Thursday, June 2, 2016

The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #8

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Index: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #9, #10 & #11] See "My Hacker Theory in a nutshell."

Introduction. This is part #8 of my concluding summary of the evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[2] was the result of a computer hacking, allegedly by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[3], aided by German hacker Karl Koch (1965–89)[4], on behalf of the former Soviet Union, through its agency the KGB. Previous posts in this series were parts: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7. I will link the main headings in these posts back to my previous, "My theory ..." posts on those topics. The next post in this series is part #9.

■ Evidence that Karl Koch installed Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford laboratories' AMS computers [#10(9) & #8]

[Above (enlarge)[5]: Karl Koch (1965–89). "The hacker Karl Koch was only 23 years old. On 1 June 1989 they found his burnt corpse in a forest near Gifhorn (Lower Saxony)."[6].]

As summarised by Wikipedia:

"Karl Werner Lothar Koch (July 22, 1965 – ca. May 23, 1989) was a German hacker in the 1980s, who called himself `Hagbard', after Hagbard Celine. He was involved in a Cold War computer espionage incident. ... Koch was born in Hanover. As his moniker would suggest, he was heavily influenced by The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea. ... Koch was loosely affiliated with the Chaos Computer Club. He worked with the hackers known as DOB (Dirk-Otto Brezinski), Pengo (Hans Heinrich Hübner), and Urmel (Markus Hess), and was involved in selling hacked information from United States military computers to the KGB. Clifford Stoll's book The Cuckoo's Egg gives a first-person account of the hunt and eventual identification of Hess. Pengo and Koch subsequently came forward and confessed to the authorities under the espionage amnesty, which protected them from being prosecuted. Koch was found burned to death with gasoline in a forest near Celle, Germany. The death was officially claimed to be a suicide. However, some believe there is little evidence supporting suicide and many believe that Koch was killed in order to keep him from confessing more to the authorities. Why Koch would be targeted, and not Pengo and Urmel, is unknown. Koch left his workplace in his car to go for lunch; he had not returned by late afternoon and so his employer reported him as a missing person. Meanwhile, West German police were alerted of an abandoned car in a forest near Celle. When they went to investigate, they found an abandoned car, that looked like it had been there for years, as it was covered in dust. Near to the car they found a burned corpse (Koch). His shoes were missing and have never been found. There was a patch of burned ground around him, which although it had not rained in some time and the grass was perfectly dry, was controlled in a small circle around the corpse. It is thought to be highly unlikely that this type of controlled burning could have been achieved by Koch himself which leads many to believe that his death was not suicide." (my emphasis)[7].
• Koch was a German computer hacker in the 1980s. Karl Koch was born in Hanover, then West Germany, on 22 July 1965[8]. Both his parents were dead by the time he was 16 and Koch's inheritance supported his expensive drug habit[9]. Koch began computer hacking in Hanover in the early 1980s[10]. Koch's online name was "Hagbard Celine" after the hero of the The Illuminatus! Trilogy[11] novels, who fights against The Illuminati, a fictitious, but to Koch real, all-powerful secret society[12]. Unlike other hackers, Koch was no programmer but was expert at guessing logins and passwords[13]. What Koch lacked in programming skills he more than made up for by his deep intuition, fertile imagination[14], unusual insight, patience, single-mindedness[15] and persistence[16]. Also, other hackers were part-time but Koch, supported by his inheritance, devoted every waking moment to hacking[17].

• Koch became a paid hacker for the KGB. In 1985, at a hacker meeting in Hanover, Koch was recruited by a Peter Carl as a the first member of a ring of hackers to break into Western computer systems, particularly those on military or defence industry sites, and sell the information and programs to the KGB[18]. Others who joined Koch in the Hanover KGB hacker circle[19] included Hans Heinrich Hübner (Pengo)[20], Dirk-Otto Brzezinski (DOB)[21] and Markus Hess (Urmel)[22]. In September 1986 Peter Carl went to the Soviet trade mission in East Berlin with a proposition to sell them secret information from USA military computers[23]. A KGB agent, Sergei Markov, agreed to Carl's hacking proposition[24]. At subsequent meetings in East Berlin with Carl and Brzezinski, from 1986 through 1988, Markov paid for information and software the German hacker ring, including Koch, provided[25].

• Koch allegedly installed Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers. By early 1987, Koch had spent his inheritance and his drug dependency had become acute[26]. It was in this ~7 month period between October 1987, after the Archbishop of Turin announced that only three AMS laboratories, Arizona, Oxford and Zurich, would date the Shroud[27] and April 1988 when samples were cut from the Shroud and given to the three laboratories for dating[28], that according to my theory, the KGB's Sergei Markov secretly approached Koch, with an offer of drugs[29] and/or money in return for Koch installing Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford AMS computers. How exactly Koch installed Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford AMS computers is not part of my theory. Except that, since Arizona's and Oxford's (and presumably Zurich's) AMS computers were never online[30], Linick's program would have had to be installed manually and locally, either by Koch alone, or by a KGB operative following Koch's instructions, or more likely by a KGB operative taking Koch to each of the two laboratories and helping him gain access to their AMS computers.

• The laboratories' AMS computers had a major security flaw. In 1987 it was known by hackers (including Koch[31]) that VMS, the operating system for the "DEC computer system" that the AMS computer at Arizona[32] (and presumably also at Zurich and Oxford) was, had a major security flaw, in that if an unauthorised user entered any login and password and ignored the error messages, he could gain access to the system:

"Two ... Hamburg students ... code-named Bach and Handel ... had exploited a devastatingly simple flaw in the VMS operating system used on VAX. The machines, like most computer systems, required users to log in their ID and then type their password to gain access. If the ID or the password was wrong, the VMS system had been designed to show an 'error' message and bar entry. But ... if they simply ignored all the 'error' messages, they could walk straight into the system - provided they continued with the log-on as though everything was in order. When confronted with the 'error' message after keying in a fake ID, they would press `enter', which would take them to the password prompt. They would then type in a phoney password, bringing up a second, equally ineffectual 'error' message. By ignoring it and pressing enter again, they were permitted access to the system. It was breathtakingly easy, and left the VAX open to any hacker, no matter how untalented. ... The VAX operating system, VMS, had been subjected to stringent tests ... It beggared belief that VMS could have gone through such testing without the back door being discovered. [Later, it would be established that although early versions of VMS had been fully tested, later ones hadn't. It was these newer versions that contained the back door. (Users update their computers with the latest versions of the operating systems almost as a matter of course, so nearly all VAXen became insecure for a time.)]"[33] (my emphasis).

And even when "Digital issued a 'mandatory patch' ... in May 1987. ... many users didn't bother to install it"

"Responding to complaints from its users, Digital issued a 'mandatory patch', a small program designed specifically to close the back door, in May 1987. Despite the 'mandatory' tag, many users didn't bother to install it. So, at least for a time, VAX computers across the world provided hackers with an open house ..." (my emphasis)[34].
And a reason why many system managers did not install DEC's `mandatory patch" is that DEC were "being real quiet about it. They don't want their customers to panic" (see below).

Indeed, after the "NASA hack," in which both Hess and Koch were involved[35], it was found that "DEC's [VMS] installation procedure works only" for a "SYSTEM account" but "most system managers do not change the preset default password MANAGER" and those who did change it used easy-to-guess passwords:

"In Hess' apartment, public prosecutors found (on March 3, 1989) password lists from other hacks. On Monday, March 6, 1989, the Panorama team (who had disclosed the NASA hack and basically the KGB connection) asked Klaus Brunnstein to examine some of the password lists; the material which he saw (for 30 minutes) consisted of about 100 photocopied protocols of a hack during the night of July 27 to 28, 1987; it was the famous `NASA hack.' From a VAX 750 (with VMS 4.3) ... to log-into other VAXes in remote institutes. They always used SYSTEM account and the `proper' password (invisible). ... DEC's installation procedure works only if a SYSTEM account is available; evidently, most system managers do not change the preset default password MANAGER; since Version 4.7, MANAGER is excluded, but on previous VMS versions, this hole probably exists in many systems! ... the hackers, in more than 40% of the cases, succeeded to login, their first activities were to ... to install ... the Trojan horse. With the Trojan horse ... they copied the password lists to their PCs. When looking through the password list, Klaus observed the well-known facts: More than 25% female or male first names, historical persons, countries, cities, or local dishes ... the password lists contained less than 5% passwords of such nature easy to guess! (my emphasis)"[36].

And if the AMS laboratories' VMS was the very popular version 4.5, then "Anyone that logs into the system can become system manager by running a short program":

"Now if you want a tasty security hole, check out VMS. They've got a hole you could drive a truck through.' `Huh?' `Yeah. It's in every VAX computer from Digital Equipment Corporation that runs the VMS operating system Version 4.5.' `What's the problem?' Darren explained. 'Anyone that logs into the system can become system manager by running a short program. You can't stop 'em.' I hadn't heard of this problem. 'Isn't DEC doing something about it? After all, they sell those systems.' `Oh, sure, they're sending out patches. But they're being real quiet about it. They don't want their customers to panic.' `Sounds reasonable.' `Sure, but nobody's installing those patches. What would you do-some tape shows up in the mail saying, `Please install this program or your system may develop problems' ... you'll ignore it, because you've got better things to do.' `So all the systems are open to attack?' `You got it.' `Wait a second. That operating system was certified by NSA. They tested it and certified it secure.' `Sure they spent a year testing it. And a month after they verified the system, DEC modified it slightly. Just a little change in the password program.' ... `And now fifty thousand computers are insecure.' (my emphasis)"[37].

So it would be likely that Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers, not being online, were among the "many," indeed "nearly all," VAX computers which were not patched. And were in the "more than 40% of the cases" where the System password was still set to its default "MANAGER." And were among the 95% whose passwords were easy to guess!

• Koch was one of the first to exploit the VMS login security flaw. In 1985 Koch had obtained instructions and a program to exploit the VMS login security flaw, and sold it to the KGB for money and drugs:

"However, the Soviets lacked the skill and expertise for computer-mediated acquisitions and sought to recruit others. Having recruited Hanover hacker Karl Koch earlier, Koch became the vehicle through which the KGB acquired other IBM and DEC vigilante or mercenary talent and capability. In 1985, under greater pressure from Berlin KGB handlers. Karl Koch traveled to Karlsruhe seeking a DEC VAX VMS hacker named Steffen Weihruch. Weihruch provided Koch with a crafted software tool designed to automatically and deeply exploit a dangerous back-doors access point in the VAX system The hidden administrative backdoor was previously discovered by two Heidelberg hackers code-named Bach and Handel. The Weihruch tool was a password stealer that was covert, selective, and self-concealing. Once installed the tool cloaked its' presence, only recorded the access credentials of privileged system users in a record that could be picked up later, and erased its' activity as recorded in the computing system logs. Koch acquired the tool and sold it to the KGB in exchange for money and drugs. Bach and Handel also came into possession of the tool; the two were proteges of Weihruch."[38].
Hacking into such insecure 1980s computers would be easy for a very experienced hacker as Koch was. It may be significant that in late 1987/early 1988 Markov wanted Koch excluded from the KGB hacking ring because of his drug-taking and talking to journalists for money[39].

• Koch confessed to hacking for the KGB. Following a period of treatment in psychiatric hospitals and drug rehabilitation centers[40], Koch was on the road to recovery[41]. In June 1987, due to Clifford Stoll's persistence, American and West German authorities cooperated in tracing Markus Hess' modem call from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories in California to his apartment in Hanover, Germany, but due to a police bungle, Hess was not caught in the act of hacking as planned[42], and although he was arrested and charged, Hess was later released on appeal[43]. A year later, in the summer of 1988, first Koch, then Hübner, independently, taking advantage of an amnesty provision for espionage in West German legislation, approached the authorities to confess their hacking for the KGB[44]. Both were interrogated by West German prosecutors[45], and on 2 March 1989 eight were arrested, including Hess, Hübner, Koch, Brezinski and Carl, but all except Carl and Brezinski were released after a few days[46]. Koch and Hübner, having confessed to espionage before they were caught, under the espionage amnesty legislation were in no danger of being jailed providing they co-operated, which they did[47].

• In April 1989 a distraught German-sounding male phoned a well-known Shroud author and begged forgiveness for "falsifying the results of the 1988 dating" through "espionage". As posted in my May 2016 Shroud of Turin News Editorial, leading Shroud pro-authenticist Joe Marino emailed me in May the following (author's name substituted with "AN"):

"I've been in contact with AN about the C-14 issue and he has given me his okay to mention something we discussed to you, which is interesting in light of your 10 part series about a possible hacking. He's only told a few people and never wrote about it in any of his books because he can't prove anything. He said that not long after the C-14 dating--he thinks it was probably around April 1989, he received a call about 1:30 in the morning. The (male) person, who did not apologize for calling so late, sounded distraught. The person told AN he had been involved in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating. AN thought the accent might have been German and thought the person was in his 40s but wasn't sure because of the accent and emotional nature of the call. The person would not reveal his name (the person claimed it wasn't important) or where he was calling from. He kept asking AN if he would forgive him for having done a disservice to humanity. The person even mentioned the word `espionage' in relation to the event. The only detail he gave about the procedure was saying that the real Shroud sample was thrown in the trash. That last detail, of course, doesn't fit with a computer hacking, but other details do fit with your description of Koch. AN said the person said he also planned to call other Shroud researchers, but as far as we know, no one ever did receive a call. AN has wondered over the years whether the call itself could have been a fraud, but he is firm that the person sounded distraught to the point that AN said he wouldn't have been surprised if the guy would have said `I've got a gun and I'm going to shoot myself.' Even now, AN just isn't sure what to think. But I know you'll find this interesting one way or the other."[48].
I replied to Marino that, because of the German accent, and especially "because of the unusual word `espionage,' I believe it was Koch":
"The caller being German does fit Karl Koch but him throwing the Shroud sample in the trash does not. There is no doubt that the Shroud sample was dated, because the dating was not blind and the Shroud has a distinctive weave. However, it could have been a metaphor for him having `trashed' the Shroud. The word `espionage' is very significant because that was what the hackers were charged with and were granted amnesty for under then West German law. That word has, as far as I know, never been used of the Shroud dating. I only found it in books [and Wikipedia] about the West German hacker ring who were prosecuted in 1988 for selling computer secrets to the USSR. Koch became a Christian in late 1988/early 1989, and could have obtained AN's name from his ... book `....' It would have been more certainly Koch if he had mentioned hacking. But because of the unusual word `espionage,' I believe it was Koch."[49]
The Wikipedia entry on Koch above twice mentions "espionage" in the context of Koch's hacking:
"... Koch ... was a German hacker in the 1980s ... He was involved in a Cold War computer espionage incident ... Pengo (Hans Heinrich Hübner) ... and Koch subsequently came forward and confessed to the authorities under the espionage amnesty, which protected them from being prosecuted."[50].
The alternative is that this was just a crank call, and while a crank might say "he had been involved in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating" by him throwing "the real Shroud sample" into "the trash," it is difficult to imagine a crank using the word "espionage" in that context. A search of my system found that, the word "espionage" had never been used in relation to the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, until I started using it. It is also hard to imagine a crank being (or pretending to be) "distraught" about discrediting the Shroud, rather than crowing about it. Let alone being so distraught that it left an impression on AN such that he not only "told a few people," considered writing about it in one of "his books" and kept wondering about it "over the years." The time, "April 1989" also fits Koch better than a crank because the latter would more likely have phoned AN shortly after it was announced on 13 October 1988 that radiocarbon dating had shown the Shroud to be a medieval fake[51]. And as we saw above and shall see next, it was on 23 May 1989 that Koch was reported missing, presumably abducted by the KGB, and was later found dead on 1 June 1989.If the KGB discovered that Koch had since April 1989 been telling others that "he had been involved in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating," that would explain why it decided to silence Koch permanently. I regard this information volunteered by AN as highly significant, because not only is it the first piece of evidence that directly links Koch with hacking the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, but also it shows that leading Shroud pro-authenticists like Joe Marino and AN are starting to take my hacking theory seriously!

• Koch was murdered between 23 and 30 May 1989. Before noon on 23 May 1989, Koch left his workplace at the Hanover office of West Germany's Christian Democratic Union party, in his employer's vehicle, to deliver a package to a government office in Hanover, but he never arrived[52]. In the late afternoon, Koch's employer notified the police of his disappearance[53]. Koch's friends and the West German domestic security agency (BFV) sent out search parties looking for Koch but after a week the searches were abandoned[54]. On 30 May a farmer who had been checking his irrigation daily noticed a car parked in the adjoining forest[55] near the village of Ohof, north of Hanover[56]. After a few days in a row, when he saw that the car was still there, he called the police[57], on 1 June. The police investigated the report that day and found that the car's roof, hood and windscreen were thick with dust[58], looking like it had been there for years[59]. In the undergrowth near the car, the police found a charred corpse lying next to an empty gasoline can[60]. He was lying face down with an arm over his head as though trying to shield himself from the flames[61]. The vegetation in the surrounding three or four metres had been burned black[62]. The police concluded that the driver of the car

[Above (enlarge): Partially burnt forest trees from the gasoline fire that killed Karl Koch[63]. Note that a fire which can partly burn "dry as matchwood" trees would not go out until all the wood was burned, unless it was controlled by one or more persons using fire extinguishers or hoses. Buckets of water would not put out a gasoline fire. But Koch couldn't have extinguished the gasoline fire that killed him and there were no fire extinguishers, hoses or buckets left at the scene. Therefore Koch's death was murder, not suicide!]

had committed suicide[64] by pouring the contents of the gasoline can over himself, soaking the surrounding earth as well, lit a match, and was burned to death[65]. The police noted that the corpse was barefoot but no shoes were found in the car or in the surrounding area[66]. They were puzzled, because there had been no rain for five weeks and the undergrowth was as dry as matchwood, yet the scorched patch around the body was contained, as if it had been carefully controlled[67]. On 3 June 1989[68] the body was publicly identified by the police as that of Karl Koch[69]. But if Koch had committed suicide

[Above (enlarge): Timeline between: a. Koch's disappearance on 23 May 1989[70]; b. a farmer first noticing on 30 May what turned out to be Koch's work vehicle parked in the adjoining forest[71]; c. police responding to the farmer's report found a burnt body near the vehicle[72]; d. police identification on 3 June of the body as that of Koch[73]; and e. Linick's `suicide' (see 22Feb16 & 07Mar16) a day later on 4 June[74].]

by pouring gasoline over himself and then setting it alight, he could not then have been able to control the fire that killed him to prevent it spreading outside the confined perimeter[75]. Koch would have been wearing shoes when he left his office in the car, but they weren't in the car or the surrounding area[76]. And no suicide note was found.[77].

Moreover, suicide made no sense, since Koch had confessed to the West German authorities his selling of hacked Western computer secrets to the KGB[78]. He was therefore in no danger of being prosecuted, being protected from punishment by the terms of the West German espionage amnesty legislation[79]. The authorities had actually provided Koch with accommodation and found him a job with the Christian Democratic Party[80]. He was also receiving help with his drug dependency and seemed on his way to rehabilitation[81] Koch was even planning to move into an apartment of his own and had embraced conventional religion[82]. So even on those grounds (apart from the impossibility of Koch extinguishing in dry forest undergrowth, with no fire extinguisher, hose or bucket, the gasoline fire which killed him), murder was much more likely than suicide[83] to put it mildly.

When the Nature paper announced on 16 February 1989 that the Shroud had in 1988 been radiocarbon dated by "laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich" as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[84], it was worldwide news[85]. Koch who was employed by the Christian Democratic Party, and had "embraced conventional religion" (see above) i.e. Christianity, would have heard about it, from the news media and/or from his Christian friends. If Koch knew that he had in 1987/88 hacked two computers in laboratories at Zurich and Oxford universities, even if he did not know what their function was, he would have `put two and two together' and realised that the "mediaeval" carbon date of the Shroud was partly the result of his hacking. In which case if Koch then told his Christian friends about it, and even phoned at least one leading pro-Shroud author (as we saw above), the KGB would likely have learned of it, and would explain why the KGB would have permanently silenced Koch, and then Linick on 4 June 1989, the day after Koch's burnt body was publicly identified on 3 June 1989!

• Koch is not essential to my theory. As I have previously stated, Karl Koch is not essential to my theory:

"... Koch's role is not essential to my theory. If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have personally travelled to Zurich and Oxford to access their radiocarbon laboratories computers, it would not falsify my theory. My theory includes Koch because of the striking coincidence that they were both allegedly hackers working for the KGB and both allegedly committed suicide within days of each other"[86]

"...Karl Koch is not essential to my theory, as Linick could have hacked Zurich and Oxford's AMS computer some other way, e.g. by issuing them with a program `update', or one of the KGB's own operatives could have entered those two laboratories clandestinely and installed Linick's program on their AMS control console computers"[87]

If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have been involved, either directly or indirectly, in installing Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford laboratories' AMS computers, then my theory would not be falsified. I would then maintain that Linick's program was installed on those laboratories' computers by some other way. For example, Linick himself could have flown over to Zurich and Oxford, installed his program clandestinely on their computers, and returned to Arizona, in a few days. This is why my theory always has been "that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" (singular).

Also, as I have also previously stated, it is not essential to my theory that Linick knew Koch, or even about Koch (and vice-versa):

"... I don't claim that the laboratories, or even Linick, knew about Koch"[88]

I had included Karl Koch in my theory despite there being no evidence of a link between Koch and Linick (there does not need to be), and before there was evidence of a link between Koch and the 1988 radiocarbon dating (as there now is - see above) because of: 1) the striking coincidence that both Koch and Linick died of suspected suicide within days of each other (and indeed Linick's `suicide' on 4 June 1989 was only one day after Koch charred body was identified and publicly announced as his by West German police on 3 June 1989 -see above); 2) Koch's death was almost certainly the work of the KGB, or the East German Secret Police (Stasi)[89] at the behest of the KGB; 3) yet the KGB had no reason to kill Koch unless he had been involved in an entirely different type of hacking for them which they did not want to become public knowledge; 4) Koch's expertise would have been useful in hacking into Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers (but Linick may have known how to do it); and 5) Koch's living in West Germany would have made it comparatively easy for him to travel to Zurich and Oxford to install Linick's program on their computers (although that too is not necessary to my theory as Koch may have only provided expert advice on how to hack into those computers and a KGB operative may have entered the laboratories clandestinely and installed Linick's program on their AMS computers, or Linick himself may have installed it).

So those who continue to dismiss my theory as merely a "conspiracy theory," ignoring all my evidence, and in the full knowledge of my above disclaimers that Koch is not essential to my theory and Linick could have acted alone, do so dishonestly and/or self-deludedly!

Continued in part #9 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
3. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
4. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 1 April 2016. [return]
5. Photo, "In memory of Karl Koch. Hagbard Celine. 22.7.1965. 23.05.1989." Translated by Google. http://www.hagbard-celine.de/. [return]
6. Clauss, U., 2012, "Ancestor of the Pirate Party was charred in the forest," Die Welt, 25 May 2012. Translated by Google. [return]
7. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 1 April 2016. Footnotes omitted and links added. [return]
8. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 1 April 2016. [return]
9. Hafner, K. & Markoff, J., 1991, "Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier," Corgi: London, reprinted, 1993, p.207. [return]
10. Clough. B. & Mungo, P., 1992, "Approaching Zero: Data Crime and the Computer," Faber & Faber: London & Boston, pp.164-165. [return]
11. Shea, R. & Wilson, R.A., 1975, "The Illuminatus! Trilogy," Dell: New York NY. [return]
12. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.206. [return]
13. Ibid. [return]
14. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.206-207. [return]
15. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.216. [return]
16. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.214. [return]
17. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.215. [return]
18. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.164. [return]
19. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.208. [return]
20. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.209, 185. [return]
21. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.209. [return]
22. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.211. [return]
23. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.224. [return]
24. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.225, 293. [return]
25. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.230-231, 239-240, 245, 249, 250, 254, 260. [return]
26. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.266. [return]
27. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.213-214. [return]
28. Gove, 1996, pp.260-261. [return]
29. King, T., ed., 1989a, "Computer Espionage: Three `Wily Hackers' Arrested," Phrack Magazine, Issue #25, March 3. [return]
30. Jones, S.E., 2014, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," The Shroud of Turin blog, March 13. [return]
31. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.173. [return]
32. Linick, T.W., et al., 1986, "Operation of the NSF-Arizona accelerator facility for radioisotope analysis and results from selected collaborative research projects," Radiocarbon, Vol. 28, No. 2a, pp.522-533, 524. [return]
33. Clough & Mungo, 1992, pp.170-172, 228n5. [return]
34. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.172. [return]
35. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991, p.362. [return]
36. King, T., ed., 1989b, "News From The KGB/Wily Hackers," Phrack Magazine, Issue #25, March 7. [return]
37. Stoll, 1989, pp.341-342. [return]
38. Yanalitis, M., 2014, "The Impact of Project RAHAB and the Chaos Computing Congresses (CCC) on the Future of Computer-Network Mediated Espionage: Cuckoo's Egg Prequel or Perfect Storm?," Carnegie Mellon University, January 9, pp.1-37, 15. [return]
39. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.254, 266. [return]
40. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.283. [return]
41. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
42. Stoll, 1989, p.363. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.184. [return]
45. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.172. [return]
46. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.184. [return]
47. Clough & Mungo, 1992, pp.183-184. [return]
48. Marino, J.G., 2016, Email "Re: info about a strange call Shroud researcher received circa 1989," 4 May 2016, 10:26 AM. [return]
49. Jones, S.E., 2016, Email "Re: info about a strange call Shroud researcher received circa 1989," 14 May 2016, 3:19 PM. [return]
50. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 1 April 2016. [return]
51. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.8-9; 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.118; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.6-7; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.3; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.168-169; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.166; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.84-85. [return]
52. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
53. Ibid. [return]
54. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.302-303. [return]
55. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
56. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
57. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
58. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
59. Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 1 April 2016. [return]
60. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
61. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
62. Ibid. [return]
63. "Cliff Stoll visiting Karl Koch's death forest," YouTube, January 13, 2008. [return]
64. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
65. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
66. Ibid. [return]
67. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
68. King, T., ed., 1989c, "One of Cliff Stoll's `Wily Hackers' Is Dead (Suicide?)," Phrack Magazine, June 5. This 5th June Phrack Magazine report states that Koch died on 3 June, evidently wrongly assuming at the time that Koch had died the same day that the police publicly identified his body. [return]
69. Ibid. [return]
70. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.302-303. [return]
71. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p. 303. [return]
72. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
73. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
74. Galeazzi, G., 2013. "Never solved: The enigma that still divides the Church: The Shroud," Vatican Insider, 1 April. Translated from Italian by Google (no longer online). English translation, "Unsolved Enigma that Still Divides the Church: The Shroud" (no longer online). [return]
75. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
76. Ibid. [return]
77. Stoll, 1989, p.362. [return]
78. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
79. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.186. [return]
80. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
81. Ibid. [return]
82. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.302. [return]
83. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
84. Damon, 1989, pp. 611-615. [return]
85. Wilson, 1991, p.9; Wilson, 1998, pp.7-8; Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, p.5; Ruffin, 1999, p.118; Tribbe, 2006, p.169; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.141. [return]
86. Jones, S.E., 2014, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #1," The Shroud of Turin blog, 24 May. [return]
87. Jones, S.E., 2014, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #5," The Shroud of Turin blog, June 13. [return]
88. Jones, S.E., 2014, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #7," The Shroud of Turin blog, July 5. [return]
89. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]

Posted 2 June 2016. Updated 26 June 2026.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, May 2016

Shroud of Turin News - May 2016
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: April 2016, part #4] [Next: May 2016, part #2]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1 of the May 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related April/May 2016 news articles in separate posts, linked back to this post, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine. Click on a link below to go to that article. Articles not yet linked are planned to be commented on in this issue.

Contents:
Editorial
"New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person"
"The Shroud of Turin, Authenticated Again"


Editorial. Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz for him to convert to PDF and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in May up to issue #50, December 1988 [Right (enlarge)], which is a bumper issue of 68 pages, mostly about the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[2]. Issues are up to issue #36, August 1986, in that archive, but Barrie had advised me there will be a Shroud.com update today, 1 June (Colorado time-which is 14 hours behind my Perth time) [which there was], and that will [and did] include issue #50 (less six pages which I will send him by 4 June).

Topic index: I had not found the time to add any more of my old posts to my Topic Index in May, so it is still up to and including my post of 28 March 2012.

Posts: In May, I blogged only 4 (time-consuming) posts: "Editorial and Contents": Shroud of Turin News - April 2016; "Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery? (1)": Shroud of Turin News - April 2016; "Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery? (2)": Shroud of Turin News - April 2016; and "The Shroud of Oviedo: A Legendary Cloth Connected to the Death of Jesus" (2): Shroud of Turin News - April 2016. As mentioned in "My review of `The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God' (2016) by Philip E. Dayvault" I am still working on a review of Dayvault's book to be posted on Amazon.com [Abandoned-see 10Jul16].

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: In May Joe Marino emailed me the following (name replaced with "AN" by me):

"I've been in contact with AN about the C-14 issue and he has given me his okay to mention something we discussed to you, which is interesting in light of your 10 part series about a possible hacking. He's only told a few people and never wrote about it in any of his books because he can't prove anything. He said that not long after the C-14 dating--he thinks it was probably around April 1989, he received a call about 1:30 in the morning. The (male)person, who did not apologize for calling so late, sounded distraught. The person told AN he had been involved in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating. AN thought the accent might have been German and thought the person was in his 40s but wasn't sure because of the accent and emotional nature of the call. The person would not reveal his name (the person claimed it wasn't important) or where he was calling from. He kept asking AN if he would forgive him for having done a disservice to humanity. The person even mentioned the word `espionage' in relation to the event. The only detail he gave about the procedure was saying that the real Shroud sample was thrown in the trash. That last detail, of course, doesn't fit with a computer hacking, but other details do fit with your description of Koch. AN said the person said he also planned to call other Shroud researchers, but as far as we know, no one ever did receive a call. AN has wondered over the years whether the call itself could have been a fraud, but he is firm that the person sounded distraught to the point that AN said he wouldn't have been surprised if the guy would have said `I've got a gun and I'm going to shoot myself.' Even now, AN just isn't sure what to think. But I know you'll find this interesting one way or the other."
I regard this as highly significant, first because it shows that my hacker theory is starting to be taken seriously by leading Shroud pro- authenticists. Not only by Joe Marino, but also by AN, who (as indicated by "any of his books") is a well-known pro-authenticist author. For him to offer new evidence for my hacker theory is to me as good as it gets! Second, as I replied to Joe, "because of the unusual word `espionage,' I believe it was Koch":
"The caller being German does fit Karl Koch but him throwing the Shroud sample in the trash does not. There is no doubt that the Shroud sample was dated, because the dating was not blind and the Shroud has a distinctive weave. However, it could have been a metaphor for him having `trashed' the Shroud. The word `espionage' is very significant because that was what the hackers were charged with and were granted amnesty for under then West German law. That word has, as far as I know, never been used of the Shroud dating. I only found it in books about the West German hacker ring who were prosecuted in 1988 for selling computer secrets to the USSR. Koch became a Christian in late 1988 / early 1989, and could have obtained AN's name from his ... book `...'. It would have been more certainly Koch if he had mentioned hacking. But because of the unusual word `espionage,' I believe it was Koch."
I will comment on this further in part #8 of my "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking" which is next in that series and will be about Karl Koch. In fact I will make part #8 my very next post!

Other news: In May Joe Marino also emailed me a PDF (which `weighed' 12.5 Mb) of a 1989 sociology PhD thesis, titled, "The socio-politic of a relic: carbon dating the Turin Shroud," by a H. Laverdiere. She is Hélène Laverdière, now a Canadian MP [Left: Twitter]. In Joe's words,

"It's 291 pages long! ... It looks like a real gold mine. How in the world did this go unnoticed since 1989?"
I am only part way through it, but from what I have read, it probably is not going to be either pro- or anti-authenticity. However, I posted this quote from an interview she had with the then British Museum's Dr. Michael Tite, the coordinator of the dating, in a comment under one of my posts, where Tite admits that there was nothing in it for the Vatican to have the Shroud dated, because even if it did date 1st century, extreme anti-authenticists like him would still not accept that the Shroud was Jesus' burial sheet:
"`... there is no way I can see that the Vatican real interest to have it [the Shroud] authenticated at all really. Well I can't see the interest of the Vatican and Turin particularly to have it done. Well I mean you can't authenticate it. All you can do it's prove it is a fake... there is only one wrong date, it's the one which is 'not 0' because the other one doesn't prove anything... it could still be a 12th Century forgery using a 0 aged cloth.' (Tite, interview)" ("The Socio-Politic of a Relic: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Submitted by H. Laverdiere for the degree of PhD of the University of Bath 1989, p.27)
The PDF can be downloaded from the University of Bath at the above link, but Joe said the site "was a bit difficult to navigate." As I didn't relish emailing a 12.5 Mb PDF to anyone who requested a copy, I emailed Ms Laverdiere over two weeks ago, asking could she put her thesis on her website for Shroudies to download? But apart from an email of acknowledgement from one of her assistants, Ms Laverdiere herself has not responded. Then, while writing this, I discovered that I could copy the PDF to my Dropbox public folder, and then post a link to it so that anyone can download it, which I have now done. To download the PDF, click on, "Laverdiere Socio-Politic of a Relic Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud." I tested it and the download worked for me. Joe Marino has emailed me since that it also worked for him.

Pageviews: At midnight on 31st May, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 536,240 and "Pageviews last month" as 11,339. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month as: "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (5): Coins over eyes," May 10, 2013 - 180; "Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery? (1)," May 7, 2016 - 154; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified," Dec 2, 2013 - 103; "Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery? (2)," May 19, 2016 - 74 and "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 65.

Continued in part #2 of this May 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News.


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]

Posted 1 June 2016. Updated 23 May 2025.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

"The Shroud of Oviedo: A Legendary Cloth Connected to the Death of Jesus": Shroud of Turin News - April 2016

Shroud of Turin News - April 2016
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: April 2016, part #3] [Next: May 2016, part #1]

This is part #4 of the April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. The article's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

"The Shroud [sic] of Oviedo: A Legendary Cloth Connected to the Death of Jesus," Ancient Origins, 2 April, 2016, Natalia Klimczak. ... The Sudarium of Oviedo, also known as the Shroud [sic] of Oviedo is

[Above (enlarge): "Perfect fit of Sudarium of Oviedo (right) to the face on the Shroud of Turin (left)." The article wrongly referenced this back to Dan Porter's now closed "Shroud Story" blog, when it was just another case of Porter routinely pirating without proper attribution the work of others, in this case me. As is evident (but not evident enough for this Ancient Origins journalist), if one follows the link within "Shroud Story" one arrives at Porter's 2012 post, "How good is the match up between the Sudarium and the Shroud?." At the top of that post there is a link within the words, "Stephen Jones ... critique of Charles Freeman’s `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey'." If that link is clicked one arrives at my 2012 post, "My critique of Charles Freeman's `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey,' part 4 ..." It can then be seen that both the image and the words are mine, the former scanned by me from the book, Bennett, J., "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image," 2001, plate 20. I have submitted a comment under the article requesting that this error be corrected and to Ancient Origins' credit it has been corrected and now says "The Shroud of Turin". Because these links to the Ancient Origins article are slow to load, I have substituted them with the originals.]

one of the most important relics of Christianity. Next to the Shroud, the Sudarium of Oviedo is the most important relics of Christianity, because the Sudarium is the "face cloth" [Greek soudarion in John 20:7, "which had been on Jesus head," and found in the Empty Tomb by the Apostles Peter and John:

John 20:7 "and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself."
See my posts 09May15, 06Nov14, 21Sep14, 28Jul12, 04Jun10 & 26Jun08.

It is believed to be a cloth which was wrapped around Jesus' head after his death. The Sudarium of Oveido, which measures 85.5 x 52.6 cms = 33.7 x 20.7 in.)[2] would have been wrapped around

[Above (enlarge): "The Sudarium of Oviedo. (Mark Guscin)." This link in "Mark Guscin" is also to my post "My critique of Charles Freeman's ...."]

Jesus' head to cover His disfigured face until He was covered by the Shroud[3].

Evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo is the cloth that was wrapped around Jesus' head after his death on the cross[4], and was found by Peter and John in Jesus' tomb (John 20:6-7)[5], includes: ■ Vatican archivist Giulio Ricci (c.1913-95) in 1965 and 1979 examined the Sudarium and found that the bloodstain patterns on it closely resembles those on the head area of Shroud[6]. Dr Alan Whanger using his polarized image overlay technique examined Ricci's photographs of the Sudarium and found 130 congruent blood stains between the Sudarium and the Shroud face[7]. ■ Since these are complex patterns, their congruence cannot be coincidental[8]. ■ As these are both marks of real blood, both cloths must have been in contact with the same body at the same time[9]. ■ In 1979 pioneer forensic scientist Max Frei (1913–83) took pollen samples from the Sudarium[10], and these were found to include Gundelia tournefortii a Middle-Eastern thorn plant the pollen of which also occurs on the Shroud[11]. Frei also found pollen on the Sudarium consistent with it its route from Jerusalem to Spain via North Africa[12] but no pollen on it from Turkey, France or Italy[13]

Evidence against the Sudarium being a medieval forgery includes: ■ The Sudarium can be traced historically from Jerusalem[14], through Africa[15] to Spain in the 7th century[16], in the Asturias region around Oviedo since the ninth century[17] and indisputably in Oviedo since the 11th century[18]. This provides further evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[19] was wrong[20]. ■ There is no image on the Sudarium[21]. ■ There has been no attempt to advertise the Sudarium, apart from a benediction given with the cloth three times a year but only in recent centuries[22], and so even few Spaniards know of its existence[23]. ■ Claims that the Sudarium had been radiocarbon dated to around 700 AD are false[24].

The shroud It is unnecessarily confusing and just plain wrong to call the Sudarium a "shroud." A shroud is a sheet which covers the whole body: "shroud, ... a cloth or sheet in which a corpse is wrapped for burial" (my emphasis)[25]; "a cloth that is used to wrap a dead body" (my emphasis)[26]; "A cloth used to wrap a body for burial; a winding sheetl" (my emphasis)[27]. In the New Testament the same Greek word soudarion which is translated "face cloth" in Jn 20:7, and in Jn 11:44 of Lazarus "his face wrapped with a cloth" (my emphasis), is elsewhere translated "handkerchief(s)" in Lk 19:2 & Acts 19:12. is currently the greatest treasure in a cathedral of Oviedo, Spain. The Sudarium, and the Shroud, are the greatest treasures in the entire world! Because they both have on them the very blood of Jesus. As I wrote in previous posts:

[23Jun15] "Most accounts of seeing the Shroud, talk about the image. But to me the blood on the Shroud would be the most significant, since it actually is Jesus' blood! The very `precious blood of Christ' which `ransomed' me:
1Pet 1:18-19. 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot."
[23Jun15] "As a Christian first and a Shroud pro-authenticist second, I believe that the blood on the Shroud is `the precious blood of Christ" [1Pet 1:18-19] and indeed in that sense it is `the blood of God':
Acts 20:28: "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood."
Therefore I believe that the blood on the Shroud, being Christ's blood, is more precious (perhaps even infinitely so) than His image which is on the linen."

The Shroud [sic] of Oviedo is located in the chapel of St. Michael, also known as the Holy chamber of Oviedo, which nowadays belongs to the city's cathedral. The Holy chamber of Oviedo, is known in Spanish as Camara Santa (see below). In the early

[Above (enlarge): "The Camara Santa, or Holy Chamber, of the Cathedral of Oviedo, built in the 9th century by Alfonso II [c. 760–842] for the holy chest of relics."[28], which can be seen past the metal bars in the centre background.]

medieval period it was a separate pre-Romanesque church located next to the Tower of San Miguel. The Oviedo Cathedral was built in front of the 9th century church (below) within which is the

[Above (enlarge)[29]: The 9th century church built under King Alfonso II of Asturias, to house the Holy Chest (see below) which contained the Sudarium[30].]

Camara Santa, the Holy Chest and the Sudarium. The chamber, which was built in the times of the fall of the Visigothic kingdom, The Visigoths were the western branches of tribes of nomadic Germanic peoples, who had invaded the Roman Empire in 376[31]. The Visigothic Kingdom occupied southwestern France and the Iberian Peninsula from the 5th to the 8th centuries[32]. However in 711 a Muslim invasion defeated the Visigoths and by 725 most of the Iberian Peninsula was under Islamic rule[33]. However in Asturias, a mountainous region in Spain's north-west, a Visigothic nobleman named Pelagius or Pelayo (c. 685–737) revolted in 718 and defeated the Muslims at the battle of Covadonga[34]. Pelagius founded the Christian Kingdom of Asturias, ruling it from 718 until his death in 737[35]. Oviedo is the capital of Asturias[36]. became a UNESCO World Heritage Site in December 1998.

The chamber was built during the 9th century as a palace chapel for King Alfonso II of Asturias. Alfonso II built the chapel in 812 to house the Holy Chest (or Arca Santa)[37] (below) within

[Above (enlarge)[38]: The Holy Chest (or Arca Santa).]

which the Sudarium was transported from Jerusalem in 614[39], via Alexandria[40], to Cartagena and Seville in Spain in 616[42]; taken to the Monastery of San Vicente near Oviedo in 761[43], deposited in the Holy Chamber (Camara Santa) within the chapel by King Alfonso II in c.812[44], opened by Bishop Ponce (1025–28) in 1030[45] and again opened by King Alfonso IV (1040–1109) in 1075[46].]

It was destroyed in the 14th century and then replaced with the present day Gothic Cathedral of Oviedo. This is misleading. Neither the chapel nor the chamber (Camara Santa) were destroyed in the 14th century, although they were severely damaged by a terrorist bomb in 1934[47]. The Cathedral was "destroyed" in the 14th century, in the words of a tourist guide, but that is referring not to a natural or human disaster but to a rebuilding project[48].

The Cloth of Jesus Christ The Sudarium of Oviedo is a piece of cloth measuring 84 x 53 cm (33 x 21 inches). This is slightly wrong. The Sudarium's dimensions are 85.5 x 52.6 cms = 33.7 x 20.7 in. (see above), or approx 85 x 53 cms = 34 x 21 in. According to the Bible (John 20:6-7), it's a piece which was wrapped around the head of Jesus. No! The Greek preposition in Jn 20:7, "and the face cloth that had been on [epi] his head" is epi = "on" not peri "around."[49, 50]. And there is a space between the frontal and dorsal head images wide enough to allow for the soudarion to have been on the crown or top of the Shroud man's head, since there no image

[Above (enlarge)[51]: Gap of about 6½ inches (~16.5 cms) (see below) between the front and back head images, where the bloodstained "face cloth [soudarion] which had been on [epi] Jesus' head", but the image being vertically collimated[52], i.e. straight up and down from the body[53], no image would have been formed there.]

would have formed:

"Still more interesting, there is no imprint of the crown of the head between the forehead and the dorsal view. If the sweat cloth [soudarion] was tied above, no imprint could be formed there on the Shroud. The space between the frontal and dorsal view is wide enough to allow for the sweat cloth, especially if we suppose that the Shroud was not loosely laid, but drawn quite taut over the head"[54]
Agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow, agrees (albeit arguing for a chin-band which I don't) that "something fairly thin must have lain across the crown of the head":
"There is, in fact, clear evidence that such a band covered the crown of the head: the gap between the frontal and dorsal images. If the Shroud had lain directly on the man's crown, the body-image would have formed here as elsewhere, joining the two figures via a long, sausage-shaped head. The length of the gap, roughly 6½ inches, is too short to allow the cloth to have been raised beyond the range of the image-forming process (somewhere in the order of 2 inches). Therefore, something fairly thin must have lain across the crown of the head, preventing the imprint forming on the Shroud."[55]
But a chin-band would have been "around" [peri] Jesus' head and it is not mentioned in the Gospels. The "face cloth [soudarion, which had been on [epi] his [Jesus'] head, not lying with the linen cloths [strips] but folded up in a place by itself" (Jn 20:7) is mentioned in John's gospel, it is thin and so would have easily fitted in the gap on [epi] the top of the Shroud man's head, and unlike a chin-band it was not part of the othonia] from which it is distinguished.

Simon Peter, following him, also came up, went into the tomb, saw the linen cloth lying on the ground, This is a misquotation. It evidently is of Jn 20:5 from the Catholic Online Bible, which has "linen cloths" plural. The Greek is othonia[56], which is a plural diminutive[57], hence "linen strips"[58]. So the Shroud was not there, having been taken by Jesus out of the tomb and given by Him to the Apostle John (see my "Servant of the priest (1)" and "(2)"). and also the cloth that had been over his head; this was not with the linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself. Continuing the misquotation. However, despite the errors, this is a comprehensive article on the Sudarium of Oviedo, which taught me a lot in responding to it.

This concludes the April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. But I will continue to add in the background evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo is the cloth that was wrapped around Jesus' head, evidence against the Sudarium being a medieval forgery, and references.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.54; Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, pp.13,67. [return]
3. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.11. [return]
4. 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.47; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.41. [return]
5. Guerrera, 2001, p.41. [return]
6. Whanger, A.D. & M.W., "A Quantitative Optical Technique for Analyzing and Authenticating the Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.303-324, p.312; Ruffin, 1999, p.47. [return]
7. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, pp.312-313; Ruffin, 1999, p.48; Adler, A.D., 2000, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.113-127, 124. [return]
8. Adler, 2000, p124. [return]
9. Ruffin, 1999, p.48; Adler, 2000, p124. [return]
10. Danin, et al., 1999, p.11. [return]
11. Danin, et al., 1999, p.23. [return]
12. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.22; Guerrera, 2001, p.44. [return]
13. Guscin, 1998, p.22; Guerrera, 2001, p.44. [return]
14. Bennett, 2001, pp.28, 194. [return]
15. Bennett, 2001, pp.29, 194; Guerrera, 2001, p.42. [return]
16. Adler, 2000, p124; Bennett, 2001, p.13; Guerrera, 2001, pp.41-42. [return]
17. Bennett, 2001, p.13; Guerrera, 2001, p.43. [return]
18. Bennett, 2001, p.79. [return]
19. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
20. Adler, 2000, p124. [return]
21. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.312; ; Guerrera, 2001, p.41. [return]
22. Bennett, 2001, p.14. [return]
23. Bennett, 2001, p.14. [return]
24. Guscin, 1998, pp.76-78; Bennett, 2001, pp.78-79; "Sudarium of Oviedo," Wikipedia, 16 May 2016. [return]
25 "Shroud," Dictionary.com, 2010. [return]
26. "Shroud," Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d. [return]
27. "shroud," The Free Dictionary, 2016. [return]
28. Bennett, 2001, pl.3. [return]
29. Ho Diéguez, C.V., 2011, "Patrimonio Ibérico – Monumentos de Oviedo y el Reino de Asturias," ("Iberian heritage - Monuments of Oviedo and the Kingdom of Asturias" - Google Translate), 26 May. [return]
30. "Cámara Santa," Wikipedia, 29 February 2016. [return]
31. "Visigoths," Wikipedia, 20 May 2016. [return]
32. "Visigothic Kingdom," Wikipedia, 24 April 2016. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. Ibid. [return]
35. "Pelagius of Asturias," Wikipedia, 13 May 2016. [return]
36. Ibid. [return]
37. Bennett, 2001, p.195. [return]
38. "Arca Santa," Wikipedia, 30 June 2015. I used the Wikipedia image of the Arca Santa, instead of the one in the article because it is the unacknowledged original. [return]
39. Bennett, 2001, p.194. [return]
40. Bennett, 2001, p.194. [return]
41. Bennett, 2001, p.196. [return]
42. Bennett, 2001, p.194. [return]
43. Bennett, 2001, p.195. [return]
44. Bennett, 2001, p.195. [return]
45. Bennett, 2001, pp.195-196. [return]
46. Bennett, 2001, p.196. [return]
47. Bennett, 2001, p.196. [return]
48. "Oviedo Cathedral de San Salvador," Asturias Tourist Guide, 21 October 2011. [return]
49. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA., Second edition, p.839. [return]
50. Thayer, 1901, p.231, 501; Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, pp.166, 231; Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. & Danker, F.W., 1979, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, pp.285-286; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.51. [return]
51. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
52. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.184-189, p.188; Adler, A.D., "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, p.18. [return]
53. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.118; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.35, 130. [return]
54. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.95-96. [return]
55. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.147-148. [return]
56. Green, 1986, p.839. [return]
57. Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.311; Bauer, et al., 1979, p.555; Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.1028. [return]
58. Thayer, 1901, p.439; Zodhiates, 1992, p.855. [return]

Posted 25 May 2016. Updated 6 January 2026.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?" (2): Shroud of Turin News - April 2016

Shroud of Turin News - April 2016
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: April 2016, part #2] [Next: April 2016, part #4]

This is part #3 of the April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News, being a continuation of part #2. I have spent too much time on this article and need to move on to another April news article before my May Shroud News in June! So those points I have not yet addressed, I have supplied links to my previous posts and footnoted others with "Reference(s) to be provided," in the faint hope that I will find time to complete them. The article's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?," (no longer online) Church Militant, Ryan Fitzgerald, March 27, 2016. ... There's still no known way of reproducing the image on the cloth using medieval technology. In fact there is no way of reproducing the image on the cloth using modern technology. Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development (ENEA) found that it would require a battery of excimer

[Above (enlarge): ENEA's Hercules-L XeCl excimer laser: ENEA FIS-ACC Excimer Laboratory Annual Report 2000-2001]

ultraviolet lasers powered by a total of 34 billion watts to recreate the total Shroud image:

"However, Enea [sic ENEA] scientists warn, `it should be noted that the total power of VUV [vacuum ultraviolet] radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts)'"[2] See also my 22Dec11.
But that hasn't been shown to be practically feasible, let alone considering what such a battery of lasers would do to the bloodstains which were on the Shroud before its image[3].

It couldn't have been painted, as the fibers on the cloth are not stuck together by any sort of paint. It was already known by at least the 1930s that the Shroud's image was not painted:

"The whole force of the case against the authenticity of the Shroud which was brought by Canon Chevalier [Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923)] and so widely accepted, depended ... upon the assertion that the figures upon it were only paintings executed by a known artist of the fourteenth century. But it is abundantly clear, as soon as the Shroud itself is examined that they are nothing of the kind. There are at least five reasons which prove this ... They are as follows 1. The process of painting on a fabric at that time involved the deposit of solid particles of colouring matter upon the threads, so that these latter would become partially or entirely hidden. But in the case of the Shroud every thread is visible, and no trace of solid extraneous colouring matter can be detected even by microscopic examination. ... 2. Human work, however minute, necessarily shows outline and shading. It may be so fine as completely to deceive the unaided eye, but its nature at once becomes manifest when it is put under the microscope. But these figures on the Shroud have no outline and no trace of shading. ... 3. In the fourteenth century, in France, anatomy was very little understood and nothing was known of the laws of the circulation of the blood. But here the anatomical detail and proportion is exact, the behaviour of blood flowing from a wound is true to nature, and the contrast between living blood and dead blood is duly preserved. ... 4. The ... figures upon the Shroud are shown reversed in light and shade, something after the manner of a photographic negative. ... But no human being, even now, could paint in this way, not even if he were an expert retoucher of photographs, accustomed to work upon negatives. ... If that is so even to-day ... how much more was it so in the fourteenth century, when the very idea had not as yet occurred to men's minds. Nor ... could there have been any conceivable motive which would have led a painter to ... make his work so hard for others to understand. 5. ... We know well the limitations of the art of the fourteenth century, and France at that date was far behind Italy in such matters. Who was this unknown artist, a couple of centuries before his time, who was able to paint pictures anatomically correct and in a style completely true to nature? Such a picture, if it could be assigned with certainty to that date and country, would revolutionize all the history of art."[4].

But as leading anti-authenticist Walter McCrone (1916-2002) pointed out, painting was the simplest way a medieval artist would have forged the Shroud's image:

"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 ..." (my emphasis)[5]
However, in 1978 and its aftermath, after a battery of different scientific tests, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) established that:
"There is no paint, dye, powder, or other foreign substance on the image fibrils that could account for the image"[6]
The coloration on the cloth is actually a change in shading on the fibers themselves. That is, it is not something added to the image fibres but water molecules lost from them, driven out of their inner structure by energy[7], a process called dehydrative oxidation of cellulose[8] or cellulose oxidation[9] (see below).

[Above (original): Extract of a diagram of the dehydrative oxidation of cellulose[10]. As can be seen, a molecule of cellulose C6H10O6 (left), loses water H2O (middle) with two cellulose variant results C6H4O5 and C6H2O5. In both there is a loss of hydrogen leaving higher relative proportions of oxygen and carbon. The loss of water is what is meant by "dehydrative"[11] the higher relative proportion of oxygen causes new oxidation reactions, hence "oxidised"[12] The higher relative proportion of carbon results in two double carbon bonds in each image cellulose molecule, which is termed "conjugated carbonyl"[13]. It is the double carbon bonds which give the image fibres their distinctive yellow colour[14].]

Embalming methods have similarly been discredited as possible ways the image. The Jews didn't embalm their dead, that is, remove their internal organs and pickle their body to preserve it intact[15], but the Egyptians did[16], and of the countless Egyptian human mummies, none has an image of its dead body on its mummy cloths[17]. The Jews buried their dead whole under a simple shroud[18], that decomposed with the body[19], which is why, apart from the Shroud, only fragments of Jewish shrouds have been found[20].

Further, the image contains three-dimensional properties in the varying intensities of its shading. Jackson, et al. discovered this in 1977, when they placed a 1931 Enrie photograph of the Shroud under a VP-8 Image Analyzer[21]. The VP-8 is a computer which converts degrees of brightness into three-dimensional relief maps[22], for example, photographs of weather systems[23]. It has often been stated that the VP-8 was used by NASA and/or the USA's Space Program[24], but it never was[25]. The degrees of brightness in ordinary photographs are not caused by distance from the camera, so they don't have three-dimensional information encoded in them and appear distorted in the VP-8[26]. But photographs of the Shroud image do appear in three-dimensional relief on the VP-8, showing that its degrees of brightness are caused by cloth/body distance[27], that is, distance of points on the body from the `camera' which is the Shroud acting as a `photographic film'[28]. This cloth/body distance is in turn explained by STURP physicist John P. Jackson's Cloth Collapse theory[29].

As Nello Balossino of the University of Turin explains, "The image on the Shroud contains this information, which is codified in a series of nuances. Presumably by "nuances" Prof. Balossino means `pixels' (see 23Mar16) containing three-dimensional

[Above (enlarge): "Professor Nello Balossino explains his work that allows the blind to `see' the Shroud"[30].]

information on the distance between each point on the body and the linen cloth over that point. Clearly a medieval forger could not have encoded three-dimensional information (in negative) within Jesus' image on the Shroud[31]!

In other words, what we have before us is an image formed through a three-dimensional process, which cannot yet be explained and simulated in practice in order to obtain replica images of the Shroud." What Shroud scholar Ian Wilson wrote in 1998 is still true today, ~18 years later:

"Indeed, if anyone had come up with a convincing solution as to how and by whom the Shroud was forged, they would inevitably have created a consensus around which everyone sceptical on the matter would rally. Yet so far this has not even begun to happen."[32]
And that necessarily includes a replication of the full Shroud image, including every major feature (photographic negative, three-dimensional, no paint or other added colouring matter but dehydrative oxidation of image fibres, etc), using pre-1350s technology. Even if the Shroud image

In addition, soil and pollen specific to Jerusalem have been detected on the cloth of the Shroud, even though it hasn't been to that area in its known history. On "soil" see "travertine aragonite" in 20Jan16, 11Aug15, 12Jun15, 30Mar15 & 22Mar13. On "pollen specific to Jerusalem have been detected on the cloth of the Shroud," I will eventually cover all these key items of evidence for the Shroud's authenticity in my "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!" series.

There's also evidence in art and devotional history of Christians being aware of the Shroud prior to the radiocarbon dating of the 13th century, as documented in this BBC documentary. See my previous post on the Holy Face of Laon and the Pray Codex.

And what about the dating tests conducted on the cloth that assign its origins to the late medieval years? Some experts on the Shroud believe the results could have been skewed by the fact that scientists tested only the edge of the corner of the cloth. Doing so could have produced a sample that was part of a medieval repair to the cloth, or that was contaminated by bacteria or carbon monoxide. No. As I wrote in my comment under this post (with minor corrections):

>It seems like Farey [Hugh Farey, the anti-authenticist editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter] kept banging home that Whanger doesn't want to deal with the fact that if there was a research that there would need 2/3 Of the sample taken would have to be not original for it to date from the 13th or 14th century" [typos corrected]

Sorry, but Farey is right on that. See my `Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail' in my `The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1.'

The ONLY viable explanation of why the authentic 1st century Shroud had radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, the midpoint of which is 1325 ±65, which `just happens' to be ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in 1355, was because the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon process was hacked. Allegedly by Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick, aided by German hacker Karl Koch on behalf of the KGB. See my series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking."

The Shroud pro-authenticity community is going to continue to lose this debate with anti-authenticists by claiming that the radiocarbon date of the 1st century Shroud was shifted ~13 centuries into the future, by carbon contamination/bioplastic coating/invisible repair/neutron flux (take your pick!), to 1325 which `just happened' to be ~30 years before 1355, when the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France; until it adopts the TRUE explanation that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking."

More recent tests have also been performed that date the Shroud to a period well before the 13th century. Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua, led a team of researchers through three tests of Shroud fibers that were in the piece of cloth used in the 1988 radiocarbon tests. The tests used infrared light and Raman spectroscopy as well as a way of analyzing mechanical parameters related to voltage. The tests' conclusion dated the Shroud to some time between 300 BC and 400 AD. See my 21Apr13, 02Apr13 and 27Mar13

The new body of evidence in favor of the Shroud of Turin, while not enough to convince hardened skeptics, has at least been sufficient to keep the question alive. Merely "... sufficient to keep the question alive"? See my previous post on, "If this is the `Church Militant' I would hate to see the `Church Pacifist'!" After presenting such compelling evidence of the Shroud's authenticity, to finish with "at least been sufficient to keep the question alive" is a letdown. As I pointed out in previous posts (10Dec15 & 07May16) since the Shroud is authentic, as the evidence overwhelming indicates, it is a miraculous work of Jesus[35]. So non-Christian "hardened skeptics," who know the overwhelming evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but refuse to accept it, and Him, are in the same position as the residents of those towns in Israel which witnessed Jesus' miraculous works but refused to accept them and Him:

Mt 11:20-22. "20 Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you."

Lk 10:13-15. 13 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades."
That is, on the principle which in that context Jesus stated:
"Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required ..." (Lk 12:48)
those "hardened skeptics" to whom "much was given" in evidence that the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet (and therefore Christianity is true), will be subject to a more severe judgment by Jesus (Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5), the Man on the Shroud:

[Above (enlarge): The Face of the Man on the Shroud[33]

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'"[34].]
than those who rejected Jesus' but did not know His miraculous work in the Shroud.

Continued in part #4 of this April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," The Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
3. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.203; Wilson, I., 1998,, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY pp.88-89; Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.103-112, 104-105; Adler, A.D., 2000b, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138, 129; Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.36. [return]
4. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, pp.14-15. [return]
5. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.122. [return]
6. 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.119. See also STURP, 1981, "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.10-27, 25; Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.113-127, 122; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.139-140. [return]
7. Weisberg, L., 1987, "Shroud Splits Scientists," The Scientist, Vol. 1, No. 17, 13 July, p.1; Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2001, "Finding the Shroud in the 21st Century," Collegamento pro Sindone Internet, December. [return]
8. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, p.43; Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington DC, pp.425-446, 427,428; Adler, 1999, p.105; Adler, A.D. & Schwalbe, L.A., 1993, "Conservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, p.73; Adler, 2000c, pp.22,25; Adler, 2000a, p.113. [return]
9. Dinegar, R.H., 1982, "The 1978 Scientific Study of the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 4, September, pp.3-12, 3; Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, p.44; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, pp.27-29, 38; Adler, A.D., 1991, "Conservation and Preservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.67-71, 70; Adler, A.D., 1996, "Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.81-86, 84-85; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.66. [return]
10. Murra, D., Di Lazzaro, P., Santoni, A. & Baldacchini, G., 2012, "Shroud-like coloration of linen by nanosecond laser pulses in the vacuum ultraviolet," Research Gate, September. [return]
11. "Dehydration reaction," Wikipedia, 20 February 2016. [return]
12. "Redox," Wikipedia, 13 May 2016. [return]
13. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
14. Murra, D., et al., 2012, Figure 14. [return]
15. Sartoris, L., 1985, "The Embalmment [sic] of Corpses as Practiced by the Egyptians and by the Hebrews," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 16, September, pp.17-22, 17; "Making an Ancient Egyptian Mummy," Eyewitness to history.com, 1 November 2010. [return]
16. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.83. [return]
17. Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, No. 3, Autumn, pp.319-345; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.14. [return]
18. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
19. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
20. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
21. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
22. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
23. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
24. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
25. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
26. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
27. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
28. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
29. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
30. "Shroud Exposition Opens In Turin," Shroud.com, 2000 [return]
31. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.235. [return]
33. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA. [return]
34. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189. [return]
35. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin By an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.174-177. [return]

Posted 19 May 2016. Updated 20 March 2026.