Saturday, August 15, 2020

My reply to Dr Karl Kruszelnicki's, "Evidence snubbed by famous shroud faithful," ABC Australia, 26 August 2009

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This (started in my July 2020 Shroud of Turin News but since moved to here) is my reply to a 2009 anti-Shroud article by Australian science populariser and evident atheist/agnostic (he was "2006 Australian Skeptic of the Year"), Dr Karl Kruszelnicki. His words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

"Evidence snubbed by famous shroud faithful," Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science, ABC (Australia), Karl S. Kruszelnicki, 26 August 2009.

Believing in the authenticity of the famous shroud of Turin is one thing but what of the science? Dr Karl scours the evidence in an attempt to see the light. Kruszelnicki's [Right[2]] actual science qualification is a Bachelor of Science[3] (the same as me). He qualified as a medical doctor, but only worked briefly as one in 1986[4]. Kruszelnicki is a true believer in the "science = facts and religion = faith" false dichotomy:

"Can a scientist believe in God? Dr Karl says yes. There's no conflict between science and religion, just as there's no conflict between `wearing a red shirt and liking a curry'. `Science depends 100 per cent on facts and zero on faith,' says the science commentator and University of Sydney physicist. `Religion depends 100 per cent on faith and zero on facts. They are completely separate ways of thinking and you can carry both mindsets in the same skull'"[5].

Last time, I talked about the famous shroud of Turin, and part of its history, beginning when it first appeared around 1365. Kruszelnicki is such an extreme Shroud anti-authenticist that throughout this article he cannot bring himself to capitalise "shroud" (even when followed by "of Turin") which is just good English, the Shroud in this case being a proper noun. Kruszelnicki's "1365" is evidently a typo, because in his subsequent article on the Shroud, he states of the Shroud that "It was first reported around 1354 ..." But with the typo corrected to "1355" it is still wrong! As I pointed out recently [21Jun20 & 24Jul20a], that the Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France in c. 1355 is not the same as the Shroud "first appeared around 1355." There is objective (true whether it is believed or not), historical evidence that what can only be the Shroud was in Constantinople in at least 1201! [see "1201"]. There is even a c. 1070 painting by John Skylitzes (c.1040–1101)[6], depicting the transfer of the Shroud from Edessa to Constantinople in 944, as the

[Above (enlarge)[7]: 11th century depiction by John Skylitzes of the transfer of the Image of Edessa, behind the face image of which is the full-length Shroud [see 15Sep12], from Edessa (left) to Constantinople (right) via Byzantine general John Kourkouas (fl. 915–946) to Byzantine Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 919–944) in 944 [see "944b"]]

full-length Shroud which had been folded behind the face-only Image of Edessa (see above)! That Shroud sceptics don't accept it is irrelevant!

This time I'll talk more about its authenticity. When I was studying for my science degree, we were told that as future scientists, before we wrote on a scientific topic, we should research its literature thoroughly. But it's clear that Kruszelnicki has not studied Shroud pro-authenticity literature, but has cobbled together his arguments against the Shroud from anti-authenticist websites. This is the very antithesis of science! Or as the King James Version put it, "science falsely so called" (1Tim 6:20)!

The first problem with this shroud of Turin being the true and original burial shroud of Jesus Christ, the son of God, is simple: the problem is the other 40 or so burial shrouds of Jesus Christ, each claiming to be the true and original one. This is totally false! See my 15June12 that there are at least 130 copies of the Shroud and most (if not all) of them state on them (as the copy

[Above (enlarge)[8]: The frontal head and upper body area of a copy of the Turin Shroud discovered in 1999 in a box in the monasterial church of Broumov, Czechia (formerly Czechoslovakia). The linen cloth is 4.71 m x 1.2 m, about the same size as the Shroud. Accompanying it was a letter of authenticity from the then Archbishop of Turin, dated 4 May 1651. Unlike the Shroud original, but like all other copies of the Shroud, it has no photographic negative or three-dimensional properties, and the image shows brush strokes and paint particles. Also note the above Latin inscription "EXTRACTVM AB ORIGINALI" (derived from the original)[9]]

above does) that they are copies of the one and only original Shroud. So it is not "the faithful" (Kruszelnicki's patronising term for all Shroud pro-authenticists) but Kruszelnicki and his anti-authenticists ilk who are snubbing the evidence! Moreover, either Kruszelnicki is ignorant that none of these Shroud copies "claim... to be the true and original one," which would be scientific incompetence, or Kruszelnicki knows that at least some of these Shroud copies state on them that they are copies of the original Shroud, but is keeping it from his readers, which would be scientific dishonesty!

Secondly, surely the transference of the image of Christ onto his burial sheet must have counted as a miracle? How come the evangelists, who wrote about many miracles, didn't think this event was worthy of mention? Kruszelnicki begs the question that the reason the evangelists (Gospel writers) did not mention Jesus' image being on the Shroud was because it was not "worthy of mention". But there are several good reasons why the Gospel writers did not mention that Jesus' image was imprinted on the Shroud, which to save time I will list `off the top of my head' with minimal references: ■ The Gospels do not mention the Shroud at all after Jesus' resurrection. The only three Gospel references to Jesus' "linen shroud" (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) occur while Jesus is hanging dead on the cross. ■ Possession of Jesus' burial shroud after He had died in it would have been an embarrassment to the earliest Christians who were Jewish because: a) anything that had touched a dead body was ceremonially unclean in the Law of Moses (Num 19:11-22), and b) an image of Jesus would have been considered idolatrous (Ex 20:4; Dt 5:8) by their Jewish opponents[10]. ■ If the earliest Christians had proclaimed they possessed Jesus' burial shroud, the Jewish religious leaders would: a) regard it as proof of their claim that the disciples had stolen Jesus' dead body (Mat 28:11-15), and b) demand they hand it over, under threat of torture and death. And finally: ■ the image may have developed slowly as it aged faster than the rest of the Shroud and so may not have been visible when the Gospels were being written in the first century AD (the Latent Image Theory)[11].

Thirdly, the shroud first came to notice in the 14th century. We know that "the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed". This is a quote from an article in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia written by extreme anti-authenticist Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939), an English Roman Catholic priest[12]. Thurston provided no reference backing up his assertion and in the 1.7 gigabytes of Shroud literature on my system I cannot find anything with "vivid" and "freshly shed" together. So I assume that Thurston just made it up! If Kruszelnicki didn't know that Thurston was an extreme anti-authenticist, then again he would be scientifically incompetent. Or if Kruszelnicki did know, but concealed it from his readers, he would be scientifically dishonest, on this matter. Moreover, below is a 16th century depiction of the Shroud in a prayer book, presumably owned by Queen Claude of France (1499–1524)[13].

[Above (enlarge)[14]: A mid-16th century depiction of the Shroud in its pre-1532 fire state.]

As can be seen above, although the bishops' clothing is vivid and bright, the image on the Shroud is faint and the blood is dull brown, as it is today, 5 centuries later!

But today the image on the shroud is so faded as to be almost invisible. How could the image keep its brightness for 13 centuries, and then lose it in another five centuries? On the other hand, this is exactly what we would expect to find if it were a 14th century forgery. See above that Kruszelnicki's premise is wrong. There is no evidence that five centuries ago the Shroud's image was vivid and the blood looked fresh, as the extreme anti-authenticist, Thurston, claimed. And there is evidence (see above) that five centuries ago the Shroud's image was faint and the blood brown, as it is today!

Fourthly, the supposed blood on the shroud. There are reddish stains on the wrists, feet and left side of chest of the image. The "reddish stain... on the ... left side of chest of the image" is actually on the man's right side (being laterally inverted like the inside of a plaster cast) and exactly matches that of a Roman lance [see 02Dec13]!

[Left (enlarge): Major bloodstains on the Shroud[15].

Chemicals such as iron, proteins and porphyrins are found in blood. They are also found in these stains. Krusze-lnicki fails to inform his readers, what he surely must know - at least the first one, that the Shroud's "reddish stains": ■ have the blood group AB[16]; contain: ■ haemo-globin[17], ■ albumin[18], ■ bilirubin[19], ■ human immunoglobulins[20], and ■ human male DNA[21]; ■ exhibit blood clot retraction serum halos[22]; and ■ are correct for arterial and venous bloodflows (discovered in 1628!)[23].

Surely this must mean that the stains are the blood of Christ? Nope! For one thing, only fresh blood is red. After a short time, it darkens to deep brown or black. As Kruszelnicki must know, but fails to tell his readers, Shroud blood contains the bile pigment, bilirubin[24] in extraordinarily high amounts[25]. And in cases of severe trauma[26], such as the scourging and crucifixion that Jesus suffered[27], red blood cells are broken and their haemoglobin is converted by the liver into bilirubin[28]. The bilirubin which is yellow-orange colour then mixes with albumin which is also a yellowish orange color, and methemoglobin which is orangey-brown and becomes blood with a red color[29].

For another thing, iron, proteins and porphyrins are indeed found in blood, but they are also found in many red paints and pigments. Kruszelnicki dishonestly set up a strawman and then refuted that:

"A straw man ... is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted ... The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition ... and the subsequent refutation of that false argument... instead of the opponent's proposition" (my emphasis)[30].
He dishonestly selected those components of blood which are also found in non-blood materials such as "paints and pigments." And Kruszelnicki dishonestly ignored those components which are unique to blood and which are also found in the bloodstains on the Shroud (see above and below). In this Kruszelnicki is both "deceiving and being deceived" (2Tim 3:13)!

Walter McCrone is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and has testified in court on forensic cases. He analysed the so-called 'blood' on the shroud, and found that it was red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium. Walter McCrone (1916-2002)" did not "analyse" the blood on the Shroud. He looked through a light microscope at some of STURP's sticky tapes of Shroud bloodstains and dogmatically ignored the actual chemical and physical analysis of STURP scientists:

"In March 1979 the STURP team held its first post-examination meeting in Santa Barbara, California. The first paper was presented by Roger Morris, a physicist from the Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories. He had carried out X-ray fluorescence tests on the Shroud and was able to show from these the presence of iron spread uniformly over the Shroud except in the blood areas, where it was higher than elsewhere. This would be expected in the event of real bloodstains, due to the iron atoms in blood. There was no measurable amount of inorganic substances. A further presentation by Ray Rogers suggested that there were no organic and biological substances present either. When it was Dr McCrone's turn to present his results he stated that the body images had been made by red iron oxide earth pigments. In his opinion the iron oxide had been applied by a finger and the image was therefore a finger painting. He also stated that the blood, too, was made of an iron oxide paint. This flew in the face of the evidence gathered by scientists in the team that had traveled to Turin and the observations made by them. The reaction of Dr Sam Pellicori, an optical physicist from Santa Barbara Research Centre, who had measured the spectrum of iron oxide on numerous occasions, was that the colour from the image was totally wrong for what Dr McCrone was claiming. However, in the face of questions, Dr McCrone insisted that the X-ray fluorescence studies must be wrong and that purely by microscopic examination, without any specific chemical tests for iron oxide, he could confirm the Shroud as being a painting" (my emphasis)[31].
Moreover, there is a fatal flaw in McCrone's and Kruszelnicki's claim that the "reddish stains" on the Shroud are "red ochre and vermilion." First, red ochre is a form of iron oxide, Fe2O3 and as I pointed out in a previous post,
"... there was no difference in iron content between image and non-image areas, proving that the image was not the result of the iron ... [and] ... the tiny amount of iron on the Shroud was too faint to be visible to the naked eye[24Jul20b]."
Second, vermilion, doesn't stay red when exposed to the air (as the Shroud has been for at least six centuries), but turns black:
"Alternatively, if the red color of the blood is due to the presence of vermilion, i.e., mercuric oxide, light exposure will blacken the image, as has been evidenced in many older paintings"[32].

"Vermilion has one important defect: it is liable to darken, or develop a purplish-gray surface sheen. Cennino Cennini [c. 1360–1427] wrote, `Bear in mind ... that it is not in its character to be exposed to air but it is more resistant on panel than on walls since, when it is used and laid on a wall, over a period of time, standing in the air, it turns black'"[33].

Finally, the element sodium is very abundant in blood. But there's no sodium in the stains on the shroud. Not only is this false, it is unscientific! It is unscientific because science does not throw out many known facts because one fact may as yet be unknown. And Prof. Alan D. Adler (1931-2000), a blood chemist, subjected STURP's sticky tapes that had been pressed onto the Shroud in October 1978 to many chemical and physical tests, and he found that "the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!":

"We began our presentation. One by one, we gave our short talks with slides, graphs, spectra, and tried to make them intelligible to the nonscientist ... Adler was asked how he could answer McCrone's claim that there was no blood, but merely a mixture of red ocher and vermilion. Adler flashed on the screen the following table from our paper.
Table 5 Tests confirming the presence of whole blood on the Shroud 1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence 2. Indicative reflection spectra 3. Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra 4. Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence 5. Positive hemochromogen tests 6. Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests 7. Positive detection of bile pigments 8. Positive demonstration of protein 9. Positive indication of albumin 10. Protease tests, leaving no residue 11. Positive immunological test for human albumin 12. Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls 13. Forensic judgment of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks.
Then, after explaining each item briefly, Al said, `That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!'" (emphasis original)[34].
It is false because Adler and Heller deliberately chose not to test whether there was sodium (amongst most other elements) in the evident blood on STURP's sticky tapes:
"Only about ninety elements occur naturally on earth ... Testing for all of them would have been farcical ... We needed to look for elements that, had they been present in small amounts, might have been missed by X-ray fluorescence or X-radiography, and yet were present in sufficient amounts to be seen as color by the human eye. We finally agreed that testing for the following elements would be more than adequate: aluminum, arsenic, antimony, cadmium, calcium, cobalt, chromium, iron, nickel, mercury, manganese, lead, palladium, tin, zinc, and silver"[35].
And McCrone did find Na (sodium) in the evident blood on STURP's sticky tapes:
"In this regard it is interesting to note that the elements other than Hg detected by McCrone's analysis, viz., Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, Cl, K, Ca, Fe and Cu[36], are in fact all found in whole blood"[37].

Fifthly, the weave of the linen. The linen is a herringbone twill weave. This type of weave was not known at the time of Jesus Christ in the Middle East. But it was common in medieval Europe, when the shroud first appeared. This is 180 degrees wrong! (Where does Kruszelnicki get his factoids, or does he just make them up?) The Shroud's complex 3:1 herringbone twill weave is known from antiquity, but only in silk[38] and wool[39], not linen (other than the Shroud). But examples of simpler herringbone woven linen from antiquity do exist[40]. So the same process which produced 3:1 herringbone twill woven silk and wool in antiquity could have been used to produce linen with the same weave[41] but no examples in linen have survived from that period (except the Shroud)[42].

See above on Kruszelnicki's false claim that the Shroud first appeared in medieval Europe. As for Kruszelnicki's claim that herringbone twill weave was common in medieval Europe, there is in fact only one surviving example of 3:1 herringbone twill linen (other than the Shroud), a fourteenth century, block-painted linen fragment with a

[Above (enlarge): The only known example of a herringbone twill weave in linen from the mediaeval (or any) period, apart from the Shroud. The grey part is a reconstruction. Victoria and Albert Museum ref. no. 8615-1863[43].]

3:1 chevron twill weave, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London[44]. And when in 1988 the then British Museum's Dr. Michael Tite needed a sample of medieval linen with a weave that resembled the Shroud's, to use as a blind control sample for its 1988 radiocarbon dating, he was unable to find one[45]!

Sixthly, the absence of brushstrokes on the shroud. It is true to say that there are no signs of brushstrokes on the shroud. Does this prove that the image appeared there only by a miracle? Nope, there are many ways to get an image without brushstroke. This is another strawman by Kruszelnicki (see above). The issue is directionality[46], i.e. "up and down, side to side, etc"[47] (see 29Oct16), of which brushstrokes is but one example[48]. Painting with a spray gun is directional, even though it is not done with strokes of a paint brush[49]. Even pointillism, the "technique of painting in which small, distinct dots of color are applied in patterns to form an image"[50], each dot betrays a slight directional movement[51]. But the Shroud image has no directionality at all[52]! The only apparent exception is the scourge marks, which are directional[53], but these are bloodstains, which are not part of the image. In 1976 STURP's Don Lynn (1932-2000) and Jean Lorre (-2005), working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, used a microdensitometer, which measures variation in image density[54], to scan photos of the Shroud negative[55], four million points for each one[56]. The scanned data in 256 discrete levels of intensity[57] was then processed through a computer[58]. These density studies revealed that the Shroud body

[Right (enlarge)[59]: The computer TV screen showing that the Shroud image's microdensit-ometer data was random and therefore not directional[60]. The white cross in the centre of the screen represents the warp and weft of the weave[61].]

image was non-directional[62] and in particular there was no sign of brush strokes)[63]. The only directional feature found in the Shroud image (apart from the scourge mark bloodstains-see above) was the weave of the cloth underneath[64]. This absence of directionality in the Shroud image is significant because the microdensitometer would have revealed the presence of brush strokes if the image had been painted[65]. Thus the microdensitometer testing further proved that the Shroud image was not painted[66]. [see 11Jul16].

One technique called 'rubbing' has been used to give a result remarkably similar to the image on the shroud. This technique, which is called 'brass rubbing', involves laying a sheet of paper on top of a brass image (usually a face or a full human figure) and then carefully rubbing the paper with graphite, chalk or soft wax. And yes, rubbing automatically gives a negative image (as found on the shroud of Turin). ■ Kruszelnicki here abandons painting as an explanation of the Shroud's image! But as McCrone, who Kruszelnicki cites above, pointed out, painting the Shroud man's image "... is certainly the simplest and probably the only way" that it could have been done by a medieval forger:

"I realize that there are still, perhaps, a majority of people convinced by the carbon-dating that the `Shroud' is medieval, who are still looking for an answer as to how the `Shroud' was produced. Many mechanisms have already been proposed. Some say it was draped wet over a bas-relief to which it was shaped then dabbed with powder or a paint. Some say a painting was prepared and transferred to a cloth in contact with it by pressure. However, I see no reason to doubt that an artist ... simply took up his brush and a dilute red ochre watercolor paint based on scraps of parchment as the vehicle and proceeded to paint the `Shroud.' Why go to all the work of preparing a statue or bas-relief or making a transfer of the image from a primary artist's rendering? A direct approach to painting a dilute watercolor image on a canvas of the proper size is a common sense assumption; Occam's Razor applies here ... It is certainly the simplest and probably the only way an undistorted original image could be prepared"[67].
■ Rubbing is inherently directional[68]. ■ Scientific examinations of the Shroud (e.g. by STURP) have shown that there are no powdered particles or foreign materials added to the body-image fibrils which could account for the coloring and visibility of the image[69]. ■ Magnified photographs of the body image threads do not reveal any applied particles or staining substance coating the image fibrils[70]. ■ Powder or pigment rubbing does not produce a true three-dimensional image[71] [see 05Feb17], contrary to what Kruszelnicki claims. ■ Powder or pigment rubbing is not extremely superficial as the Shroud image is [see 11Nov16] [72]. ■ There is no rubbing from the entire medieval period that is even remotely comparable to the Shroud image[73].

And if you want to use paint, there are lots of ways to apply paint without leaving brushstrokes. First, Kruszelnicki can't have it both ways. He cannot claim that the Shroud image is both a rubbing and a painting! The evidence for one is evidence against the other! Second, this shows why Kruszelnicki set up his second strawman above, claiming that the issue was "brushstrokes" when really it is directionality. There may be "lots of ways to apply paint without leaving brushstrokes" but there is no way to apply paint without leaving evidence of directionality (see above)!

In 1994, Doctors Craig and Bresee wrote in the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology of their experiments with the carbon dust drawing technique. This technique was known in medieval times, and has long been used by medical illustrators. It involves gently brushing a dry powder (charcoal or ground carbon) onto a surface with a soft artist's paintbrush, with many short delicate strokes, each from a different angle. Each brushstroke makes hardly any difference, but many strokes do. They were able to reproduce many of the features of the image on the shroud of Turin, including a complete lack of brushstrokes. Randall Bresee is a Textiles Science professor at the University of Tennessee[74] and Emily Craig is a forensic anthropologist, formerly at the University of Tennessee[75]. In 1992 Craig attended a lecture by Bresee in which he encouraged his audience to come up with ideas of how a mediaeval artist might have produced the Shroud image[76]. As a medical illustrator specializing in reconstructing faces from skeletal remains[77], Craig developed what they called in their 1994 journal article, "Image Formation and the Shroud of Turin"[78], a "dust transfer" technique[79]. This involved Craig sketching on white drawing paper a

[Above (enlarge)[80]: Top left: The dry powder sketch on paper that was the starting point Emily Craig's `replication' of the Shroud face. Top right: The image created on cloth when the original powder drawing on paper is burnished onto this with a spoon. Bottom left: A negative photograph of Craig's top right Shroud face `replication'. Bottom right: A negative photo of the Shroud face. As can be seen, the negative of Craig's `replication' of the Shroud face lacks the photographic realism (and the bloodstains) of the Shroud negative[81].

" ... to me their face on the cloth looks just what it is, a rather amateurishly hand-painted face that has been faintly transferred to a piece of linen, thereby offering a superficial resemblance to the Shroud, but that is all" (Ian Wilson)[82]]

charcoal portrait of a fellow graduate student's face, working with a dry brush to indicate in shades of dark those areas that she would normally have left light, and vice versa[83]. Then, taking a piece of cloth the same size as the paper sketch, Craig laid the sketch face down on the cloth and rubbed the back of the sketch with a wooden spoon in circles to transfer a left-to-right reversed imprint of the image onto the cloth[84]. This lost all evidence of Craig's original brush-strokes[85]. The cloth was then heated[86]. Craig then photographed the imprint to see what it would look like in negative and in her opinion it was a "perfect' parallel to the Shroud's hidden 'photograph'[87]! She went on to repeat the procedure using iron oxide instead of charcoal[88].

Problems with Craig and Bresee's Shroud `replication' include: ■ Craig and Bresee started their Shroud `replication' from a photo of the Shroud face itself, but how did the hypothetical forger get the original Shroud face[89]? ■ There is no evidence on the Shroud of the dry powder which is Craig and Bresee's image[90]. ■ Craig's circular spoon burnishing would still be directional[91]. Craig and Bresee's image is visible within a short distance, but the Shroud image cannot be seen within six to ten feet (2-3 metres) [see 08Mar16][92]. ■ Being face only Craig and Bresee's Shroud `replication' avoids all the complexities of creating the Shroud's double full-length image[93]. For starters their method could not depict the intricate details found on each of the 100-120 scourge marks, many of which are invisible to the naked eye[94]. ■ It would be impossible to evenly heat a 14 foot (4 metre) length of linen with medieval instruments[95]. ■ It exhibits modelling and contour faults which betray the hand of a human illustrator[96]. ■ Its colour is too red[97]. ■ Craig and Bresee's `replication' does not include the Shroudman's bloodstains (see above), presumably because the Shroud's bloodstains were on the cloth before the body imprint [see 05Nov17][98]. ■ Nor do they explain the chemical changes in the cellulose of the body image[99]. ■ Craig and Bresee claim that their technique had historical support from the mediaeval Italian artist Cennino Cennini (c. 1360–1427), who in his Il Libro dell'Arte, wrote of "instruction for grinding pigment into powder, brushing charcoal with feathers and burning an image onto cloth"[100]. But Cennini's book contains nothing about the "dust transfer" method that Craig and Bresee claim was used to create the Shroud image[101]. Craig and Bresee's initial drawing, to accurately depict all the qualities of the Shroud, would require a degree of draftsmanship and knowledge that didn't exist in the Middle Ages[102]. Craig and Bresee claim that the drawings of animals during prehistoric times in the caves at Lascaux, France were created with a dust drawing technique, but they were drawn with burnt sticks and moreover they were not negative images[103] - the concept of negativity did not exist until the early 19th century [see 22Dec16]! Craig and Bresee admit, "it is impossible to satisfy simultaneously all observations reported for the Turin image"[104]! Their excuse, "because many reported observations conflict"[105] is not only lame - it is deluded! Craig and Bresee "concluded that a 13th or 14th century artist could have created the image on the cloth known as the shroud of Turin"[106], but to do that they would have needed to address each one of those major observations [see 26Dec15] and show how their "dust transfer" method could have explained them. Because they didn't (or rather couldn't), as Wilson noted, Craig and Bresee's "explanation for the Shroud's imprint, it is hardly convincing and has failed to attract any wide support"[107]!

Seventhly, the weird 3D information of the image on the shroud. In 1977, Donald Lynne and Jean Lorre announced that the image on the shroud had a supposedly unique mathematical property. It is "Lynn" not "Lynne." And while Lynn and Lorre provided the microdensitometer data (see above) it was STURP's John P. Jackson and William R. Ercoline who found that data could be expressed mathematically as, "a single global mapping function":

"But as Dr. Jackson demonstrated,the Shroud image is three-dimensionally `consistent with a body shape covered with a naturally draping cloth and which can be derived from a single, global mapping function relating image shading with distance between these two surfaces"[108] (see below).

[Above enlarge: "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape"[109].

"... the frontal image on the Shroud of Turin is shown to be consistent with a naturally draping cloth in the sense that image shading can be derived from a single global mapping function of distance between these two surfaces..."[110].

If you assume that the darkest parts of the image are the ones closest to the viewer, and the lightest parts the ones furthest away, then you can reconstruct a 3D image of the face. This was absolutely amazing, if it was unique to the shroud of Turin. But it was not. In fact, it was incredibly easy to duplicate. In 1994, Doctors Craig and Bresee used the carbon dust drawing technique to make their own image on a shroud. And yes, it had the same 3D information. This is misleading. Starting with a negative photo of the Shroud face before them, Craig and Bresee carefully added carbon dust to their `replication' until it had the same three-dimensional structure as the Shroud face:

"To duplicate the characteristics of the image on the Turin cloth, a faint negative image had to be created in a way that revealed no brush strokes and accurately represented detailed three-dimensional structure. We dipped the tip of a clean, dry, soft artist's paintbrush into dry dust, gently tapped the brush to remove excess dust, and then drew the brush across a drawing surface in short, delicate strokes. The amount of dust applied with individual brush strokes was nearly indiscernible to the naked eye, but the brush strokes were repeated again and again from slightly different angles to build up dust in areas corresponding to the greatest numbers of brush strokes"[111].
But this does not mean that a medieval forger would have built up the Shroud's three-dimensionality in this way: ■ Accurate three-dimensional perspective in art was not discovered until the early fifteenth century[112]. ■ Again, Craig and Bresee's `replication' is of the Shroud face only (see above). Until they replicate the entire double full length image of the Shroud (see above), they (and Kruszelnicki) cannot truthfully claim that "a 13th or 14th century artist could have created the image on the cloth known as the shroud of Turin" (see above). ■ Craig and Bresee's Shroud `replication' does not include the Shroudman's bloodstains (see above). They claim that, "With this drawing technique, one can also incorporate images of wounds, as well as blood evidence into the illustration"[113]. But until they actually do "incorporate ... blood" into their `replication' they cannot truthfully claim that they can. And because the blood was on the Shroud before the image (see above), they would have to: 1) apply fresh clotted human blood in the correct locations to the cloth; 2) add the carbon dust to their drawing around where the blood is on the cloth; 3) press the dusted drawing to the cloth, 4) without smearing the blood, and then 5) heat both without cooking the blood! But as the professional artist and physicist Isabel Piczek (1927-2016) pointed out, "it would be impossible":
"Also, it is known that the blood transferred itself to the Shroud before the image did and there is therefore no image underneath the blood. How would the dust transfer technique of Craig and Bresee reproduce that? We must admit, it would be impossible"[114]

So next time, I'll finish this story bringing a little more science to bear on the famous shroud of Turin. I haven't read Kruszelnicki's other articles on the Shroud and nor do I intend to waste any more of my time doing so. If they are anything like this false and unscientific article, Kruszelnicki should retract it and them! Kruszelnicki is abusing science to push his anti-Christian personal prejudice. He is yet another Shroud sceptic example of `the blind leading the blind' (Mt 15:14; Lk 6:39):

[Above (enlarge)[115]: "The Blind Leading the Blind," 1568, by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c.1525-1569).]

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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 title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "File:Karl Kruszelnicki Usyd.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 21 July 2018. [return]
3. "Karl Kruszelnicki: Education," Wikipedia, 12 July 2020. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. "A leap of faith with science and God," The [Adelaide] Advertiser, Clare Peddie, March 2, 2012. [return]
6. "John Skylitzes," Wikipedia, 6 May 2020. [return]
7. "File:Surrender of the Mandylion to the Byzantines.jpg," in "Chronography of John Skylitzes, cod. Vitr. 26-2, folio 131a, Madrid National Library, Wikimedia Commons, 20 December 2012. [return]
8. "Broumovo vienuolynas," Mytrips.It, 1 September, 2011. [return]
9. Bazant-Hegemark, L., 1999, "Report on the Czechia Shroud Copy, Shroud.com. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.107. [return]
11. Morgan, R.H., 1981, "What the scientists told me: Interview with Sam Pellicori," No. 9, Shroud News, 18th September, pp.3-7, 7; 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, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, pp.3-49, 24, 33, 36; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.19; Wilson, I., 1987, "A New Theory of the Shroud's Image Formation - by Oswald Scheuermann," BSTS Newsletter, No. 16, May, pp.8-9; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.221-222; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.216. [return]
12. Thurston, H., 1912, "The Holy Shroud (of Turin)," The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent, 2020. [return]
13. Donandoni, E., 2016, "5 minutes with ... The earliest painted representation of the Turin Shroud," Christie's, 7 June. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal: Major bloodstains overlay.," Sindonology.org. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.96; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.210; Baima-Bollone, P. & Zaca, S., 1998, "The Shroud Under the Microscope: Forensic Examination," Neame, A., transl., St Pauls: London, pp.22-23; Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, pp.38-39; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.67; 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.89; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.28; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.76; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.49; Oxley, 2010, p.8. [return]
17. Wilson, 1998, p.89; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.28; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.49; Oxley, 2010, p.8. [return]
18. 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, 21. [return]
19. Antonacci, 2000, p.28; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.76. [return]
20. Iannone, 1998, p.66; Antonacci, 2000, p.28. [return]
21. Iannone, 1998, pp.67-68; Antonacci, 2000, p.28; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.77. [return]
22. Iannone, 1998, p.66; Antonacci, 2000, pp.27-28. [return]
23. Rodante, S., 1981, "The Coronation of Thorns in the Light of the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 1, December, pp.4-24; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.20; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 26; Iannone, 1998, pp.66-67; Wilson, 1998, pp.33-34; Antonacci, 2000, pp.25-26; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, pp.57-58; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.99. [return]
24. Antonacci, 2000, p.29; Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.34-57, 39. [return]
25. Adler, A.D., 1986, "The Origin and Nature of Blood on the Turin Shroud," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.59-66, 61; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.105. [return]
26. Adler, 1986, p.61; Adler, A.D., 2000b, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138, 129; Adler, 2000c, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.29; Guerrera, 2001, p.64; de Wesselow, 2012, p.105. [return]
27. Adler, 1986, p.61; Adler, 2000b, p.135; Adler, 2000c, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.29. [return]
28. Adler, 1986, p.61; Adler, 2000c, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.29; de Wesselow, 2012, p.105. [return]
29. Adler, 1986, p.61; Adler, 2000c, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.29; de Wesselow, 2012, p.105. [return]
30. "Straw man," Wikipedia, 9 August 2020. [return]
31. Oxley, 2010, pp.213-214. [return].
32. Adler, A.D. & Schwalbe, L.A., 1993, "Conservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.73-80, 75 (footnotes omitted). [return]
33. "Vermilion: Chemistry and manufacture," Wikipedia, 27 June 2020 (footnotes omitted). [return]
34. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.215-216. [return]
35. Heller, 1983, pp.188-189. [return]
36. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.136. [return]
37. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.48. [return]
38. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.74; Antonacci, 2000, pp.98-99; de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
39. de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
40. Tyrer, J., 1983, "Looking at the Turin Shroud as a Textile," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 6, March, pp.35-45. [return]
41. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.74; Antonacci, 2000, p.99; de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
42. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.12. [return]
43. Extract from, "Weaving, block printing: Techniques: Facets: V&A Spelunker by Good, Form & Spectacle" (no longer online) [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, pp.69-70. [return]
45. Wilson, 1998, p.68; Wilson, 2010, p.75. [return]
46. Borkan, 1995, p.40. [return]
47. Antonacci, 2000, p.38. [return]
48. Heller, 1983, p.150; Drews, 1984, p.16. [return]
49. Habermas, G.R., "Discussion: Antony G.N. Flew, Gary R. Habermas, Terry L. Miethe, and W. David Beck," in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.120. [return]
50. "Pointillism," Wikipedia, 21 August 2020. [return]
51. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.26. [return]
52. Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
53. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 287; Borkan, 1995, p.25. [return]
54. Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, 237; Antonacci, 2000, p.37; Oxley, 2010, p.204. [return]
55. Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
56. Heller, 1983, p.137. [return]
57. Culliton, 1978, p.237. [return]
58. Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
59. Antonacci, M., 2016, "Test The Shroud: At the Atomic and Molecular Levels," Forefront Publishing Company: Brentwood TN, p.7. [return]
60. Antonacci, 2016, p.7. [return]
61. Ibid. [return]
62. Heller, 1983, p.137; Meacham, 1983, p.287; Antonacci, 2000, p.37; de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
63. de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
64. Antonacci, 2000, p.38. [return]
65. Ibid. [return]
66. Antonacci, 2000, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
67. McCrone, 1999, p.122. [return]
68. Borkan, 1995, p.22. [return]
69. Case, 1996, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.73; Tribbe, 2006, p.153. [return]
70. Antonacci, 2000, p.73. [return]
71. Antonacci, 2000, p.73; Guerrera, 2001, p.79. [return]
72. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.31; Antonacci, 2000, p.74; Guerrera, 2001, p.77; Oxley, 2010, p.252. [return]
73. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.31-32; Guerrera, 2001, p.78. [return]
74.Wilson, 1998, p.202; Antonacci, 2000, p.76. [return]
75.Wilson, 1998, p.202; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, pp.121-122; Wilson, 2010, p.26. [return]
76. Wilson, 1998, p.202; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
77. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
78. Wilson, 1998, p.202. [return]
79. Craig, E.A. & Bresee, R.R., 1994, "Image Formation and the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, January-February, pp.59-67; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122; Wilson, 2010, p.26. [return]
80. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, pp.122-123. [return]
81. Wilson, 1998, p.203; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, pp.122-123. [return]
82. Wilson, 1998, p.203. [return]
83. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122; Wilson, 2010, p.26. [return]
84. Antonacci, 2000, p.77; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
85. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
86. Wilson, 1998, p.202; Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
87. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
88. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
89. Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.103-112, 107. [return]
90. Adler, 1999, p.107; Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
91. Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
92. Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
93. Piczek, I., 1994, "A Response to the Craig-Bresee Theory," Shroud News, No. 83, June, pp.15-18, 16; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
94. Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
95. Piczek, 1994, p.16. [return]
96. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
97. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
98. Piczek, 1994, p.17; Adler, 1999, p.107; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
99. Adler, 1999, p.107. [return]
100. Craig & Bresee, 1994; Wilson, 1998, p.202. [return
101. Piczek, 1994, p.16; Wilson, 1998, pp.202-203. [return]
102. Piczek, 1994, p.16. [return]
103. Craig & Bresee, 1994; Piczek, 1994, p.16. [return]
104. Craig & Bresee, 1994; Borkan, 1995, p.44; 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.137. [return]
105. Craig & Bresee, 1994. [return]
106. Craig & Bresee, 1994. [return]
107. Wilson, 2010, p.26. [return]
108. Jackson, J.P. & Ercoline, W.R., 1982, "The Three-Dimensional Characteristics of the Shroud Image," IEEE 11982 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, October, pp.559-575, 575, in Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.32-33. [return]
109. Jackson, et. al, 1984, "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape," Applied Optics, Vol. 23, No. 14, pp. 2244-2270. [return]
110. Wilson, I., 1985, "Some Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 9, January. [return]
111. Craig & Bresee, 1994. [return]
112. "Perspective (graphical): Renaissance: mathematical basis," Wikipedia, 12 August 2020. [return]
113. Craig & Bresee, 1994. [return]
114. Piczek, 1994, p.17. [return]
115. "File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1568) The Blind Leading the Blind.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 1 July 2020. [return]

Posted: 15 August 2020. Updated: 5 March 2021.

Saturday, August 8, 2020

"News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, July 2020

Shroud of Turin News - July 2020
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: June 2020] [Next: August & September 2020]

This is the July 2020 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. As in June, there were no news articles about the Shroud in July worth mentioning. So in their place I will again list under news, an old Shroud-related article. This time it is a 2009 anti-Shroud article by Australian science populariser and evident atheist/agnostic (he was Australian Skeptics' 2006 "Australian Skeptic Of The Year"), Dr Karl Kruszelnicki.


News:
"Evidence snubbed by famous shroud faithful," Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science, ABC (Australia), Karl S. Kruszelnicki, 26 August 2009.

Because of its growing length, I have decided to move my response to this article to a separate next post, "My reply to Dr Karl Kruszelnicki's, `Evidence snubbed by famous shroud faithful,' ABC Australia, 26 August 2009."

[Right: "Part of the Turin shroud [sic] as shown in this August 1978 photograph (Source: Reuters)" (article)]

Editorial
Posts: In July I blogged 7 new posts (latest uppermost):
"Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Seventeenth century," - 26th; "`News and Editorial,' Shroud of Turin News, June 2020" - 24th; "Central dilemma of the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #18," - 18th; "Was radiocarbon dated 1260-1390: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #17," - 14th; "Man has wounds matching those of Jesus: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #16," - 12th; "Bears image of a naked man: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #15," - 6th; "Has been in Turin since 1578: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #14," - 5th.

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 July 2020, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 1,215,907:

This compares with 1,085,419 at the same time in July 2019. That is 130,488 pageviews over the year, or an average of ~357 pageviews per day.

Google Analytics also gave the most viewed posts for July 2020 (highest uppermost) as: "Date index 2020: The Shroud of Turin blog," Feb 14, 2020 - 1113; "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F," Jan 20, 2016 - 339; "`The Turin Shroud is a fake ... and it's one of 40': Antonio Lombatti," Jun 15, 2012 - 144; "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (2): Poker holes," Mar 6, 2013 - 119 & "`Ian Wilson's Turin Shroud theories are the worst kind of junk history'," Apr 17, 2010 - 119.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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 title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Posted: 8 August 2020. Updated: 18 October 2020.