Here is the Bibliography "C" page for authors' surnames beginning with
"C" of books which I will probably refer to in my book outline, "The Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus?"
© Stephen E. Jones
Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH.
Cassanelli, A., 2002, "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK.
Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239.
Currer-Briggs, N., 1987, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY.
Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK.
"Heller and Adler published their findings in an article titled `A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,' in the Canadian Society for Forensic Science Journal, Vo1. 14, No.3 (1981). For our purposes it is important to take note of the exhaustive studies the two chemists performed to answer the question of whether or not the `blood' on the Shroud was real blood. ... Heller, in his 1983 book Report on the Shroud of Turin, takes note that any one of these: the reflection scan, the microspectrophotometric scan, the positive hemochromogen test, the positive bile test, the positive cyanomethemoglobin test, the heme porphyrin fluorescence-is forensic proof in a court of law that blood is present. Taken together, the proof is irrefutable. The forensic evidence demonstrates the presence of about 120 scourge marks (some visible only under ultraviolet light), primarily on the back and shoulders of the figure. There is a mass of blood dripping from the crown of the head, from the puncture wounds in the hands and feet, and from a wound in the side. All the forensic evidence conforms in detail to the Gospel renditions of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Reputable scientific -conclusion #1: THE BLOOD ON THE SHROUD IS REAL BLOOD." (Case, T.W., "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, 1996, pp.18-20. Emphasis original).
"The Image has been determined by the same two chemists-Heller and Adler-to be the result of chemical degradation of the crowns of the top-most fibrils in the Image area. This degradation fits most closely the operation of acid on linen. It first of all involves dehydration: a severe drying out process. Secondly it is oxidation, the mild forms of which produce a yellowing or browning, the more severe forms of which produce a scorch, a char, and finally a fire. Heller and Adler found that a piece of linen soaked in sulfuric acid for half an hour produced the requisite straw-yellow color of the Image. Light sources, including ultraviolet and infrared rays, gamma rays, and the other rays constituting the electromagnetic spectrum, were applied to linen-none produced the color of the Image. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any foreign substance (in anything like enough quantity) that could possibly be construed as being the result of painting, or rubbing, or spraying, or any conceivable artistic procedure. Spectroscopic analysis as well discovered no evidence of the metals which would have had to be present in any sort of inorganic `paint' that could make the image by artifice. Reputable scientific conclusion #2: THE IMAGE WAS FORMED BY DEHYDRATION AND OXIDATION OF THE FIBERS OF THE IMAGE AREA ITSELF, AND NOT BY ANY ADDED COLORING AGENT." (Case, 1996, pp.21-22. Emphasis original).
"This is, so far, only to describe the chemical properties of the Image. There are a couple of other odd features which must be mentioned. The various shades of color in the Image are not caused by a deeper or lighter coloring of any particular fibrils. They are caused rather by the density of colored fibrils in a given area. It is a lot like the half-tone prints in newspaper photos, where `black' is made by black ink dots bunched together, and `gray' is made by black ink dots interspersed with white areas. Suppose, then, that some sudden light or heat radiation mildly `scorched' the Shroud to make the Image. It is difficult to see how such a radiation could selectively produce the localized `on-off' coloring that produces the shading in the Image. Nor could the Image be any sort of naturally produced oxidative scorch at all, since a scorch fluoresces orange under ultraviolet light, while the Image does not fluoresce at all. The only way the Image resembles a mild scorch is in its color and in its being the result of some kind of dehydration. We must also recall that if the Image on the Shroud was somehow projected from the body by a kind of unknown `radiation' from that body, nothing could be natural about the process. Dead bodies do not radiate anything like what is required for the Image. Nor do they secrete any oils or vapors in any conceivable manner that could produce the undistorted 3-D detail of the Image. The Image is a perfect three-dimensional rendition of a crucified man. Assuming the Shroud was in contact with the body, any transference of `something' from that body onto the Shroud, would, when the Shroud is straightened out, produce an utterly distorted Image. This is a point brought out strongly by John Jackson and other scientists who investigated the typography of transferring an image from a three dimensional object to a two dimensional object. ... The Shroud Image, on the other hand, resembles exactly a mirror image. It is like the image you see when you look into a mirror face on. The mirror shows your whole frontal appearance in depth. It shows nothing of your sides, or the back side of your arms or legs, or the back of your head, or any of your head past the top point. If you turn your back to the mirror, though you can't see it, the image of your back would have the same characteristics. And in fact, this is exactly the portrait of the Crucified Man, front and back on the Shroud of Turin. The most important thing to understand is that, supposing a radiation of some type proceeding outwards from every point on the body, if the Shroud that covers the body is draped or curved over it in any degree, the resulting image on the Shroud must necessarily be distorted. That holds especially if the source-points of the radiation throw out their rays in all directions. It also holds if the radiation proceeds straight outwards in single lines from every point on the body. And it also holds even if the `rays' were projected straight upwards to intersect the draped Shroud at an angle. No matter: once the Shroud is straightened out, it will have inscribed on it an image distorted to a degree that becomes more extreme as the curvature of the previously draped cloth was greater. It will be wider and a little longer than the original, and all the features on it will be wider and a bit longer. ... The only way, according to the optics of the situation, that the Image could be the mirror image that it is, is for the Shroud to have been stiff as a board as it lay atop the body. Then if any `rays' came straight upwards from the body, they would impact the Shroud so as to produce an undistorted image. Reputable scientific conclusion #3: NO ONE CAN TELL HOW THE IMAGE GOT ONTO THE SHROUD IN ORDER TO PRODUCE AN UNDISTORTED THREE-DIMENSIONAL COPY OF THE FRONT AND BACK OF THE BODY" (Case, 1996, pp.22-25. Emphasis original).
"On the other hand, if we go back to the forgery thesis, we may say that of course the artist painted on a flat surface, producing an image faithful to his own conception. It would not be distorted. One may then ask how a medieval artist knew how to paint a pale, diffuse yellow image that disappears if you look at it closeup, and paint it in such a manner that a photographer (after photography was invented 600 years later), could take a picture of the Shroud, develop the negative, and watch as that negative suddenly and strikingly formed into a perfectly clear three dimensional image-an image not at all apparent from the original? ... John Heller, in the accompanying interview, tells us how this medieval magician would have had to work in order to acid-paint each individual microscopically-sized fibril. Recall that there is no `direction' that would be present even if a Pointillist applied tiny dots. Even a `dot' would betray a slight directional movement. Rather the color comes from acid-like degradation of the very crowns of individual micro-fibrils. And the microfibril next door might have no color. The `painting' would have to be done under a powerful microscope with an `enormous focal length' (notes Dr. Heller); and painted so fast that the acid would not destroy the artist's `brush'; and then immediately the artist would have to wash away the acid before it ate away the cloth-which would smear the image. And if he were to succeed in performing these impossible tasks, his `masterpiece' would look pale and flat and diffuse, only to come clear and distinct 600 years later in a photographic negative. The further conclusion ... is that what we have here is either a Medieval miracle or a first century miracle. If the 1988 C 14 test dates are correct, we have a Medieval miracle, complete with human (or at least primate) blood. This is extremely important to understand. ... supposing that after all the C-14 tests performed in 1988 gave the true date, the fact is that the Image on the Shroud could not have been produced by any conceivable human agency-whatever the true date of the Shroud. If the Shroud were discovered today, and it was determined somehow that it was `made' today, it would still fail every scientific test intending to show that it could have been made by the hand of man. If there was something wrong about the C-14 test, and the correct date is around 33 A.D., we have overwhelming indications that the Turin Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ, with an oxidation Image faithfully reproducing his features-either as a by-product of the Resurrection, or as a purposeful supernatural work done at the time of the Resurrection, for a sign and an aid to belief. In either case, it is worth remarking that it was twentieth century science that first demonstrated the detailed chemistry and 3-D optics of the Shroud, and ruefully declared it could not conceive of how the Image could possibly have gotten onto the cloth." (Case, 1996, pp.26-27).