Thursday, December 21, 2023

Kim Dreisbach's "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" in favor of the Shroud's authenticity - part 3

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

Continuing from part 1 and part 2, this is part 3 of Rev. Albert Russel `Kim” Dreisbach Jr. (1934-2006)'s "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" in favor of the Shroud's authenticity. See part 1 for information about this series. My comments are in bold.




John Tyrer. Chartered Textile Technologist. Associate of the Textile Institute and Associate of the Manchester College of Technology(UMIST)

"It would be reasonable to conclude the linen textiles with `Z' twist yarns and woven 3/1 reversing twill similar to the Turin Shroud could have been produced in first-century Syria or Palestine ... Turning from the ancient world to medieval Europe, ... it appears that linen textiles similar to the Shroud have not survived in any number from the early fourteenth century" (Shroud Spectrum International, No. 6, March, 1983, p. 38.).

" The arguments against the Shroud being a contact print are; that the image would suffer lateral distortion due to the fabric's draping around the sides, and that the imprint would be only two tones, like a brass rubbing. There is no lateral distortion in the Shroud image and it shows remarkable gradations and subtleties in shading. It must be remembered that in 1350, it would be at least another generation before printing, woodcuts and engravings would be introduced into Europe." (Ibid., p. 41.).


The late Dr. Max Frei-Sulzer, palynologist. Founder and Director of the Scientific Service of the Criminal Police of Zurich, Switzerland.

Dr. Frei identified 58 separate types of pollen which he had taken directly from the Shroud by applying a special adhesive tape to its threads. Dr Frei concluded that pollen grains from the Shroud from biblical Palestine, the Anatolian steppe, and those from plants indigenous to the area of Constantinople

"are so numerous compared to the species from Europe that a casual contamination or a pollen transport from the Near East by storms* in different seasons cannot be responsible for their presence. The predominance of these pollen types must be the result of the Shroud's stay in such countries where these plants form part of the normal vegetation. A transport by migrating birds or contamination of desert plants by pilgrims can be excluded because they had no possibility of direct contact with the Shroud." (Unpublished manuscript by Max Frei-Sulzer. The Pollens on the Shroud of Turin., p. 14).

* i.e. no single exposure can account for all the pollens as plants germinate at different seasons of the year.

"A by-product of my microscopical studies of the Shroud must be seen in the discovery that none of the pollen grains is covered with tempera This is strong evidence against the suggestion that the Shroud is a painted fake." (Ibid. p. 15.).

"It is a cloth that has been in Palestine, Turkey, France and Italy. These data confirm the geographic part of its history, which is the only aspect verifiable with the palynographic method." (Max Frei-Sulzer. "A Contribution to the Study of the Problem of Authenticity of the Shroud based on Microscopic traces." Zurich; 3Aug76, p .14.).


Dr. Joseph Kohlbeck, Chief Chemist and optical crystallographer, Hercules Aerospace Division, Salt Lake City, Utah.

In comparing the dirt from the foot area of the Shroud with limestone samples from tombs near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem, Dr. Kohlbeck discovered that:

"(When) we ... examined a calcium sample from the shroud taken from the area known as the 'bloody foot' ... (it) showed a larger concentration of calcium carbonate than other areas. The calcium carbonate turned out to be aragonite, not the more common calcite - and exhibited small amounts of strontium and iron.

Further analysis was conducted by Dr. Ricardo Levi-Setti, of the Enrico Fermi Institute of the University of Chicago, who put both Shroud and Jerusalem samples through his high-resolution scanning ion microprobe and produced graphs; these graphs revealed that the samples were an unusually close match ... aragonite with these traces can no doubt be found elsewhere in the world as well as in Jerusalem. On the other hand, those who claim the shroud is a 14th century forgery need to explain how the aragonite got there"· (Joseph A. Kohlbeck and Eugenia L. Nitkowski. "New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin; Chemical tests link Shroud to Jerusalem." Biblical Archaeological Review. July/August 1986, Vol. XII, No. 4, pgs. 23-24.)

[Above (enlarge): Prof. Ricardo Levi-Setti (1927–2018)'s scanning ion microprobe comparisons of Jerusalem limestone (black) and limestone on Shroud (red)[KN86]. As can be seen above, from their spectral patterns, the Shroud foot and Jerusalem tomb limestone samples were a very close match [WI98, 106; WS00, 93; DT12, 114 See 27Dec18].


Prior to the. 6th. century, only vague. and widely varied "portraits" of Christ (i.e. usually a beardless youth, Appello-like, often depicted as a shepherd) are known to the art historian. Yet


"at one given point, the sixth century, the features of Christ in art were brought into focus, as if by an invisible decree. The hair became long and center-parted, the beard established and decisively forked, the nose longer and more pronounced, the eyes deeper and their pupils larger, and the whole countenance set in a rigidly front-facing attitude. There is an authority about it that seems to suggest that someone, somewhere suddenly knew what Jesus had looked like ... (and more amazing) It is surely a remarkable coincidence that the Shroud likeness was followed so exactly." (Ian Wilson, The Shroud of Turin. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1979, pgs. 102-103.)

Since the pioneering work of Vignon, Sandhurst, Fr, Maurus Green and Wilson himself with this Iconographic Theory, Dr. Alan Whanger and his wife Mary have developed an amazing "Polarized Image Overlay Technique", a new image comparison method which allows for even more precise methods of pain-by-point comparison of images. In studying the Face of Christ on a gold Byzantine solidus struck ca. A.D. 692-695, the Whangers discovered over 70 points of "congruity" or similarity with the Shroud's facial image - a discovery even more amazing when one considers that the solidus is approximately the. size of a US. nickel. ["However, I regret to say that, as congenial as this is to Shroud pro-authenticists (including me who had cited it in the past), Whanger's PC argument has several major flaws (some of which he tacitly admitted above), that invalidate it." (02 Jan18). It isn't that there is not congruity between Justinian II (r. 685-95 & 705-11)'s gold solidus coin and the Shroud-there obviously is (see below). But Whanger's claiming a precise, large, number of points of congruity is hopelessly subjective:

"We called these points of congruence (PC). This was carefully and meticulously done, and we [Alan and Mary Whanger] did not draw in anything unless we both could see and be certain that it was really there"[WW98, 19].
As can be seen below, Jesus' face on the Justinian II c. 692 gold solidus coin bears a striking resemblance to the face of the man on the Shroud[PM96, p.195; SD89, 84-85].

[Above (enlarge): Comparison of positive (left) of the Shroud face (enhanced)[SSF] and a Justinian II 692 gold solidus coin cropped). By my count there are at least 12 out of 15 Vignon markings on Jesus' face on this coin that are also found on the Shroud of Turin[11Feb12 & 24Jan17]. It is obvious that the engraver of this late 7th century coin based his design on the face of the man on the Shroud: ~568 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud! And ~663 years before the Shroud first appeared in 1355, in undisputed history, at Lirey, France!]

In fact, this study "throws up so many areas of congruity, including even the matching of Christ's neckline on the coin portrait with a persistent accidental crease on the Shroud, that to Whanger it has seemed self-evident that the Shroud must somehow have served as inspiration for the Byzantine coin. Exploring other Byzantine images, he alighted on the intriguing sixth- century Pantocrator icon from Sr. Catherine's monastery, Sinai ... (ca. A. D. 550-590) ... Following a painstaking study undertaken with his wife, Mary, Whanger claims the identification of no fewer than one hundred and seventy points of congruity between the Shroud image and the sixth-century icon. To them, and to many who have studied their work, it seems irrefutable that artists at least as early as the sixth century somehow had available to them either the Shroud, or a detailed copy of it, seven centuries before, according to Dr. McCrone, the image was devised by some cunning medieval artist." Ian Wilson. The Mysterious Shroud. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1986, p.110.).

Shroud scholars are well aware that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud of Turin was rediscovered in a niche above Edessa's west gate following a near disastrous flood in, 525. [This was Ian Wilson's 1978 theory, based on the 945 "Official History of the Image of Edessa" but it suffers from multiple implausibilities:

• The Shroud (as the Image of Edessa "four-doubled" tetradiplon), was according to the 945 Official History [see "945c"] fastened to a board and hung over Edessa's main gate in all weather (which varied from freezing snow in Winter to 40°C heat in Summer) for ~25 years, from ~AD 32 when Edessa's King Abgar V (r. 4 BC-AD 50) was healed by Jesus' disciple Thaddeus to the reign in 57 of Abgar V's pagan younger son Ma'nu VI (57–71) [08Jan19].

According to the "Official History" after the pagan King Ma'nu VI began to reign in 57, to ensure its safety, "the likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ not made by hand" was bricked up inside the public gate of Edessa, and then completely forgotten for almost five centuries until its discovery in 544 [see "544"] during the Persian King Khosrow II (590-628)'s Siege of Edessa. However, this story is most implausible. Did not Ma'nu VI, or any of his guards or officials, notice that the Image of Edessa they were seeking to destroy, was where it had previously been but only behind fresh brickwork? [24Jul16]. Did not a maintenance worker, or anyone, go inside Edessa's main gate wall structure for almost five centuries from ~57-544?

Likewise Ian Wilson's theory, based on that "Official History" story, that the Image of Edessa/Shroud was discovered in 525, during the rebuilding of Edessa's flood damaged wall[WI79, 254], suffers from the same multiple implausibilities above and it does not even have the support of the "Official History" that the Image of Edessa/Shroud was discovered during the 544 Persian siege of Edessa! [07Dec16].

Thus, those who argue for a "medieval" (sic) date have the seemingly impossible task of explaining how sixth century artists were able to copy so exactly a work which was not produced until the 14th century. Even if we allow Dr. Richard Luckett's theory that the Shroud of Turin was produced from an actual human corpse It wasn't Luckett. Dr. Richard Luckett (1945-2020) was a Cambridge University librarian. On 26 August 1988, while the carbon dating was still in progress, he leaked to the London Evening Standard newspaper that, "a date of 1350 `looks likely'" (which was in fact the very first date of the Shroud by Arizona laboratory[GH96, 264]):

"The furore began after Dr Richard Luckett, a fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge, wrote in the Evening Standard yesterday [26 August 1988] that a date of 1350 `looks likely' for the 14ft piece of linen, which bears the imprint of the face, the thorns, and wounds of Jesus’s body. He referred to laboratories as `leaky institutions'. A fragment of the shroud is being radiocarbon-dated at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art at Oxford"[RT15].
But apart from a further, "I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories and it wasn't Oxford"[GH96, 279] (which meant the leak was either from Arizona or Zurich), Luckett said nothing else about the Shroud. Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the informal leader of the 1988 radiocarbon dating laboratories, said of Luckett that he was, "a man I had never heard of before or since"[GH96, 282]. Ian Wilson deduced, and publicly stated, that the source of the leaks to Luckett and columnist Kenneth Rose (1924-2014) was David Sox (1936-2016) [24Jun14; 19Jan16; 22Feb16; 22Nov16; 15Aug17; 06Aug18 & 03Aug19]. Gove realised that Luckett's "1350" date must have "come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement":
"I must say I wondered about Luckett's date of 1350 because it was the date Donahue announced to me when I was present at the first radiocarbon measurement on the shroud in 6 May 1988. Of course, it also corresponds very closely to the shroud's known historic date. However, I still assumed Luckett had said he got the number from Oxford. When I read that he claimed he got it from one of the other two labs I worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement"[GH96, 279].
And Sox `just happened' to have worked as a teacher for at

[Right: Photograph of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances ..." (my emphasis)[BB00].This is consistent with my theory (see "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker") that the KGB executed confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–89) between 23 and 30 May 1989[21Jul14; 02Jun16; 17May15; 27May19; 03Feb21], and police publicly identified the body as Koch on 3 June 1989, and the KGB executed Linick a day later on 4 June 1989[05Jul14; 17May15; 31Mar15; 30Jun15; 03Aug19; 30Dec15; 22Feb16; 02Jun16; 30Jul16]; where their murders by the KGB were made to look like suicides to stop them revealing that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as 1260-1390 (1325 ±65) was the result of a KGB-sponsored computer hacking by Linick, aided by Koch[05Jul14; 13Dec14; 31Mar15; 22Feb16; 02Jun16]; 30Jul16; 03Feb21].]

least 12 years from 1978 to 1995 (which included 1988) at the same American School in London with Anthony Linick who was a half-brother of Arizona physicist Timothy Linick (1946-89)[22Feb16; 03Aug19]. And, according to my hacker theory, Timothy Linick was both the leaker to Sox of Arizona's first "1350" radiocarbon date of the Shroud and also the hacker who wrote a program which substituted the actual Shroud radiocarbon dates of Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, with bogus computer-generated dates, which when combined and averaged, yielded a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 or 1325 ±65 years. See above which is from 21Mar23.

- "custom crucified" if you would and subject to the same "passion" as the historical Jesus of Nazareth - the fabricator this macabre "medieval 'shroud" would have had to select for a victim one whose physiography was an exact duplicate of the one meticulously rendered by icon painters from at least 6th century onwards. It was the British Museum's Michael Tite who claimed that (albeit in 2020 but presumably he had also said it in 1988):

"Rob Walker spoke to Professor Michael Tite, who supervised the testing process, during the BBC's Witness History podcast ... `I don't believe it was the Shroud, but I believe it is highly probable that there was a body in there – it was the time of the Crusades and an appropriate way to humiliate a Christian would be to crucify him.'"[HC20].
But: • The only crusade compatible with the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was the "Ninth" or "Lord Edward's crusade (1271-72)." And it would have been well-known in that small crusade if the Muslims had crucified a crusader in imitation of Jesus, but there is no record of it. • The Muslims would have had to be experts in Roman crucifixion. • Where did the Muslims or the victim's fellow crusaders, get a ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre (~14.4 x ~3.6 feet) fine linen cloth to wrap the crusader victim in? • How was the crusader victim's image imprinted on that cloth? For starters! See 09Sep23.


Dr. Luigi Gonella, Professor of Physics at Turin Polytechnic, Scientific Advisor to the Archbishop of Turin and Supervisor of the 1978 testing program.

"(While) making measurements on Shroud photos looking for-correlations in the spatial distribution of the image brightness, (American physicists John Jackson and Eric Jumper [Jumper is an engineer] discovered that) ... the shading structure of the Image. was found to be well correlated with the cloth-body distance of a Shroud-like cloth draped over a man laying in the picture shown by the Shroud. This 'three-dimensional characteristic' is a measured structural feature of the Shroud image which appears quite unique and must be accounted for by an acceptable theory of image formation. The main point is that three-dimensional information is encoded in the image structure; this is unheard of in paintings or photos ... a 3-D brightness mapping of a normal portrait results in evident, unavoidable distortions and plateaus. To get such a structure by eye-hand coordination, especially in a low-contrast image, appears to be technically impossible, Moreover, the Fourier analysis of the Shroud image shows a random spectrum of spatial frequencies without any preferred direction, another feature inconsistent with handwork." (Luigi Gonella. "Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin - Problems, Results, and Methodological Lessons," Turin Shroud – Image of Christ, Hong Kong: Cosmos Printing Press, Ltd, 1986, pg. 31.)




Pierre Barbet, M.D. Surgeon and student of the Shroud for over three decades. Author of A Doctor at Calvary. In arguing against the Shroud being a mediaeval forgery, Dr. Pierre Barbet made the following observations:

A) "No artist would have been able to imagine for himself the minute details of those pictures (i.e. the exact markings of `the bloodstained pictures (which) were clearly not drawn by the hand of man'), each one of which portrayed a detail of what we now know about the coagulation of blood, but which in the 14th century was unknown." (Pierre. Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary, New York; Image Books, 1963, pg. 1)
B) "Never has any artist wished to make an entirely naked crucifix. Now this is just what we shall find on the shroud. Could a forger possibly have conceived such an abnormal idea, and one which is so shocking to all our artistic traditions of decency and reverence?" (Ibid., p. 68.)
C) "Though the Shroud clearly depicts the nails in the center of the wrists, most artists unfamiliar with the subtleties of the original Greek took "hand" (i.e. which included the wrist and forearm) to mean only the "palm."
"We shall see, however, that the Bolognese artists of the XVIth century were the first to recognise ... that this crucifixion in the palms of the. hands was an impossibility (Ibid. p. 103). (Note: Msgr. Paleotti, the Archbishop of Bologna, after seeing the Shroud in 1578 in the company of St. Charles Borromeo on its initial arrival in Turin from Chambéry in France, wrote a detailed description of it in 1598, perhaps the first such description to appear in Bologna. "Attached to it there is a very minute copy of the shroud showing the bloodstained images with their colours. It is in places the work of the most marvellous intuition, for one has to remember that the author can have known very little about anatomy." (Ibid. p.111.)

Today we know that a nail through the palm would not have supported the weight of the body and would have torn itself out of the "hand." However, such experiments proving this point "belong not to the Middle Ages but to the Renaissance - to that very XVIth century which saw the flowering of anatomical studies." (Ibid, p. 12.)

D) Nails driven through the wrists damage the nerve responsible for flexing the thumb inward towards the palm. "That is why, on the shroud, the two hands ... only. show four fingers, and why the two thumbs are hidden in the palms. Could a forger have imagined this? Indeed, so true is this that many ancient copyists of the shroud have added the thumbs; in the same way they have separated the feet and shown their forward faces with two nail holes; but none of this is to be seen on the shroud." (Ibid. p. 9.)
Alan Adler, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut State University, and member of STURP.
E) "The evidence for blood taken from the `wound' areas of the image is quite strong. Contrary to what has been claimed by our detractors (Note: Dr. Walter Mccrone argues that the Shroud is a forgery, painted by a medieval forger delicately applying water colors), the image and the bloodstains categorically are not composed of iron oxide pigment in a collagen binder. Iron is of course present in the blood areas in a slightly higher proportion than in normal blood, as would be expected in the traumatic conditions suggested by the nature of the wounds. The amount of iron is, however, quite small ... The material we were testing gave the right reflection spectrum for blood, and it gave the right transmission spectrum. It gave a positive hemochromagen test, which is the standard test for blood. It gave positive detection of bile pigments, positive demonstration of protein, positive indication of albumin, it did respond to the protease tests, and it did match the controls prepared in the lab ... Finally, we did immuno-chemical tests for whole human serum and for globulin ... In sum, our testing showed that the substance composing the bloodstains on the Shroud is a blood-derived material; it is definitely from primate blood, and it is the exudate of a wound." (Alan D. Adler, "The Origin and Nature of Blood on the Turin Shroud (Excerpts). Turin Shroud - Image of Christ? Hong Kong: Cosmos Printing Press, Ltd., 1986, p. 57.)

Note: For those who would argue that the Shroud, though not a painting, is still a medieval forgery effected by crucifying an actual human victim bearing all the wounds of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, note that none of the blood clots/scabs is smeared or broken. Even with the invention of teflon in the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to explain how·the cloth was removed from a body, where the blood had completely penetrated that cloth without disturbing those clots in any way.



In his brilliant reconstruction of the Shroud's history identifying the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud of Turin as one and the same artifact, Ian Wilson notes that the grave cloth was disguised by doubling it in four, the face only appearing behind a trellis work overlay in an unusual landscape (i.e. as opposed to portrait) orientation with the long axis running horizontally. Dr. Robert Drews notes that in all of Greek literature, the unique word to describe this folding, tetradiplon, is used only two times - in both instances referring to the Mandylion/Shroud.

"Thus, two literary documents that are fundament in the. evolution and spread of the Mandylion's story - the late sixth century Acts of Thaddaeus, which seems to have been where the story first appeared, and the tenth-century 'Monthly Lection' - speak of the icon as a cloth `folded four times'" (Robert Drews. In Search of the Shroud of Turin. Totowa, N.J.: Roman & Allanheld, 1984, p.40.)
Using this historical "clue'' as the basis for more rigorous examination by the hard sciences, Dr. John P. Jackson (Kaman Sciences Corporation and formerly on the. Physics Faculty of the U.S. Air Force Academy) decided to make observations directly - from the Shroud to determine if Wilson's theory should be refuted or substantiated.

Using raking light photographs (i.e. grading angle illumination) of the Shroud taken by Vernon Miller of the Brooks Institute of Photography during the on-site testing of the. Shroud in 1978,

[Left (enlarge). See 08Dec22. Ancient foldmarks on the Shroud at one-eighth intervals. This is further proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud is not the work of a medieval forger, and therefore is Jesus' burial shroud mentioned in the Gospels (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53. See 19Oct12 & 18Jul20). It was only in 1978 that Ian Wilson first published his discovery that the Image of Edessa was the Shroud "doubled in four" (tetradiplon)[WI78, 99-100], so a medieval forger would have no reason to include fake foldmarks at one-eighth intervals, two of which, labelled C and D, frame the Shroud head, in landscape aspect, exactly as it appears in copies of the Image of Edessa!]

Dr. Jackson concluded that his research:

"indicates that on the Shroud are foldmark deformations which, in a preliminary sense, occur at locations roughly consistent with Wilson's Mandylion/Shroud hypothesis. Especially noteworthy is the foldmark that occurs at Location-C … (which) by itself suggests that the Shroud was once folded at least in eighths since it is located one-eighth of the Shroud's fourteen foot length from the center axis of symmetry … In addition, this foldmark intersects the patchwork and waterstain regions of the 1532 fire in such a way that it appears to predate the patchwork and probably the fire. As such, this structure appears to be a genuine centuries-old foldmark and therefore a plausible candidate for a Mandylion foldline." (John P. Jackson. "Foldmarks as a Historical Record of the Turin Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 11, June 1984, p. 27.)

Recent scholarship has recently uncovered a document further substantiating the identification of The Image of Edessa/Mandylion and Shroud as one and the same artifact. In a sermon delivered by Gregory the Archdeacon and Referendarius of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople on August the 16th, A.D. 944 - one day after the arrival in that city of the Image of Edessa - Gregory carefully describes how the cloth was laid out on the emperor's throne and even crowned with the emperor's crown. In the following passage from that sermon, Gregory's description of the "blood and water" from the wound in the "side" provide us with the first written documentation that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion was more than simply a Face masked by a trelliswork grid:

"The splendor instead - and let everyone be inspired by this narration - has been impressed uniquely by the drops of agony sweat, sprinkled from the face that is the origin of life, dripped down like bloody drops, and from God's finger. These are truly the beauties that produced the coloring of Christ's imprint, which has been further embellished by the drops of blood sprinkled from his own side. Both of them are plenty of truth: blood and water there, sweat and image here. What a resemblance of events! Such things come from the One and the Same,' (Vatican Greek Codex 511, 149, v 26. Emphasis added.)
Note: Other documents tell us that on the night of its arrival in Constantinople (A.D. 15Aug944) the future Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus was able to discern the image while Stephen and Constantine Lecapenus sons of the reigning Emperor Romanos, find it "extremely blurred." A contemporary account, the De Imagine Edessena , describes the image as a "moist secretion without coloring or artificial stain," and that it did "not consist of earthly colors," (Cited by Wilson, The Shroud of Turin, op., cit., p. 255.)





A) Given that no detailed and extensive chemistry has ever been conducted to determine the kinds of contaminants on the Shroud are present, methods of such detection, and methods of their removal complete with scientific controls of same (Note: The same Zurich lab in a 6-lab inter-lab comparison study of sample linens used as a "dry run" and presented at the Radiocarbon Conference in Trondheim, Norway in June of 1985, produced an "outlier" of 1,000 years difference from the 5 other labs all because of improper cleansing/preparation of the sample, and
B) Given that there was no peer review by the radiocarbon community of the. 3-lab plan prior to the radiocarbon tests, and
C) Given that the accelerator laboratories (e.g. Arizona, Oxford and Zurich) were not controlled by an alternative· method, namely the small proportional, counter (i.e., Brookhaven, Long Island, NY and Harwell, England) the latter having more experience in radiocarbon dating of archaeological artifacts than the combined experience of all of accelerator laboratories chosen added together), and
D) Given that there was no random selection of sampling sites, that at least two other sites should have been carbon dated, that such sample as was tested came from the single most contaminated place on the Shroud (i.e. from an edge, most exposed to the elements and most frequently handled during expositions over the centuries), that sites beneath the patches, effectively protected from contamination since April 17, A.D. 1534, were bypassed for testing, and
E) Given that there was in actuality no "blind testing" as agreed to by the participating labs in their original protocol, each test sample from the Shroud having been delivered to each laboratory completely intact and thus easily identifiable by its 3/1 twill weave pattern, and each control sample (i.e. cloths from the 1st, 11th and (ca. 1300) centuries) identified as to the century within which its date should fall,


The above argument should probably only be used with Christian audiences, and is unlikely to be acknowledged by "hard" scientists who, in addition to rejecting the "Resurrection" certainly have no data base for comparison with this singularly unique, historical event.

In an article by Nick Rufford, Science Correspondent, on page 1 of the London Sunday Times, August 7, 1988, he states:

"Those convinced that the shroud really was Christ's burial cloth. could argue that the same burst of energy which created the image also irradiated (i.e. effected by radiation) the cloth. That would make the cloth appear younger than its true age."
One could go on to contend that not all (i.e. Shroud vs. the control sample), 1st century samples are the same if exposed to different sets of circumstances (i.e. Resurrection vs. normal). Thus, trying to date the Shroud by comparing it with a known 1st century sample is like comparing apples and oranges -· that is to say, both are "fruits'", but after that all similarity ends.

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]

DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
GH96. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK.
HC20. Hoare, C., 2020, "`There WAS a body inside' Shroud of Turin oddity discovery exposed in Bible breakthrough," Daily Express, 27 May.
KN86. Kohlbeck, J.A. & Nitowski, E.L., 1986, "New evidence may explain image on Shroud of Turin," Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol. 12, No. 4, 23-24.
PM96. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta.
RT15. Radford, T., 2015, "From the archive, 27 August 1988: Turin Shroud leak starts unholy row," The Guardian, 27 August.
SD89. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA.
WI78. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Doubleday & Co.: New York NY.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI98. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.
Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN.
WS00. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London.

Posted 21 December 2023. Updated 10 January 2024.

Sunday, December 10, 2023

Kim Dreisbach's "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" in favor of the Shroud's authenticity - part 2

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

Continuing from part 1, this is part 2 of Rev. Albert Russel `Kim” Dreisbach Jr. (1934-2006)'s "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" in favor of the Shroud's authenticity. See part 1 for information about this series. Continued in part 3. My comments are in bold.


FROM: The Atlanta International Center for Continuing Study of the Shroud of Turin (AICCSST)

Atlanta, Georgia

CONTACT PERSON: The Rev. Albert R., Dreisbach, Jr., Executive Director (404) 344-8982 349-0001

RE: C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin


With the recent announcement of a "medieval" date for the Shroud of Turin, it has become increasingly obvious that the issue of whether the Shroud is a "fact" or a "forgery" is too important an issue to be left to the specialist, let alone to the radiocarbon community. Specialization by its very nature produces "experts" in one field who are simultaneously "novices" in many others. Even the most gifted cardiologist is weighed in the balances and found wanting when put to the test regarding his knowledge and competence in the field of astrophysics. In the case of the Shroud, competence in C-14 dating does not extend to omniscience as to how the image was formed or the knowledge and skills unknown to a "medieval forger" necessary for the creation of such an artifact. To paraphrase one of the scientists involved in the initial 1978 investigation. "It would be more miraculous to accept this Shroud as a medieval forgery than to accept it for what it has traditionally claimed to be - the burial linen which wrapped the historical Jesus of Nazareth."

While not impugning the competence of the three laboratories involved in the recent C-14 testing, one should be very cautious before accepting their "results" as the "final word" regarding the Shroud's true date. Even though science is unlikely to acknowledge the possible effects of radiation from the "Resurrection" in skewing the date of the Shroud to a later period than the first century, the possibility of radiation should be considered in both the present context and any further dating via radiocarbon. To date, no consideration has been given to possible contamination via radiation in any of the sites where the Shroud has resided during the course of its historical journeys from Palestine through Turkey and France to its present resting place in Italy. Geophysicists might be able to throw some light on this area, but to date their expertise neither has been considered nor sought. What might a geiger counter tell us about radiation if it were to be employed on sites where the Shroud travelled and/or on the very materials from which the churches which have housed it were constructed?

Granting that all empirical tests which have or will be done on the Shroud have great value within their own spheres, what is painfully lacking in this piecemeal approach is a global synthesis whose meaning is infinitely more significant than mere analysis of individual sub fields. By analogy, one does not judge the worth of a human being by assigning him or her the monetary value of the chemicals and minerals which make up that person, no matter how accurate the chemical analysis may have been. How then are we to judge the present controversy regarding Turin's Shroud? On the one hand, we have a piece of "evidence" strongly suggesting that it is "medieval". On the other, various scientists with credentials of equal competence in their own respective fields have declared:

- the somatic imprints are a perfect negative which, if medieval, would have been achieved centuries before the invention of photography in 18(?)[1820s];
- these imprints contain within themselves a 3-dimensional code, which when developed by space-age instrumentation like the VP-8 Image Analyzer, yield a life-size figure in three dimensions. Even knowing this fact, no modern day artist has been able to replicate this phenomenon;
- the imprints are those of the corpse in rigor mortis of a real human being who was scourged, crowned with a cap of thorns, crucified with nails, and wounded by a spear of the same dimensions as a 1st century Roman pilum [sic lancea];
- pollens from different localities (i.e. Palestine, the Anatolean steppe in Turkey, Constantinople, France and Italy) have been discovered on the Shroud. Furthermore, none of these pollens is covered with a collagen binder or pigment as would be the case if the image had been produced as a painting;
- there are traces of human blood exudate on the Shroud;

- a clear difference has been shewn between the blood from wounds while the person was still alive from what that which seeped from the post-mortem wound inflicted on the right side. In addition, hematologists have been able to discern both venous and arterial blood from these wounds [discovered by Willam Harvey in 1628];


- there are no retouchings of any kind which could have enhanced an earlier faint negative imprint. There is no evidence of paint, dye, pigment, or acid. Rather the image was formed by degradation, dehydration of only the surface fibrils of the linen itself.·

- the best of 20th century technology has attempted to replicate the image and has failed miserably to come even close;

- the coin over the right eye of the Man of the Shroud has been identified as a Pontius Pilate lepton or "widow's mite" dating from A.D. 29-32. Would a "medieval" forger likely have thought of such a minute detail?;

- travertine aragonite, a rare form of calcite matching the spectral properties of the same mineral found near the cave tombs of Jerusalem's Damascus Gate is most abundant [albeit microscopic] in the area of the image's feet. Again, how do the advocates "medieval" forgery account for such a detail years before the invention of the microscope? [around 1620]

If one honestly and openly considers all of the empirical data known to date about the Shroud, the burden of proof ends up being the responsibility of those who would argue against its authenticity. As a matter of fact, future testing may well cast doubt on the ACCURACY of the C-14 testing rather than the AUTHENTICITY of the Shroud.

When one body of scientific data conflicts with another, it is the responsibility of the larger scientific community to investigate the dispute and resolve same via exhaustive analysis and peer review. The ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL CENTER strongly recommends such a procedure and is confident that if same is effected it will be the Shroud which tests the analytic competence of the present C-14 "results" rather than the other way around. The controversy will continue to rage; but while it does those with openness and honesty are cautioned to avoid a "rush to judgment" - a judgement which is not only premature, but may well be proven to be inaccurate.



(This part of Dreisbach's "Preponderance of Evidence" was in Shroud News, No 51, February 1989, pp.5-11 (

With the announcement of the C-14 date as "medieval", those of us who continue to believe in the Shroud's authenticity suddenly find ourselves being called by God to be "tested" once again in the crucible of public opinion and personal spiritual integrity. In a sense, we are being exiled from our lofty position over the past decade as "proclaimers of the Shroud's authenticity." Opponents will dance with glee convinced that they were right and many fellow Christians will label us as perpetuators of a fraud. We can expect to be hounded by our detractors and shunned by some whom we thought were our friends.

In the divine economy, new birth always exacts the price of pain; the Exodus preceded the gift of the Promised Land; the Babylonian exile came before the return to Israel, and the building of the Temple; Good Friday had to be endured before Easter could joyfully be proclaimed. In each of these milestone events in the unfolding of the spiritual pilgrimage of the people of God, His servants have been called upon to experience "a dark night of the soul." My brothers and sisters, that time has come for those of us who serve the Apostolate of the Holy Shroud. Over what has happened, we have no control. How we respond to it is a test of our own spiritual maturity. Expose three different substances to fire: a wood shaving will be consumed and disappear; wax will melt and take on a new shape; but an iron filing will be tempered and emerge even stronger than it was before such an ordeal. The choice is ours. Those who choose to become tempered like the iron filing will determine the future of sindonology and the restoration of the Holy: Shroud to its rightful place as "God's love letter in linen for all mankind", as the most significant visual aid for Christians to employ in teaching their own about the Passion, Death and Resurrection of their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Like the prophet Ezekiel, we are being called by God to assure our hearers of the abiding presence of God among us during this time of trial and exile on the stage of world opinion. Though we do not know the divine rationale for the present set of circumstances, our task is to continue to proclaim the Shroud's authenticity so that the faithful "will know that I {i.e. He whose sacred Image appears on the Holy Shroud) am the Lord." The latter refrain occurs numerous times throughout the Book of Ezekiel; and its theological truth is as valid for today's Shroud Crowd as it was for 6th century B.C. Israelites during their Babylonian captivity. We too are being called to "sing a new song" on the banks of the River Chebar even though 20th century tears of disappointment may temporarily blind us from discerning God's plan for the "restoration" of the Shroud's authenticity in the eyes of the world. Even in exile, God promised:·"I will not hide my face any·more from them, when I pour my Spirit upon the house of Israel" (Ezek. 39:29). Even as the disciples hid in fear on Good Friday believing that they had followed a false Messiah, their faith was to be restored on Easter morning when an empty tomb with its seemingly empty linen shroud proclaimed. the fullness of Resurrection power. One of the clues to that Event of all events was the cloth, which remains with us to this day locked securely in its silver casket in Turin's Cathedral of St. John the Baptist. The same Holy Scripture which describes the flattened/collapsed presence of that Shroud in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb also proclaims: "For it is God ... who has shone in our hearts to give the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (II Cor 4:6).

God not only has preserved the Shroud since that first Easter morning nearly two thousand years ago; but He has also provided us with a preponderance of evidence - both from the hard sciences and numerous other academic disciplines - which argues for the authenticity of Turin's·burial linen. Since 1898 when Pia took his first photograph, researchers from fields as diverse as archaeology to iconography have provided layer after layer of substantiating evidence which, until the recent "medieval" (sic)- announcement, has displayed the "luster" of a pearl of great price. Churchmen have had their faith deepened through contact with the Shroud, appreciating as never before both the details of the Passion and a graphic vividness of what it means to be told "that by His stripes you are healed" (I Pet 2:24). The Shroud has forced doubters to question their very doubt, bringing even some of them into full-time ordained ministry as I have witnessed with my own eyes. In addition to its value for Christian Education and low level Evangelism to the rational empiricist skeptics of our day, it also serves as a marvelous bridge for Ecumenicity just as its historical travels have exposed it to the Greek Orthodox, then the Roman Catholics, and now the multifaceted Protestant community. Even the scientists in the three laboratories who now tell us that it is "medieval" all agree that it is not a painting; furthermore, they have stated that the method of its "image formation" still remains unknown - a mystery. Even Dr. Richard Luckett of Cambridge University's Magdalene College who contends that it is "medieval" concludes that the image results from a real human being who was crucified exactly in the manner of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

It is not the purpose of this sermon/paper to provide a laundry list of all the facts which comprise the totality of the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE - scientific and otherwise - which argues for the Shroud's authenticity. To do so would require a tome the size of an encyclopedia merely to provide a synopsis of these "facts" together with the briefest of bibliographies supporting same. Where would such a list begin and end? ... With the unique 3-dimensional quality of a 2-dimensional photograph? With the total absence of pigment, ink dye or stain? The lack of brush stroke, directionality, or capillary flow? The fact that the Face of the Shroud has 170 points of congruence with an encaustic icon at Mount Sinai of Jesus' "portrait" painted between 550 and 590 A. D. given the fact; that modern day criminologists require, only 45 to 60 such points of similarity for a positive match? Would a cloth manufactured in the 14th century bear a preponderance of pollens from Israel and the Anatolian steppes if it were of European origin? Would a forger be clever enough to paint a full


image of a body in the "negative" 400 years before the invention of photography? And even if he had, would he have employed two different methods of image formation - positive for the blood and negative for the body image - in a single work? And even if a real body were employed as claimed by Dr. Luckett, would a medieval forger have ever thought of adding dirt to the feet - dirt which Dr. Joseph Kohlbeck of the Hercules Aerospace Laboratory at Salt Lake City has determined to be travertine aragonite - a rare variety of calcite that matches the spectrum of the travertine aragonite from the cave tombs near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem?

On and on such a list could go, and yet we all know that in the unreflective minds of the general public the alleged "medieval" C-14 date is likely to be the most dominant factor in determining that the Shroud is a "fake." Subtleties in the violation of the original C-14 protocol by the three laboratories involved, suspected collusion regarding the newly-developed cleansing mechanism employed by all three, even the site of the samples taken - from an exposed edge most likely to have picked up the greatest degree of contaminants through the ages - will not be considered at all by the general public in its rush to affirm the findings of a C-14 dating process which they do not begin to understand.

What then are we to do, we who continue to know both in our hearts and in our heads that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial linen of Jesus of Nazareth? Like Ezekiel, we must preach hope even while in exile; like Peter, we must be bold in our proclamation even when opposed by the contemporary C-14 "rulers" of the moment. At Pentecost, the Big Fisherman, in the face of the scoffers of his day, saw fit to quote David:

"I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my
right hand that I may not be shaken;
therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;
moreover my flesh will dwell in hope.
For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades,
nor let thy Holy One see corruption.
Thou has made known to me the ways of life,
thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence." (Ps 16:8-11)
Shortly thereafter, preaching at the Temple after a miraculous release from prison where he had been placed by the High Priest together with the council and all the senate of Israel, Peter and the apostles continued to proclaim their "naive" and unpopular Gospel, justifying their actions by stating: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 6:29). Among those present that day was a wise man, a Pharisee and teacher of the law "held in honor by all the people," the very teacher of an early persecutor of the Church named Saul of Tarsus who was to become one of its greatest promotors following his own conversion on the Road to Damascus. This man's name was Gamaliel. With a wisdom which only God can provide, he addressed the crowd that wanted to kill Peter and his companions and uttered the following truth:
"Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men ...
For if this plan or undertaking is of men, it will fail;
but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them,
You might even be found opposing God!" (Acts 5:35 & 38-39).
With historical hindsight, we now know that Gamaliel was correct. Peter and Christianity were vindicated by God; and the Church in which we worship this day stands as a testimony to the truth of Gamaliel's insight. God took ordinary men and woman like us today who hold the Shroud to be authentic, and, with them, accomplished extraordinary things. The biblical theme for this vindication of the faithful has deep roots, God slew the Midianites, but Gideon was chosen to be the "vehicle" for their defeat. Joshua and Caleb went out against the Anakim - the "giants" of the land - but Jericho fell to "the little people" who trusted in God, A youthful David brought down a colossal opponent in Goliath because he also had been chosen for the task." Brothers and sisters, the same biblical scenario exists at the present moment, and, mirabile dictu , we in the Shroud Crowd have been chosen to battle the "giants" of the C-14 community - not because we are "holy" or deserving in any way, but simply so that God's truth may be proclaimed to all the world through us. If the erudition of our membership is greater than that of the public whom we seek to convince of the Shroud's authenticity, let us ever be on guard against the sin of academic pride by keeping constantly before us the godly truth that "unto whom much is given, much is required" (Lk 12:48).

On an evening in 1978. during a Labor Day weekend chosen for STURP's "dry run", members of STURP gathered in at the Amity Church in Amston, Connecticut, for a parish supper and a worship service. During the course of same, the pastor, the Rev. Joey O'Brien, delivered a prophecy in which the team was told that someday it would be permitted to be involved in a "second" round of testing - a round which would produce even more marvellous results than they would obtain from their 1978 testing. The time for that "second round" is NOW. Despite all the delays and disappointments in the intervening years, STURP is again being invited by the Lord to share His "table fellowship" in Turin. The amazing traces of His Body and Blood, already consecrated and glorified by God, will again be made available to the scientific community for further study. I have no doubt that once again "the last shall be first" - that is to say that STURP's new discoveries will add weight to the ever-growing PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE revealed by God to overcome public credulity at having too facilely accepted the fallacious C-14 results labelling the Shroud as "medieval" (sic).


While we gird our loins to launch a "laboratory counterattack" to vindicate the Shroud's authenticity, we must remember that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE does not automatically guarantee PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE of that PEER-REVIEWED TRUTH We have only to recall the name of Galileo to remind ourselves of this reality Scientific journals and other Shroud publications may well serve to win the MINDS of the dedicated few; but FACTS ALONE are insufficient to claim the HEARTS of the many. Whether it be a Dr Albert Einstein or a Bishop John A.T. Robinson, pioneers by definition must go through a period of waiting before the territory which they have discovered becomes a safe and settled community for those who follow. In truth, more people have become "converted" to the Shroud's authenticity via lectures, exhibits, movies and TV productions than have been impacted by the sum total of all the carefully researched papers and books written on the subject. The vast majority of people are unwilling to sacrifice the time and effort to do their own "homework", preferring instead to feed upon the predigested "chewings" of others.

To those with an empirical bent, the above reality often means little. "Truth is Truth", and if the myopia of the public cannot perceive and acknowledge same, then it is their problem. While this argument is valid on a strictly EMPIRICAL basis, it does not do justice to either the EXISTENTIAL or the TELEOLOGICAL dimensions of the problem. Though the pure scientist may rightfully limit him or herself to the question, "What is the nature and/or what are the components of that which we have been asked to analyze?", theologians are trained to ask questions which go beyond the limits or competence of the laboratory, i.e. What does it mean? What is God's purpose in making this artifact available to us? Why, of all the experts in all the world in my field of specialization have I been chosen to be part of this unique team given access to the Shroud?

Though those not professing Christianity are under no obligation to pose such questions, the Christian who is a scientist, scholar, cleric or informed lay person is duty bound to reflect upon such implications. For them, God is Lord of all, the Creator and Ruler of the universe and He has created nothing without purpose. One cannot worship Him in the sanctuary and simultaneously abandon any consideration of Hirn in the laboratory or the library. To do so would be guilty of theological schizophrenia - a split personality which acknowledges His Transcendence while simultaneously denying His concrete Immanence in the world which He has fashioned. Christianity is the most "material" of all the world's religions - most supremely so in the Incarnation, the Word made flesh.

For those of us who are champions of the Shroud's·authenticity, we would do well to consider GOD'S PURPOSE for us at this moment in history. On October·the 16th [1988], The Times of London ran an extensive editorial on the implications of C-14 dating entitled "Testing Faiths" The last paragraph contained the following pregnant insight:

All I would care to add to this profound insight is to extend the final sentence by including, "BY LEAVING THE APPROPRIATE CLUES." In so doing, God has given each of us the same opportunity as Peter and John to see the burial garments of the historical Jesus of Nazareth (John 20:6-7). But, as both the Gospel of John and the late Bishop John A.T. Robinson make abundantly clear, such a vision brings with it no special blessing (Jn. 20:29), rather· special responsibility (Jn. 17:18-21). A careful reading of Holy Scripture will enlighten us to the fact that with every post-Resurrection "appearance" there is also a concomitant "commission to mission." That "mission" for professed Christians in the Shroud Crowd is to "lift Him up so that all may be drawn unto to Him" ..., to get "beyond the linen to the Lord" ... to proceed beyond learning "facts" about Him to the exercise of concrete service in His name. No matter how many marvellous "facts" are revealed to us in our continuing investigations, they can easily become nothing more than "religious erudition in pious garb"·unless they lead to a deepening of the student's own faith reflected in concern for and service to those for whom the Man of the Shroud came to save - the dispossessed, the poor, the victims of injustice, the neglected and all the others for whom He lived, died and rose again. Beyond any secrets which it may contain, the latter is the real MESSAGE and·MISSION of the Shroud - the PURPOSE for which God has preserved it, and the sacred OBLIGATION of those of us few who are privileged to make the discoveries which are then displayed for the public.



For background see "Shroud memorabilia in need of a home," South Florida Sun Sentinel, August 22, 1987.

His Eminence, Anastasio Cardinal Ballestrero, the current Archbishop of Turin, has astutely observed:

"Unlike theology, signs and symbols affect men and women directly. We need such signs and symbols, particularly in our times when images have become the medium for most messages. Signs and symbols that evoke our faith and strengthen our hope cannot and must not be excluded. This is why we humbly turn to the shroud, a 'sign' of our faith and hope in Christ." (The Cathedral of Turin and the Shroud. (trans. Fr. Peter M. Rinaldi). Turin; Privately published by the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, 1985.
The good Cardinal, like the Chinese centuries ago, has proclaimed the ancient truth that A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS. TRUTH in a vacuum may still be TRUTH, but until it is made manifest and appropriated by the many, it remains a "light hidden under a bushel" known only to a privileged few. Admittedly and unashamedly, I would contend that this was not God's intention in providing and preserving it for nearly 2,000 years. Rather, it is a PRECIOUS GIFT to be SHARED - not a "possession" of the "privileged few" whose scientific and academic skills (i.e. "talents or "gifts" which are also God-given) qualify them to be granted the honor of assisting in unlocking its mysteries.

With such privilege comes inherent responsibility. A careful reading of the New Testament accounts of post-Resurrection "appearances" will lead one to the insight that with each such revelation there is a concomitant commission to share this Good News with His disciples first and eventually with all mankind.

Is it by chance that God chose to leave us a "photograph of the Resurrection" - the one event of Jesus' earthly life to which there were no human witnesses? (Note: Even at the Annunciation/Incarnation, Mary was a human witness) Is it by chance that in 1898 it was photography which was responsible for the initial "scientific" study of Turin's Holy Shroud? Is it by chance that the Brooks ·Institute was chosen to record every step in the historic investigation of 1978? For those with theological insight, the answer to each of these questions must be a ringing No! God knew before man discovered same that photography has the ability to "capture a moment of time" ... to "freeze" it if you would so that such a moment can be "savored, studied and, in a sense, "re-lived" at a future moment in time. Thus, from a theological perspective and with the benefit of hindsight, we can now literally "see" that God has left us with a "photographic record" of the ONE EVENT IN OUR LORD'S LIFE to which there was no human witness.

In leaving this "Fifth Gospel", God has provided us with a "witness" from the past which interprets the present and points us to the future. The Shroud's markings confirm all of the Old Testament's prophecies pointing to the Messiah; they continue even at this present moment to serve as "evidence" demanding a verdict from the heart and soul (i.e. "Who do you say that I am? - just a crucified carpenter or the Christ of God?"),· and, if we are to be faithful to the spiritual Truth which the linen provides, a commission to mission to direct our efforts to "lifting Him up that all men may be drawn unto Him.")

Certainly, the TURIN SHROUD EXHIBIT is "one" of the very best ways available to us to insure that the Man of the Shroud is "lifted up" for study by the general public. We have only to recall the effect it has already had from 1982-1987 before it was confined to a warehouse by an exorbitant increase in rent proposed by the CNN CENTER. Furthermore, we also know of the tremendous number of people world-wide who have been touched by such exhibits from Australia to Hong Kong to the Philippines to Belgium, France and Italy. Most recently, more than 100,000 people came to see Rex Morgan's travelling exhibit at the Calgary Stampede in June of this year. Surely at a time when the Shroud's authenticity is under severe attack on the stage of world opinion, we here in the United States should be concerned that "the largest and most extensive permanent exhibit .on the Shroud of Turin" lies gathering dust in storage and is thus unavailable to the public.


I would both plead and pray that those responsible for raising funds for future sindonological research consider the possibility of allocating some of that revenue, to insure that the TURIN SHROUD EXHIBIT is again available for public viewing. Not only is the EXHIBIT "an outward and visible sign" of the case for the Shroud's authenticity; but it further serves as a vehicle for "the inward and spiritual grace" which underlies its divine purpose. While continuing research seeks to cast new light upon the Shroud, the EXHIBIT provides a means for the Shroud to shine its own Light on the hearts and minds of the public.

Carefully restructured, the EXHIBIT can serve both as an APOLOGIST and as an ADVOCATE for the Shroud's authenticity. It could be sequenced so that the first "evidence" presented to the viewer would be the alleged C-14 dating claiming it to be "medieval" (sic). Having acknowledged this "argument" at the very beginning of the tour, the visitor would then be asked to honestly and open-mindedly consider the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE to the contrary. As stated in the fly leaf of the EXHIBIT'S souvenir booklet, the viewer would be asked to "APPROACH THE SHROUD WITH THE OBJECTIVITY OF A SCIENTIST, THE IMAGINATIVE PERCEPTION OF A DETECTIVE, AND THE CURIOSITY OF A CHILD." Hopefully, as we have witnessed recently with the movie, "The Last Temptation of Christ", the very controversy over the validity of the C-14 dating results will serve to boost attendance. In the process, people can be reminded that even 20th century technology can "goof" as was the case with the horrible tragedy of the. "Challenger" which blew up before the very eyes of a national TV audience. As NASA did not disband in the wake of this tragic set-back, so those scientists and other scholars who have been involved in Shroud research must continue to press on in their own respective fields of expertise.

In one sense, the Shroud needs no apologetic; for it is self-authenticating. However, the mind of the general public is not always so quick to grasp such profound reality. Be it politics or products, "packaging" and "promotion" often have more effect than the quality of the product which is being boosted. We in the Shroud Crowd have such a "quality product" but we have often been guilty of failing to market it properly to insure maximum sales. Like many a main line church, we smugly live under the delusion that the quality of the product is such that anyone with real discernment will end up on our doorstep seeking to get on the rolls. Such denominations shun emotional evangelism with its simplistic theology as beneath both their intellect and their dignity. But one has only to look at the decline in members over the past decade of these "traditional" denominations to The words are missing in the rest this section of Joe Marino's copy of Dreisbach "Preponderance of Evidence". If anyone has a copy with the missing words, please provide them in a comment below this post.

Continued in part 3 of this series.

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 10 December 2023. Updated 29 December 2023.

Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Kim Dreisbach's "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" in favor of the Shroud's authenticity - part 1

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part 1 of Rev. Albert Russel `Kim” Dreisbach Jr. (1934-2006)'s

[Right: Fr. Kim Dreisbach on Shroud Encounter (YouTube).]

"overwhelming preponderance of evidence" in favor of the Shroud's authenticity. I will quote it in full, but I will have to break it up into several posts. The original is a series of PDFs with handwritten notes on them, the latter I will replace the typewritten text with, as Dreisbach intended. My comments will be in bold.

On 8 October 2023, I emailed Ian Wilson and Joe Marino:

"Do you have a copy, that you can send me, of Kim Dreisbach's compilation of all the evidence in favor of authenticity, calling it the `overwhelming preponderance of evidence':
"On the counter-attack was Rev. Kim Dreisbach, an Anglican priest and long-time Shroud scholar in Atlanta, Georgia, who prepared a massive and impressive compilation of all the evidence in favor of authenticity, calling it the `overwhelming preponderance of evidence." He circulated it to dozens of people, and the press, but his efforts like mine met with little success in getting across to the mass media what a travesty had occurred.'" (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.110-111).
Ian replied that he didn't think he had it anymore, but Joe replied that he did have it, albeit in an old format, which he would scan into a series of PDFs and email them to me. Which he kindly did. A few obvious errors I have corrected. The scanned text is very poor, albeit understandable, so I have had to correct letters in almost every word, which makes it slow-going! I gave up the time-wasting, old-fashioned, underlining of "e.g." and "Ibid". Continued in part 2 and part 3.


[Proposed] PRESS RELEASE [Not prior to 26 Sep 88]

FROM: The Atlanta International Center for Continuing Study of the Shroud of Turin (AICCSST)

Atlanta, Georgia

CONTACT PERSON: The Rev. Albert R., Dreisbach, Jr., Executive Director (404) 344-8982 349-0001

RE: C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin


"Reproducibility, closely related to replicability and repeatability, is a major principle underpinning the scientific method. For the findings of a study to be reproducible means that results obtained by an experiment or an observational study or in a statistical analysis of a data set should be achieved again with a high degree of reliability when the study is replicated. There are different kinds of replication but typically replication studies involve different researchers using the same methodology. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge" (my emphasis)[RPW].
Citing the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE from such hard sciences as Physics and Chemistry already published in peer-reviewed scientific journals by scientists from such prestigious facilities as Los Alamos, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratory, the Atlanta International Center for Continuing Study of the Shroud of Turin, Inc. issued a statement today seriously questioning the conclusion of the C-14 laboratories at the University of Arizona, Oxford and Zurich alleging the Shroud of Turin to date from the Middle Ages. Noting that scientists from both Oxford and Arizona, have concluded that the Shroud "is not a painting" and that the mechanism for the image formation of the ventral and dorsal side of the figure on it "continues to remain a mystery'", AICCSST's Executive Director, the Rev. Albert R. Dreisbach, Jr., cautioned both the public and the press to withhold judgment on the alleged "medieval" (sic) date until "all the facts are in, and the larger scientific community has been given an opportunity to thoroughly review the protocol used by the three labs in their investigations." Fr. Dreisbach then went on to outline what he believes to be some of the major flaws of that protocol:
1) At a 1986 conference in Turin called to determine the protocol for C-14 testing, it was stressed by experts in attendance that prior to any such testing detailed and extensive chemistry should be conducted to determine the kinds of contaminants on the Shroud, methods for the detection of same, and procedures for their removal complete with scientific controls for same. In a six-laboratory "dry run" of known-dated samples provided by the British Museum whose results were announced at a Radiocarbon Conference in Trondheim in 1985, the same Swiss lab which today announced its concurrence of a "medieval"(sic) date had an outlier of 1,000 years difference from the other five labs. Careful examination of this outlier proved it to have resulted from "improper cleansing"' of the sample. When the proper technique was applied on the second run, the Swiss lab· then came on line with the others.

2) Despite repeated attempts by some of the experts present at that 1986 Turin conference for sampling from at least two separate areas on the Shroud. (Note; three distinct sites would have been even more preferable), the decision was made to take the samples only from a single site; and that, one of the worst possible sites available. (Note; The eventual site chosen for the removal of the sample on 21Apr88 was from the edge of the Shroud most exposed to human handling and industrial pollution during its public and private expositions through the centuries.)

3) In addition to potential skewing of the C-14 date via contamination, experts also warned that “possible isotope exchange spurred by heating may likely affect the radiocarbon age of the cloth." The Sunday London Times in its edition of August 7, 1988, observed:
"Those convinced that the shroud really was Christ's burial cloth could argue that the same burst of energy which created the image also irradiated (i.e. affected via radiation) the cloth. That would make the cloth appear younger than its true age.” Nick Rufford, Science Correspondent, p. 1. Emphasis added.)
One would not even have to posit a non-empirically verifiable event such as the Resurrection to account for such an isotope exchange via heating. Even as this release is being made available to the media, experts familiar with the myriad subtleties of the Shroud are investigating the possibility that the very site from which the C-14 samples were taken was subject to a "mild scorch" - possibly as a result of the fire of 1532 at Chambery in France Since portions of the silver casket containing the Shroud melted during this fire, it is estimated that the heat of the latter reached 800 degrees centigrade.
On the topic of "improper cleansing," for the Shroud to have the `bull's eye' radiocarbon date of "1260-1390," or 1325 ±65 years[WI98, 7; TF06, 169], which is only ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in ~1355[WI10, 222], the laboratories would have had to remove almost all contamination by younger carbon. Otherwise the Shroud's radiocarbon date would be more recent than 1355! But that would have been impossible because the fire of 1532 and the water that extinguished it, would have forced large quantities of new carbon from the smoke of the burning chapel into the molecular structure of the linen, where it could not be removed:
"Because of the fire and the melting of the silver casket, the heat inside would have been intense, and a temperature in the region of 900°C the temperature of molten silver alloy) would probably have been reached. In these circumstances, natural moisture in the Shroud, perhaps together with dousing water, would turn into steam, in places to superheat. Any contaminants on or embedded in the fabric structure would be dissolved and forced into the yarn construction, conditions in which they would react chemically with the molecular structure of the fibres of the flax ... Contaminants on the surface of the cloth, within the interlacements of the weave, on the surface of the yarns, and even within their twisted structures can be removed with suitable surfactants and ultrasonic treatments. At fibre-molecular level, however, the problem of contaminants presents specific difficulties ... contaminating molecules can also enter and link chemically into the fine structure through what are envisaged as 'pores' in the fibre ... In this way, organic molecules containing carbon would become part of the flax-fibre chemistry and would be impossible to remove by surfactants and ultrasonic cleansing treatments. More drastic methods to remove the contaminants so as to obtain a pure specimen would inevitable destroy the flax fibre themselves"[TJ96, 7]
Therefore the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud must not only be wrong, but fraudulent! According to my hacker theory, they are not real dates but computer-generated dates by a hacker's program (see 24May14 and 23Jul15).


4) Contrary to· the initial "understanding" agreed to in 1986 at the Turin conference church authorities reduced from seven to three the number of laboratories who would be permitted to do C-14 testing. Without warning, four of the labs learned in a letter dated October 10, 1987 that they had been excluded from the testing. Ironically, two U.S. labs which were the first to propose C-14 dating of the Shroud ten years ago were among the four excluded. In reality, the Brookhaven National Laboratory and the University of Rochester are also the inventors of the two primary methods - small proportional counter and mass accelerator respectively – proposed for C-14 dating. Along with the two American labs, the Isotope Measurements Laboratory at Harwell in England was also rejected. Harwell had pioneered in the field of archaeological dating and had done more sampling than the combined efforts of the three chosen laboratories.

To further compound the problem, both Brookhaven and Harwell use the small proportional counters to achieve C-14 dates. Eliminating them reduced the method to but one approach - the mass accelerators used by Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. It is difficult to deny that the use of these two separate techniques would strengthen the credibility of any resultant date. (Note: The proportional count method used by both Brookhaven and Harwell is tried and tested , having been in use for over 30 years. The mass accelerator method is less than 10 years old, and there are still doubts in some quarters about its reliability.)

It was initially speculated that the motive behind reducing the number of labs from 7 to 3 was to conserve the amount of material from the Shroud that would have to be destroyed for C-14 testing, Radiocarbon experts familiar with the original 7-lab protocol have attacked this reasoning as: specious in that the amount of cloth needed for all seven would be roughly equivalent; to two-and-a-half US 25¢ postage stamps.

Finally, the elimination of Harwell and Brookhaven introduces two other factors to be considered when evaluating the alleged "medieval" (sic) result. One expert in the field of radiocarbon dating has noted:

A) "In accelerator technology there are many more steps which the lab must go through in the process than occurs with the small proportional counter. With each step in this process there is the possibility of intrusion of extraneous carbon thereby affecting the date. The use of the small proportional counter provides a very good alternate way of verifying the results obtained by the accelerator. In fact this dual method of dating has already been used by professionals as a reference point where there might otherwise have been a question of discrepancy.

The same expert goes on to conclude that linen has a clear advantage with the gas (i.e. proportional) counter since cloth has undergone years of testing with the conventional dating technology. On the other hand cloth does not seem to be an item which has commonly been dated by the accelerator method."

B) Though the accelerator method can deal with smaller samples and is capable of providing an instant readout by employing electrostatic accelerators to separate the carbon atoms within a sample and then quickly count the individual C-14 nuclei in that sample, once this is accomplished the sample (now a carbonized pellet) is useless for further testing. The proportional counter, on the other hand, reduces the sample to a gas, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and then counts the C-14 decays in the gas. Unlike the accelerators, this gas can be saved and redated by technologically-refined small proportionate counters 10, 20 or 50 years in the future.

Thus, the decision to reduce the laboratories to include only those with the accelerator capability has reduced the credibility of the results of the three labs involved in the minds of both the public and the larger scientific community. Certainly for a relic as fraught with controversy and claimed by many to be an authentic relic of the historical Jesus, every effort should have been taken to make the results as credible as possible if they are expected to be received as such by the general public. As Dr Robert Otlet of Harwell noted upon learning of the exclusion of his lab from the C-14 testing :-
"We are not protesting through sour grapes ... the final result will not be as precise as it could have been because only one technique has been used."
5) Contrary to assurances that there would be "blind testing", we now know that such was not the case. Each test sample was delivered to each laboratory completely intact, its 3/1 herringbone twill clearly visible to the scientists. Further, each control sample provided by the British Museum was clearly identified as to the century within which its date should fall. While not impugning the integrity of the three labs involved, certainly there was an absence of rigid empirical methodology in the functional as opposed to the written protocol.
Regarding, "four of the labs learned in a letter dated October 10, 1987 that they had been excluded from the testing" (see above), acccording to my hacker theory (see 05Jul14 footnotes omitted):
"On 10 October 1987 the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-89), advised the seven laboratories that were originally proposed to carbon-date the Shroud, using two different methods, that their number had been reduced to three AMS laboratories: Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. So after that Linick [Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist, Timothy Weiler Linick (1946-89)] could have realised that it was feasible for him to write a program to be installed on the AMS control console computers at the three laboratories (which were effectively clones of each other), to replace the Shroud's carbon 14 dates coming from their AMS systems, with computer-generated dates which would ensure the Shroud appeared to date a plausible time before the Shroud's debut in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in about 1355."


The following strategy considerations are submitted to the Shroud Crowd in light of the imminent release of the "medieval" (sic) date resulting from recent C-14 "testing." Given both the general public and the "man-in-the-pew's" likely supine credulity in swallowing the initial media release, the need for immediate and effective "damage control" should become our #1 priority of the moment. Failure to seize the initiate at this time can only serve to compound the problem and require greater effort in the future to regain the "beachhead" now held by those who argue against the Shroud's authenticity.

Many of you have already advocated the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE ploy as the main vehicle for such a "counter-attack." While l agree that it is our best "cerebral" line of defense, I worry that: 1) FACTS ALONE WILL NOT WIN THE HEARTS OF THE PUBLIC AND/OR PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ASSURANCE FOR THE FAITHFUL; 2) UNLESS THE "SHROUD CROWD" USES THE MEDIA AS EFFECTIVELY AS OUR DETRACTORS, THE "FACTS" WILL NEVER BE KNOWN TO THE MASSES. One of the significant factors in launching an effective "COUNTER-ATTACK" is the determination of who is to be its "spokesperson(s)?" Though STURP may well be the most experienced and qualified to advocate an "empirical" rebuttal, their personal reluctance and the political reality of the situation may well preclude their "upfront" participation. Professional reputations are on the line; and some of their number may not wish to remind the public of the depth and extent of their involvement in the investigations. Add to this fact that STURP would then also be involved in internecine "warfare" with its fellow scientists in the C-14 community; and we have identified another limitation. Thirdly, should STURP ever be allowed to return to Turin for further on-site testing, any attempt to become "advocates of authenticity" would be perceived by both the larger scientific community and the general public as naive "sour grapes" at best or, at worst, as "proof positive" that STURP all along has been a group "kept" by the Roman Catholic Church to verify conclusions already held by that branch of Christendom; but certainly not to conduct "empirical" studies which would prove the Shroud to be a fraud.

If, on the other hand, a group such as the HOLY SHROUD GUILD were to take the lead in such a rebuttal, its very religious nature would vitiate its effectiveness in the eyes of both the public and the larger scientific community. It would thus draw the fire of those who saw it as religiously biased and as scientifically incompetent to offer an unbiased rebuttal.

Who then is to be the "lightning rod" in the midst of this current storm? What follows is a list of possibilities which is far from complete and in no wise is to be considered exhaustive:

1) ASSIST [The Association of Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin] - If rumors are correct, this group has not endeared itself to the Cardinal's scientific advisor; and thus is unlikely ever to be admitted to any future on-hands testing. Still in all, ASSIST was founded to serve as a "peer-review group" to settle conflicting conclusions within the scientific community (i.e. Heller and Adler vs. McCrone). Certainly no more "significant difference" could be imagined than a C-14 conclusion that the Shroud is medieval vs. the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE built since Pia's 1898 photograph arguing for its authenticity. In acquiring the MAX FREI POLLEN COLLECTION in July of 1988, ASSIST currently owns and controls the largest -and most significant collection of specimens taken from the Shroud's surface. (Note: A fact confirmed by both Mccrone and Adler during confirmation of this collection’s authenticity held at the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences· on July, 23, 1988. Also, it was ASSIST's General Projects Director, Paul Maloney, who authored and circulated a 25-page paper to both the Vatican and the Turin authorities questioning the current C-14 protocol prior to any of the samples being taken on April 21, 1988. Turin chose not to heed the caveats contained in this paper - many from other "experts" within the worldwide C-14 community - and now is "paying the price" for its cavalier rejection of these warnings.

In one sense, ASSIST has everything to gain and nothing to lose in assuming the "point" in this "counter-attack." Its contact network is such that it has the potential to enlist non-STURP members of the scientific community to join the fray, possibly even playing the role of a "Trojan Horse" within the C-14 community now dominated by Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. Though ASSIST may have no "standing" within the scientific community at this time, the general public is unlikely to give it any less credence than they would to STURP or the above-named labs. Should ASSIST choose to assume this leadership role at this crucial moment in the Shroud's history, it would truly take on the mantle which its· very name implies.

2) An AD HOC COMMITTEE drawn from significant sub-fields of sindonology chosen for their expertise and their ability to persuade (i.e. in writing, on the air, and before TV). Such a group could theoretically contain members of STURP who would make quite clear that they were participating as individuals and not as official STURP representatives. (Note: There is no indication at this time that any member of STURP has considered and/or would be willing to be identified in this capacity.) Such an AD HOC COMMITTEE might well provide the broadest spectrum of expertise in the field of sindonology - ranging from the hard sciences to history to theology. Such a group should possess the empirical integrity of an Eric Jumper, the organizational thoroughness and competence based on years of experience of a Fr. Adam Otterbein, and the venerable pastoral sensitivity of a Fr. Peter Rinaldi.



The very protocol of the release of the C-14 "date" precludes a "first strike" possibility for those of us who are advocates of the Shroud's authenticity. Reality dictates that we must take the first blow. Having to forego the initiative makes it even more important that we are then ready to do some effective "counter punching." But, being fair and decent doesn't mean that we can't throw a few "blows" of our own within the limits of the Marquis of Queensbury's rules. The opening statement/paragraph should take dead aim on the violations of the C-14 protocol known to have been committed by the 3 labs (i.e. sample taking from but a single site, and that the most contaminated one; failure to follow "blind testing'" - the Shroud sample was never unravelled and was thus clearly identifiable via its 3/1 herringbone twill; alleged collusion among the labs via the use of the same newly-developed cleansing technique; the "leaking" of the date (i.e. by Hall to Luckett [It was by Sox to Luckett – see 24 Jun14 & 22 Nov16]), prior to its official announcement by the Cardinal, etc.). Having thus revealed that our opponents were "using horseshoes in their gloves" as an opportunity for the "referee" (i.e. the general public and the larger scientific community) to stop and take a look", we return to center ring with a flurry of arguments from the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE arsenal (See attached sheet bearing that title}.

It would be extremely valuable and helpful to have in our possession an English translation of the Cardinal's press release announcing the "alleged" C-14 results. Even without same, I believe that we should have one of our own prepared -· yea, even "planted" - for simultaneous release in this country. Through the years a local contact on Atlanta's UPI desk has proven to be both a trusted and competent "friend of the Shroud." He is discreet and can be counted upon to "salt" both the national and international wires with the full text of any release which we provide to him. If there are those reading this memo who have similar contacts with AP or REUTERS, they are advised to go and do likewise. We all are painfully aware of how the press can "screw things up royally"; but such "pre-planted" script of our own composition would seem to minimize the extent of such damage.

Those who have been involved in STURP fund raising will remember that national columnist William F. Buckley, Jr. was in attendance at our Union League Club presentation in New York. I believe that he was there because of a request of Fr. Rinaldi who, hopefully, might "persuade" him to devote one of his nationally syndicated columns to a defense of the Shroud. Through the years, Mr. Buckley has written many fine editorials in the New Republic advocating the Shroud's authenticity. Obviously, the time for another is NOW!·

Another contact here in Atlanta has offered to get us on the CBN Network out of Virginia Beach. Granted, this is not everyone's theological "cup of tea'"; but fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and Gary Habermas [sic] have been some of the Shroud's strongest supporters over the last decade. I believe that we should take maximum advantage of this opportunity to provide a positive influence for our brothers and sisters of the right. Shifting to a Roman Catholic charismatic context, we should have little trouble in obtaining an hour's slot on Mother Angelica's cable ETERNAL WORLD NETWORK. The Shroud of Turin was the subject of her very first television broadcast, and both Frs. Otterbein and Dreisbach have previously appeared as guests on her show. Though appearances on both CBN and ETW may be judged as efforts to convert the already converted, both could be subsumed under the rubric of "holding our ground" in the face of the flood of anti-Shroud sentiment following on the heels of the "medieval" (sic) C-14 date. Carefully planned, such appearances could "arm'" the uninformed faithful with. salient "facts" arguing for the Shroud's authenticity. At the very least, these, appearances would serve to "equip the saints" in many communities served by these networks- so that; they could keep the debate alive rather than surrendering without a whimper to the "scientific" fiat of the three C-14 labs.

Finally, I believe that consideration should be given to actively seeking "panel" appearances on quality major network shows such as Ted Koppel's "Night Line," "20/20" and "60 Minutes." Each of the above allows for greater "in depth'" coverage of the debate than is possible via snippets on normal news broadcasts. If such shows are considered geared to the more "cerebral' members of the public, thought might also be given to the more "popular" shows like Phil Donahue, Oprah Winfrey, Sally Jessy Raphael and Geraldo Rivera. Also Larry King is another possibility. Anyone reading this memo who has contacts with "gatekeepers" on any of these shows is requested to make contact with the AICCSST immediately. This would also hold true for anyone having entree to print media such as Newsweek, Time, Life, People Magazine, etc.

NOTE: Dr. Daniel Scavone raised an obvious but highly significant point in noting the key importance of "visuals" (i.e. slides and video clips) and their impact on the viewer when debating the PREPONDERANCE OF-EVIDENCE vs. the "MEDIEVAL"·(sic) C-14 date. Even for St. John at the Empty Tomb and St. Thomas in the upper room, "Seeing is Believing" has- proven to be a powerful tool in "conversion."' Clips showing the Shroud's 3-D properties via. the VP-8 Image Analyzer, the Iconographic Theory, including numismatic evidence like the solidus of Justinian II (A.D. 692-695) , the 4 right angle burn holes ("spy clues"). on the Hungarian Pray Ms. (A.D. 1192-1195) and the Lierre copy (A.D. 1516), and many other pieces of evidence have much greater impact when presented visually than in oral or escritorial form. Lawyers and other debaters have long known that the "impact on the jury" is much more than a mere presentation of the "facts." As is the case with the Shroud itself, often the. "medium is the message;" and we should take full advantage of such visual persuasion when given the opportunity to appear on TV.

Continued in part two of this series.

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]

DP89. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, 611-615.
RPW. "Reproducibility," Wikipedia, 17 November 2023.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
TJ96. Tyrer, J., 1996, “Is It Really A Fake?,” from Textile Horizons, March 1989, Shroud News, No 62, December, 6-9.
WI98. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.
WI10. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London.

Posted 21 November 2023. Updated 29 December 2023.