maloney that Garza-Valdes couldn't find enough lichenothelia on his sample of the Shroud linen to send him." (McCrone, W., 1995, "Letters To The Editor," BSTS Newsletter, No. 40, May, p.24).

This was not contradicted by Maloney in subsequent issues of the BSTS Newsletter, and in fact Garza-Valdes admitted he was unable to culture the fungus Lichenothelia from the Shroud threads":

"In early 1993, when Father Cervantes and I were in Rome, I thought some of the fungi I saw on other artefacts (Lichenothelia) had caused the formation of the bioplastic coating. But the fungi do not produce the plastic; they eat the plastic. I have been unable to culture the fungus Lichenothelia from the Shroud threads. The strange thing is that the Leobacillus rubrus produces an antifungal. The samples from the jades are covered almost completely with black fungi, but those fungi are not seen on the Shroud, because the bacteria that produce the plastic also produce an antifungal to defend against the fungi." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, p.58)

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. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.