Saturday, October 29, 2016

Non-directional #17: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The man on the Shroud
NON-DIRECTIONAL #17
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #17, "The man on the Shroud: Non-directional," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" See the Main index for more information about this series.

[Main index #1] [Previous: No style. #16] [Next: Superficial #18]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Non-directional #17

Introduction. The image of the man on the Shroud is non-directional[2].

[Above (enlarge): Extract of the Shroud man's face on Shroud Scope at maximum enlargement[3]. As can be seen, even at extreme close range, "every thread is visible, and no trace of solid extraneous colouring matter can be detected even by microscopic examination"[4]. Hence there are no brush marks (see below) and therefore the image has no directionality[5]. The same is true of any other part of the image as readers can confirm for themselves using Shroud Scope.]

Directionality is up and down, or side to side[6], linear movement[7]. There is no such directionality on the shroud image[8], with the exception of the scourge marks which were delivered by a flagrum wielded from one side and then the other[9]. Other than that, the Shroud image's only directionality is vertical (see below)[10], that is vertically collimated, going straight up and down from the body[11].

Brush strokes There are no signs of brush strokes[12], finger strokes, or any other methods of artificial application[13]; nor any directional pattern that there would have been if the Shroud image had been produced by a human hand[14].

Computer analysis. In 1976, STURP members Don Lynn and Jean Lorre, working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, used a microdensitometer to scan black and white photos of the Shroud[15]. When the resultant grey scale information was fed into a computer and then progressively removed at each level of shade intensity, the pixels disappeared randomly, showing there is no evidence of a directional pattern, and therefore no evidence for brush marks as would be expected for a painting[16]. Further computer analysis by the late Prof. Giovanni Tamburelli (1923-90) in 1981 confirmed this[17]. In fact the only directional feature found on the Shroud image was in the weave of the cloth[18].

Painting has direction One cannot apply paint without directionality[19]. All paintings and drawings have directionality[20] as an artist moves his/her brush, pen or pencil from one side to another[21]. Even with Pointillism, the "technique of painting in which small, distinct dots of color are applied in patterns to form an image"[22], each dot betrays a slight directional movement[23]. The lack of directionality of the Shroud image is further evidence that the Shroud is not a painting[24].

Radiation That there is no directionality in the image indicates that the image must have been formed by a release of radiation[25]. Radiation would not cause any any directionality across the width and length of the image[26].

Vertical That the Shroud image is vertical (see above) is consistent with STURP's John Jackson's "Cloth Collapse Theory"[27].

Resurrection That the Shroud image is consistent with having been caused by some form of radiation through space and was vertically directional is evidence for it having been the result of the resurrection of Jesus[28].

Problem for the forgery theory That the Shroud image is non-directional is yet another problem (see previous three: #14, #15 & #16) for the forgery theory. In particular, the lack of brush strokes or any directional pattern rules out any production by the hand of an artist[29]. Not only forgery by painting is ruled out (see above); also is Joe Nickell's powder rubbed on a cloth over a bas relief method[30], because (amongst its many problems) the application of powder is directional[31]. And as we saw in 07Aug16, directionality of sunlight is a fatal problem of Prof. Nicholas Allen's medieval photograph forgery theory[32]. Indeed all naturalistic attempts to account for non-directional nature of the Shroud image have failed[33]!

Continued in part #18 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. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.108; 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.53; 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; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.37; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.137. [return]
3. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
4. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.14 [return]
5. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.16. [return]
6. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.122. [return]
7. Habermas, 1987, p.120; Antonacci, 2000, p.38. [return]
8. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.150; Habermas, 1987, p.120. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.232. [return]
10. Wilson, 1979, p.234; Antonacci, 2000, p.234. [return]
11. 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, 188; 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]
12. Heller, 1983, p.150; Drews, 1984, p.16; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.4,156,176; de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
13. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.106. [return]
14. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.196; Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.134; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.66; Cruz, 1984, p.53. [return]
15. Heller, 1983, p.137; Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
16. Heller, 1983, p.137; Adler, A.D., 2000a, "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, 116-117; Adler, 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.11-27, 17-18. [return]
17. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 288; Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, pp.12-13. [return]
18. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.106; Cruz, 1984, p.53; Antonacci, 2000, p.38. [return]
19. Habermas, 1987, p.120. [return]
20. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.213. [return]
21. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.195. [return]
22. "Pointillism," Wikipedia, 21 October 2016. [return]
23. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.26. [return]
24. Heller, 1983, p.138. [return]
25. Morgan, 1980, pp.76-77. [return]
26. Antonacci, 2000, p.212. [return]
27. Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," 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, p.325-344, 330-331. [return]
28. Antonacci, 2000, p.234. [return]
29. Cruz, 1984, p.53. [return]
30. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.101-102. [return]
31. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.108. [return]
32. Schwortz, B.M., 2000, "Is The Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph?: A Critical Examination of the Theory," Shroud.com; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.124; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.263. [return]
33. Habermas, G.R., 1984, "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.158. [return]

Posted: 29 October 2016. Updated: 8 May 2017.

Monday, October 24, 2016

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory mentioned in Joe Marino's "The Politics of Radiocarbon Dating"!

This is my comment on Joe Marino's mention of my radiocarbon dating hacker theory, three times in his "The Politics of Radiocarbon Dating III," 19 September 2016. I am grateful to Joe (and "Harry" - see below) for taking my hacker theory seriously.

As noted in my September Shroud of Turin News "Editorial," my radiocarbon dating hacker theory was mentioned in Joe Marino's "The Politics of Radiocarbon Dating III" of 19 September 2016. Marino's words are between horizontal lines and my comments are under them. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.


1988 December. ... Australian blogger Stephen Jones has made some interesting observations regarding the spread of the measurements. See http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/the-1260-1390-radiocarbon-date-of-turin.html [...]

This, the first of Marino's three mentions of my hacker theory should have been under the heading "1989 February" as it relates to the 16 February 1989 Nature paper. As I pointed out in my post cited by Joe, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #4," [18Nov15], and had been pointing out since June 2014 [13Jun14, 11Feb15, etc], the 1989 Nature paper itself contains a fatal admission that:

"... the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 [non-Shroud control samples] is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted."[2]

[Above (enlarge): Scanned quote from page 613 of the 16 February 1989 Nature paper, admitting that while "the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 [non-Shroud control samples] is exceptionally good," yet "The spread of the measurements [across the three laboratories] for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected ..."! But this is impossible (see below) and alone should have invalidated the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud!]

This is inexplicable if the Shroud sample dates were real, given that: 1) the three laboratories' `postage stamp' size Shroud samples[3] were all sub-divided from the same 81 x 16 mm (~3.2 x 0.6 in.)[4] sample cut from the Shroud[5] (see below); and 2) at each laboratory, Shroud and

[Above (enlarge): Drawing of the approximately 1.6 cm x 8.1 cm (not 1.2 cm x 8 cm) Shroud sample, which was subdivided into sub-samples from right to left: "A" (Arizona), "Z" (Zurich), "O" (Oxford), "A1" (Arizona additional), and "R" (Reserve retained by Turin), with a photograph of the sample superimposed over the bottom right hand side[6]. There can be no significant differences in radiocarbon dates between sub-samples from such a tiny sample - but there was!]

control samples were each converted to pure carbon (graphite) and then compressed into 1 mm diameter carbon pellets inside the holder pits on the same ~26 mm (~1 inch) carousel[7] and irradiated together at the same time (see below):

"Next the sample became a target. The powdery graphite was ... loaded into tiny target holders, and thousands of pounds of pressure per square inch was applied with a drill press. The Shroud sample was now a target for the beam of caesium atoms which was to be fired at it"[8].

The carousel at each laboratory on which Shroud and control samples' graphite pellets were all together awaiting irradiation by a beam of caesium atoms was "a little larger than a [British] two pence coin" (~ 26 mm or ~1 inch in diameter)[9]:

"Like gunpowder packed into a bullet casing, the Shroud sample now reduced to graphite is compressed into metal pellets one millimetre in diameter. A drill press with thousands of pounds of pressure is used for this task. Ten pellets with graphite are loaded into holes in a small carousel that is a little larger than a two pence coin ... The carousel is loaded into the end of the accelerator, and under a vacuum, a beam of caesium atoms is fired at the graphite target"[10]

[Left (enlarge): carousel of the CEDAD (CEntro di DAtazione e Diagnostica) AMS radiocarbon dating facility at the University of Salento, Italy[11]. This carousel has 12 target holders and is of unknown diameter. Zurich's (and presumably Arizona's and Oxford's since all three were effectively clones)[12] carousel had ten holders and its diameter was about 26 mm or 1 inch (see above).]

Then the Shroud and control sample graphite pellets on the one ~26 mm or ~1 inch diameter carousel at each laboratory were irradiated together by the one beam of caesium atoms for a total of ten minutes:

"There were three or four members of the AMS team there when I [Harry Gove] arrived and they had almost finished the five minute per sample cesiation. This consisted of rotating each of the ten samples, located on the ion source wheel, into the cesium beam ensuring that the sample was coated with cesium ... The first sample run was OX1 [oxalic acid standard]. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen"[13].
The process was fully "under computer control" so human error cannot have intervened in the process, to cause the Shroud sample dates across the three laboratories to disagree widely (as they did-see graphs), while the control samples' dates across the three laboratories had "exceptionally good agreement. The AMS system must be designed so that if there was a problem with the dating process at one of the laboratories, then its Shroud and control sample dates would wrongly agree together, and disagree together with the Shroud and control sample dates of the other two laboratories. Therefore it is inexplicable and impossible that the control samples across the three laboratories had "exceptionally good" agreement, but the Shroud samples across the three laboratories had a "spread of ... measurements" that was "greater than would be expected."

But it is explicable and possible if the Shroud sample dates were not real but computer-generated by a hacker's (allegedly Timothy W. Linick's) program in this fully computerised process)!

The second of Marino's mentions of my hacker theory is the first (albeit not conclusive) direct evidence for that part of my theory which alleges that the self-confessed and convicted German hacker Karl Koch (1965-89) [Right (enlarge)[14] had installed Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers. See 21Jul14, 17May15 & 02Jun16, etc.





[...] 1989 Spring. A prominent Shroud researcher, who does not want to be identified, has told only a few other Shroud researchers, including myself, about a curious phone call he had received one day at about 1:30 in the morning. His recollection was that it was not long after the C-14 dating results were announced in October 1988 and sometime in the spring. I will call the researcher “Harry.” Harry indicated the (male) person, who did not apologize for calling so late, sounded distraught. The person told Harry he had been involved in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating. Harry 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 from where he was calling. He kept asking Harry 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. Harry tried repeatedly to get the man to identify himself and when he (Harry) tried to get more details, the man said he couldn’t say more as he could get in some real trouble. Harry said the person said he also planned to call other Shroud researchers, but as far as we know, no one ever did. Harry 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 Harry 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, Harry just isn't sure what to think.

Source: Several personal communications, including May 13th, 2016.

Comments: “Harry” told me he didn’t want to be identified because he can’t prove anything. Harry is a person of high integrity and I have absolutely no doubt the call happened. I mention it because of the explosive nature of the content and also because of its possible relevance to a theory of Australian blogger Stephen Jones (see entry below for 2014) [...]

I blogged about this on 01Jun16 and 02Jun16. In the first of these I wrote:

"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 ["Harry"], 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."
See also my longer version of this the next day at 02Jun16.

Marino's third mention of my hacker theory is about how my theory began. I have bolded "hacker" twice below, which was in my email to Marino.


[...] 2014. Australian Shroud blogger Stephen Jones started a series in which he put forth the hypothesis that the labs results were the result of a computer hacking. He summarized his findings to me in an email of September 4th, 2016 as shown below. I have reproduced the original spacing and punctuation.

"My hacker theory began in 2007 when I read in David Sox's book, "The Shroud Unmasked" (1988), the account provided by an eyewitness Prof. Harry Gove, of very first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud at Arizona laboratory. That the "calculations were produced on the [AMS] computer, and displayed on the screen." Sox was not at that time told by Gove the date on the screen (except that the Shroud was closer to 1000 than 2000 years old) but Gove in his 1996 book "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," revealed that it was "1350 AD."

In the late 1980s/early 1990s I was the Systems Administrator of a wide area network of 7 Western Australian hospitals' UNIX computer systems. As part of my job interest in computer security, I read Clifford Stoll's book, "The Cuckoo's Egg" in which he recounted his part in discovering in 1986 the hacking of university and military computers by German hacker Markus Hess. Coincidentally Stoll had worked at Arizona University and Hess was in the same small German hacker ring as Karl Koch, whom I allege had installed Timothy W. Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers.

So I realised in 2007 that it was not the actual radiocarbon dating of the Shroud that those in Arizona's laboratory were seeing, but what the AMS computer was displaying. That between the actual carbon dating by the AMS system and those watching the computer screen, was a computer program! So one explanation of why the authentic first-century Shroud had a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date, is that a hacker had installed a program in the three laboratories' AMS computers which substituted the Shroud's actual radiocarbon date with bogus dates, which when combined and averaged made it appear the Shroud dated shortly before its first undisputed appearance at Lirey, France in ~1355.

However, it was not until 2014, when I read again page 264 of Gove's book, which stated of that first Arizona dating of the Shroud that: "All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen," that I posted my first blog post which asked, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?"

"I then in 2014 did a Google search on "1989" and "hacker" and discovered that a German hacker Karl Koch had been inexplicably murdered in May/June 1989, and his murder made to look like suicide. ...

According to my first post [which mentioned "hacker" in its text] of 22 February 2014, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (3)," it was in 2007, after reading Sox's account of Arizona's first C14 dating run:

"At 9.50am what matters to the layman was available - the results of the measurements, the first carbon dating test on the Turin Shroud. ... The night before the test Damon told Gove he would not be surprised to see the analysis yield a date around the fifth-century, because after that time the crucifixion was banned and a forger would not have known of the details depicted so accurately on the Shroud. Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?' ... Shirley Brignall ... and Gove had a bet. Gove said 1000 years although he hoped for twice that age. Whoever lost was to buy the other a pair of cowboy boots. The calculations were produced on the computer, and displayed on the screen. Even the dendrochronological correction was immediately available. All eyes were on the screen. The date would be when the flax used for the linen relic was harvested. Gove would be taking cowboy boots back to Rochester." (Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, pp.146-147)

that I first realised that it was not the actual carbon dating results that those in Arizona's laboratory were seeing, but what the computer was displaying" and "I put two and two together back then in 2007 and realised that ... one explanation of its 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is that a hacker had ... substituted the Shroud's actual dates coming from the AMS machine for bogus dates ....."

Source: http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/the-1260-1390-radiocarbon-date-of-turin_23.html

Comments: If you’ll recall the curious phone call [see above] that “Harry” had received from a seemingly troubled caller back in the spring of 1989, the person said he had thrown the sample in the trash, but Jones indicated to me in an email of September 1st, 2016 that the “German sounding distraught phone caller who said he had ‘trashed’ the Shroud is consistent with him being Koch.”


The first part of the above is self-explanatory and further comment on it by me would be superfluous. I have posted on this in my "How my radiocarbon dating hacker theory started" and am thinking of going over that in more detail in my final part #10 post in my current hacker series. But of the second part, "Comments," I will repeat what I wrote above that I regard as highly significant this evidence which supports that part of my theory which alleges that Koch, working for the KGB, installed Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers [see again 02Jun16]. This in turn supports my theory that both Koch and Linick were silenced permanently by the KGB to cover up their part in the KGB's hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating [see 30Jul16].

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.613. [return]
3. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.104; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.94; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.170. [return]
4. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.62; Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, p.179; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.5. [return]
5. Wilson, 1991, p.6; Wilson, 1998, pp.6,191; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.82A, 87, 93, 95, 146E. [return]
6. Wilson, 1998, p.189. [return]
7. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, pp.142, 145; Damon, et al., 1989, p.613; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.7-8; McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.246; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.130. [return]
8. Sox, 1988, p.142. [return]
9. "Two Pence Coin Designs and Specifications," The Royal Mint, 2016. [return]
10. Sox, 1988, p.145. [return]
11. "Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," CEDAD, University of Salento, Italy, 27 June 2006. [return]
12. Wilson, 1991, p.178; Wilson, 1998, p.192; Wilson, 2010, p.281. [return]
13. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
14. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]

Posted: 24 October 2016. Updated: 30 October 2016.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

"The Shroud of Turin as the Burial Cloth of Jesus - Answers for Critics," Shroud of Turin News, September 2016

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

[Previous: September 2016, part #1] [Next: October 2016, part #1]

This is part #2 of the September 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. The article's words are bold to distinguish them from mine. It is my emphasis unless otherwise indicated.

The Shroud of Turin as the Burial Cloth of Jesus - Answers for Critics, Northwest Creation Network, Dr. John Johnson, September 7th, 2016.

[Above (enlarge): "The Shroud of Turin: modern photo of the face, positive left, digitally processed [negative] image right"[2].]

The Shroud of Turin has been claimed to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ since at least the 14th Century. Since at least c. 1355, i.e. "thirty-four years" before 1389, according to Bishop Pierre d'Arcis in his 1389 memorandum:

"The case, Holy Father [Pope Clement VIII], stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully ... procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore ... The Lord Henry of Poitiers ... then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this ... Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed ... They ... hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary [bailiff] could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year."[3]
But as we have seen, Bishop d'Arcis was wrong, since: 1) the Shroud image is not "painted" [11Jul16, 20Jan16]; 2) his predecessor Bishop Henri de Poitiers had no problems with the Shroud being exhibited in c.1355[11Jul16, 20Jan16]; and 3) no "artist" was named, let alone charged with having forged the Shroud[11Jul16, 20Jan16].

I have studied it as an archaeological item for over 30 years. This site, Northwest Creation Network, is Young-Earth Creationist, and Dr. John Johnson is a leading Young-Earth Creationist. This itself is evidence of the Shroud's authenticity, in that the evidence for the Shroud being the very "Burial Cloth of Jesus" is so strong that Shroud pro-authenticists range across the entire Christian spectrum, from Roman Catholics to Protestant Genesis literalists. And indeed pro-authenticists continue off the Christian spectrum to include non-Christians like Jewish Barrie Schwortz and agnostic Thomas de Wesselow!

Few people took it seriously until the intensive scientific investigations in the 20th century showed it was like a photographic negative ... In fact it was just before the end of the 19th century, in 1898, that Turin amateur photographer Secondo Pia (1855–1941) took the first photographs of the Shroud and discovered that the negative on his photographic plate was a photographic positive, which meant that the Shroud image was a photographic negative! See the above negative photograph of the Shroud [right], which is a photographic positive, thus proving the Shroud image is a photographic negative [left]. See also below part of a negative plate of Pia's 1898 photograph of the Shroud above the altar in Turin Cathedral

[Above (enlarge): The negative plate of one of Secondo Pia's photographs of the Shroud in 1898 in Turin Cathedral[4].]

where it was displayed during the 1898 Exposition. As can be seen (enlarge) on Pia's negative the Shroud image is photographically positive, while everything else is negative.

... not created by painting or scorching, ... On "not created by painting" see "No paint, etc. #15 ..." On "not created by .. scorching," STURP found in 1978 that when the Shroud was photographed in

[Above (enlarge): Head and chest of the Shroud man's image in ultraviolet light[5].]

ultraviolet light, as can be seen above, while the scorch marks from the 1532 fire fluoresced orange-brown[6], both the blood areas[7] and the Shroud body image do not fluoresce in ultraviolet light at all[8]. The blood is the same red colour of blood on the Shroud in ordinary light because blood absorbs ultraviolet light[9] and yellow is the background color of aged linen[10]. Therefore the image on the Shroud cannot have been caused by a heat scorch[11].

... linen that could be first Century mid-east weave, ... Not just "could be" but almost certainly was "first Century mid-east weave"! Ancient textiles expert Dr Mechthild Flury-Lemberg has showed that the most plausible (if not the only) explanation for the Shroud's sidestrip [see 24Aug15] is that the Shroud is part of a much wider linen

[Above (enlarge): "How the shroud was originally woven much wider than its present width. Reconstruction of the likely size of the bolt of cloth of which the two lengths of the Shroud (shaded) formed part. This wider cloth was very expertly cut lengthwise, then the raw (i.e. non-selvedge) edges of the shaded segments joined together by a very professional seam to form the Shroud we know today."[12].]

sheet that had been woven on an extra-wide loom, which are known from the ancient east but not from the medieval era[13]. The wider linen sheet had a selvedge (weaver-finished edge) [see 11Sep15] on each long side. What was to become the main body of the Shroud, complete with selvedge, was cut lengthwise from the wider sheet (see above). Then what was to become the sidestrip with its selvedge, was cut from the other side of the wider sheet and its cut edge was joined by a seam to that of the main body of the Shroud, resulting in a linen sheet, which became the Shroud, having a selvedge on each long side[14].

Moreover, while preparing the Shroud for the 1998 exposition, Flury-Lemberg removed the Shroud's backing cloth which had been sewn on in 1534 by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns following the 1532 fire, and

[Right: enlarge: Sketch of `invisible seam' found on cloth fragments at the first-century Jewish fortress of Masada[15], which is "identical to that found on the Shroud and nowhere else"[16].]

discovered on the Shroud's underside, the seam joining the sidestrip and the main body of the Shroud was sewn with almost invisible stitching that, in her ~40 years experience with ancient textiles, Flury-Lemberg had seen only once before, in the ruins of the Jewish fortress of Masada, which had been destroyed by the Romans in AD 73[17] and never occupied since[18]!

... had pollen traced to the Mideast,... [see 16May15] In 1973 and 1978, botanist and pioneer forensic scientist Max Frei-Sulzer (1913-83), used his tape-uplift method to take pollen grain samples from the Shroud[19]. Between

[Left (enlarge): Max Frei with STURP's Ray Rogers (1927–2005) looking on, using adhesive take to take pollen samples from the Shroud in 1978[20].]

1974 and 1979 Frei carried out field trips to Turkey and Israel to help identify his Shroud pollen samples[21]. In 1982 Frei reported that he had identified pollen on the Shroud from 48 different varieties of plants[22]. After Frei's death in 1983, Prof. Werner Bulst (1913-95) reported in 1984 that Frei had identified pollen on the Shroud from a total of 58 different varieties of plants[23]. And of these, only 17 (less than a third) grow in France or Italy[24]. The majority of the pollens on the Shroud are native to "Turkey," "the Dead Sea," "Near Eastern rocky hills," "Jerusalem" and "Israel" [see table]:

"... Frei managed to identify pollens from no fewer than fifty-eight varieties of plant, before his death in early 1983. The varieties of plant told their own striking story of the markedly differing geographical regions with which the Shroud had historically been associated ... as might be expected, a substantial number of plant species that grow widely in France, Italy, and the general Mediterranean area ... the places it is known to have been since the 1350s ... But as is also evident from the list, a similarly substantial number of pollens derive from steppe plants most commonly found in eastern Turkey. ... Desert plants, most notably halophytes, specially adapted to grow in the exceptionally salty soil around the Dead Sea, also feature prominently in the list, along with no fewer than seven plants characteristic of Near Eastern rocky hills and other high places. It is obvious that the Shroud has been in a region typical of, if not identical with, the terrain in which the historical Jesus moved. But by far the greatest significance of the table is the preponderance of plants typical of, and in some cases effectively exclusive to, the environs of Jerusalem. The European representation is outweighed, the only reasonable inference being that it was somewhere in the Jerusalem region that the Shroud received its most prolonged exposure to the open air ... As Frei argued, the Shroud therefore must have once been in the very region it has to have been if it wrapped the body of Jesus: the land we today call Israel."[25]
This supports Ian Wilson's theory that the Shroud (as the Mandylion "four-doubled" = tetradiplon) was taken from Jerusalem to France, via Edessa and Constantinople[26].

And Frei's identification of pollen varieties on the Shroud has been confirmed as substantially correct by Dr. Alan Whanger, who discovered flower images on the Shroud. Whanger, with the help of the late Prof. Avinoam Danin (1939–2015)[27], Israel's leading botanist,

[Above (enlarge): Image of a Chrysanthemum coronarium flower (circled in red) on the Shroud[28]. This is the clearest flower image on the Shroud[29] but one of the three varieties of plants, the image of which Whanger found on the Shroud, but Frei did not identify its pollen on the Shroud[30].]

identified images of 28 different varieties of plants, all of which grow in Israel, and 25 of those 28 match Frei's identifications of pollen on the Shroud:

"While there are images of hundreds of flowers on the Shroud, many are vague or incomplete. ... Alan has identified ... with reasonable certainty, twenty-eight plants whose images are sufficiently clear and complete to make a good comparison with the drawings in Flora Palaestina. Of these twenty-eight plants, twenty-three are flowers, three are small bushes, and two are thorns. All twenty-eight grow in Israel. Twenty grow in Jerusalem itself, and the other eight grow potentially within the close vicinity of Jerusalem, either in the Judean Desert or in the Dead Sea area or in both. All twenty-eight would have been available in Jerusalem markets in a fresh state. Many would have been growing along the roadside or in nearby fields, available for the picking. A rather unique situation exists in that within Jerusalem and the surrounding twelve miles, four geographic areas exist with their differing specific climates and flora. Nowhere else are so many different types of species found so close together. Of these twenty-eight plants, Frei, working from the sticky tape slides, had previously identified the pollens of twenty-five of the same or similar plants. Twenty-seven of these twenty-eight bloom in March and April, which corresponds to the time of Passover and the Crucifixion."[31]
Both Frei's pollen, and Whanger's flower images, on the Shroud have in turn received confirmation from the discovery of plant DNA on the

[Above: Extract from "Figure 1: Plant DNA species found on the Turin Shroud"[32] As can be seen, DNA from plants (red) are found around Jerusalem and Constantinople and the edge of their distribution does not include Turin, let alone Chambéry and Lirey. And moreover, the red group includes the second and third most abundant species. The DNA of the yellow group species includes in its centre of origin, Constantinople, Sanliurfa (formerly Edessa) and Jerusalem, but does not include Europe.]

Shroud, the majority of which comes from around Jerusalem, Sanliurfa (Edessa) and Constantinople and only a minority from Europe. See 18Oct15, 10Nov15, 24Nov15 and 04Dec15. This adds to the already overwhelming evidence that the Shroud is authentic and therefore the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[33] was wrong. And therefore fraudulent[23Jul15], that is, the result of a computer hacking!

... remarkably similar to paintings of Jesus back to the 5th Century, but not before. See [04Oct16] for a fresco on the catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter, Rome, 4th century," which shows "a very striking similarity to" the Shroud. The earliest (although not painted) image of Jesus that I am aware of which has Vignon markings is the early 6th century (c. 526) Pantocrator ("ruler of all") mosaic in Sant'Apollinare Nuovo church, Ravenna, Italy.

[Right (enlarge): Face of the Pantocrator mosaic, c. 526 AD[34], in the Sant'Apollinare Nuovo church, Ravenna, Italy.]

According to Maher this "early (sixth-century) ... mosaic of Christ enthroned" has "eight Vignon markings"[35] which would be more than enough to identify the Shroud as the sixth century artist's model. But as can be seen below, this early sixth century (c. 526) Pantocrator mosaic has at least thirteen of the fifteen Vignon markings on the Shroud, namely:

[Left (enlarge): "The Vignon markings-how Byzantine artists created a living likeness from the Shroud image."[36]. See 25Jul07, 29Jul08, 11Feb12, 22Sep12, 14Apr14, 09Nov15 and 15Feb16]

"(2) three-sided `square' between brows, (3) V shape at bridge of nose, (4) second V within marking 2, (5) raised right eyebrow, (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, (10) heavy line under lower lip, (11) hairless area between lower lip and beard, ... (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair"[37]. This alone proves beyond reasonable doubt that this early 6th century mosaic was based on the Shroud, and therefore the Shroud was already in existence and revered by at least the early sixth century!

Moreover, the image and blood stains closely correspond to Jewish First Century burial practices,.. I am not sure what this means. Perhaps it refers to the man on the Shroud having been laid out naked on his back, under a sheet, with his hands covering his genitals, which sceptics had claimed was evidence of a medieval forger's modesty, has since been found to include first century Jewish burials:

"Also at least worthy of mention is the burial attitude. Some writers, notably the Reverend Sox[38], have deemed the Shroud inauthentic because the arms appear placed modestly across the loins, rather than at the side of the body, but there appears no sound justification for this view. Attitudes varied in antiquity as they do today, and while, for instance, first-millennium B.C. Egyptian pharaohs had their arms placed alongside their hips, cadavers of the priestly caste were buried with hands across the loins. In Judea, a number of skeletons excavated in the Essene cemetery at Qumran (ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 70) were laid out flat, facing upward, elbows bent slightly, and hands crossed across the pelvis, more or less exactly the attitude visible on the Shroud. In this context, it needs to be remarked that whatever the burial position adopted, this was usually only a temporary one. It was standard Jewish practice that when the deceased's flesh had fully rotted from his bones, they would be gathered up into an ossuary ... Reliable information on interim burial positions is therefore of necessity slim."[39]
...as well as Roman flagellation and crucifixion techniques probably not known to a 14th Century forger. The New Testament contains few details

[Right (enlarge): Reconstruction by Paul Vignon (1865-1943) of a Roman flagrum or scourge from the scourge marks on the Shroud[40]. One similar to this was later recovered from the Roman city of Herculaneum[41] which, with its neighbour Pompeii, was buried in the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in AD 79[42].]

about Jesus' crucifixion (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; 24:39-40; Jn 19:18; Jn 20:20,25,27; Col 2:14)[43]. Moreover other Roman-era writers did not describe crucifixion in detail[44]. In 337 crucifixion was abolished by Emperor Constantine the Great (c. 272-337) throughout the Roman Empire (which included Europe)[45], and only in recent times has its horrific details been rediscovered by archaeologists[46]. So a medieval forger, about a thousand years after crucifixion ceased in Europe[47], would have been most unlikely to know the details of Roman crucifixion[48], including flagellation, that the Shroud so accurately depicts[49].

However, in 1988, all this compelling evidence for its being genuine was seemingly trumped by Radiocarbon tests that allegedly "proved" that it was made of cloth woven between AD 1260 and 1390. The key words are "seemingly" and "allegedly"! As archaeologist William Meacham pointed out, archaeologists routinely discard as "rogue" radiocarbon dates that conflict with other evidence:

"There is firm evidence available now that the sample taken was not representative of the cloth as a whole, and that it provided what archaeologists and geologists call a `rogue' or `fictitious' date, i.e. one that does not provide a true age of the object or context it purports to date. As an archaeologist, I had used C-14 dating many dozens of times on excavated samples, and found that it does generally but not always give accurate results. Most other archaeologists and geologists that I know have the same view; a few are more skeptical of its reliability ... Rogue results were normally discarded without any follow-up research, when it was abundantly clear that something was amiss ... Such rogue dates are common in archaeology and geology ... Such has been my experience as an archaeologist: I have excavated, submitted and interpreted around one hundred fifty C-14 samples from Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Historical sites. Of these dates obtained, about 110 were considered credible, 30 were rejected as unreliable and 10 were problematic. I mention this merely to inform the non-specialist that rogue dates are quite common in the general application of C-14 in archaeology ..."[50]
This was corroborated by another archaeologist, the late Eugenia Nitowski (1949-2007), who noted that not only in archaeology, but in science generally, "it is the weight of evidence which must be considered conclusive" and so "if there are ten lines of evidence, carbon dating being one of them, and it conflicts with the other nine" it is "the carbon date" which is rejected "as inaccurate":
"In any form of inquiry or scientific discipline, it is the weight of evidence which must be considered conclusive. In archaeology, if there are ten lines of evidence, carbon dating being one of them, and it conflicts with the other nine, there is little hesitation to throw out the carbon date as inaccurate due to unforeseen contamination."[51]
As Meacham further explains, since archaeologists don't normally use radiocarbon dating alone to determine age, to claim that it is "the ultimate arbiter of the age of the Turin Shroud is a blatant departure from the way 14C is normally used":
"It is important for anyone wishing to understand the normal use of 14C to know that a single date or even a series of dates on a single object or feature is seldom if ever cited to answer important questions about the age of a culture or a site. To put the radiocarbon method in the position of being the ultimate arbiter of the age of the Turin Shroud is a blatant departure from the way 14C is normally used."[52]
For the next 17 years I abandoned my studies, in spite of my hunch that it was likely genuine. That was a pity. I became a Shroud pro-authenticist in 2005, long after the Shroud's 1988 radiocarbon dating, so I did not have that problem. But if I had been a pro-authenticist in 1988, I expect that I would have had the same reaction as Ian Wilson:
"But if there was one feature of the British Museum press conference [13 October 1988] that particularly astonished, and frankly annoyed me, it was Professor Hall's flat assertion, on the basis merely of the averaged `1260-1390 AD' dates quoted ... that the carbon dates have overwhelmingly proved the Shroud's fraudulence. Effectively we are supposed to believe that on the basis of one single branch of science, nuclear physics ... every other scientific and historical contribution to the subject must now be tossed aside as totally worthless. As Hall admitted, it did not matter to him that there remained no clear explanation for how some hypothetical forger created the Shroud's image. The laboratories' instruments had spoken, and that was it ... I have always understood that to be truly scientific, any hypothesis needs to be checked from at least two different directions. For instance we do not expect the captain of an Atlantic-crossing jumbo jet, spotting that his fuel gauges suddenly read empty, immediately to ditch his aircraft in the sea without a few further checks."[53]

But in 2005, it was finally definitively shown that the three samples were all taken from the same repaired area of the shroud that had cotton thread, with a dye applied. While this is widely believed among pro-authenticists, and I once believed it, it is self-evidently false! See my [23Jul15 & 14Feb16]. A better (if not the only) viable explanation of why the 1st century Shroud has a 13th/14th century radiocarbon date is provided by my hacker theory.

Later more independent dating tests have been made that compellingly show it is probably far older than the 14th Century. Indeed! See my [02Apr13].

Besides the dating controversy, we will discuss seeming discrepancies with the Bible ... I may comment on these items mentioned by Johnson in a future Shroud of Turin News post.

To be continued in part #1 of my October 2016, 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. "File:Turin shroud positive and negative displaying original color information 708 x 465 pixels 94 KB.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 11 August 2016. [return]
3. "Memorandum of Pierre D'arcis, Bishop Of Troyes, to the Avignon Pope Clement VII," 1389, Thurston, H., transl., "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, 1903, pp.17-29, in Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, pp.230-235, 230-231. [return]
4. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.26. [return]
5. Miller V.D. & Pellicori, S.F., 1981, "Ultraviolet fluorescence photography of the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Biological Photography, 49(3), July, pp.71-85, 81. [return]
6. 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; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, p.13. [return]
7. Adler, 2000c, p.14. [return]
8. Adler, 1999, p.104. [return]
9. Adler, 2000c, p.14. [return]
10. Adler, 2000c, p.13. [return]
11. Adler, 1999, p.104; Adler, 2000c, p.13. [return]
12. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.73. [return]
13. Wilson, 2010, pp.72,76. [return]
14. Wilson, 2010, pp.71-73. [return]
15. Wilson, 2010, p.74. [return]
16. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.109. My emphasis. [return]
17. Wilson, 2010, pp.72-73. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June. [return]
19. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.19; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, pp.7-8; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.91. [return]
20. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.80-81. [return]
21. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.100. [return]
22. Frei, M., 1982, "Nine Years of Palinological Studies on the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 3, June, pp.2-7, 3; Danin, A., et al., 1999, p.7. [return]
23. Bulst, W., 1984, "The Pollen Grains on the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 10, March, pp.20-28, 24; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.38-43. [return]
24. Bulst, 1984, p.24; Wilson, 1986, pp.38-43. [return]
25. Wilson, 1986, pp.38, 43. [return]
26. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.112; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.26; Wilson, 1986, pp.110-111; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.77; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.22; Wilson, 1998, p.174; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.130,133; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.105; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.112-113. [return]
27. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, pp.79-80; Danin, A., 2010, "Botany of the Shroud: The Story of Floral Images on the Shroud of Turin," Danin Publishing: Jerusalem, Israel, pp.8,10,12. [return]
28. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical, Sindonology.org. [return]
29. Danin, A., et al., 1999, p.16. [return]
30. Iannone, 1998, p.26. [return]
31. Whanger M. & A, 1998, p.78. [return]
32. Barcaccia, G., et al., 2015, "Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud," Nature, Scientific Reports 5, Article no. 14484, 5 October. [return]
33. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
34. "File:Christus Ravenna Mosaic.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 26 June 2016. [return]
35. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.77. [return]
36. Wilson, 1978, p.82e. [return]
37. Ibid. [return]
38. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.71. [return]
39. Wilson, 1986, p.34. [return]
40. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.56. [return]
41. de Wesselow, 2012, p.144O. [return]
42. "Herculaneum," Wikipedia, 10 June 2013. [return]
43. Wilson, 1998, p.43; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.58; Wilson, 2010, pp.46-47. [return]
44. Torrance, J.B., "Cross, Crucifixion," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., 1982, "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1988, p.253; Wilson, 1998, p.43; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.58. [return]
45. "Crucifixion: Ancient Rome," Wikipedia, 17 October 2016; Iannone, 1998, p.69. [return]
46. McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.36. [return]
47. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.37; McNair, 1978, p.36; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.26. [return]
48. Iannone, 1998, pp.59,67; Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese/Doubleday: New York NY, p.292. [return]
49. Iannone, 1998, pp.67, 70. [return]
50. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, pp.53-54; Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June; . [return]
51. Wilson, I., 1989, "But Is the Shroud Mediaeval?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 21, January/February, pp.3-5, 4. [return]
52. Meacham, W., "Thoughts on the Shroud 14C debate," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, 2000, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, pp.441-454, 444. [return]
53. Wilson, I., 1988, "Editorial and The Carbon Dating Results: Is This Now the End?," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.2-10, 4. [return]

Posted: 8 October 2016. Updated: 2 November 2016.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourth century

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
FOURTH CENTURY
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is part #4, "Fourth century," of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. See part #1, "First century" and index, for more information about this series. This installment covers the entire post.

[Index #1] [Previous: 3rd century #2] [Next: 5th century #5]


4th century (301-400)

[Above (enlarge): "Detail of a fresco on the catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter, Via Labicana, Rome, Italy, 4th century"[2]. Although Jesus' face does not have the rigid frontality and Vignon markings of later Byzantine icons, it "shows a very striking similarity to" the image on the Shroud (see "400" below), and is such a radical departure from the "beardless Apollo" depictions of Jesus then current, that the simplest explanation is that the artist had seen the Mandylion (the Shroud "four-doubled" = tetradiplon) and painted this part of the fresco from memory "about 400."]

c. 315 Roman Empress Constantia (c.293-330), the half-sister of Emperor Constantine the Great (c.272–337), wrote to the church historian, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (260-339), asking him to send her an "image of Christ." Constantia's letter is lost but from Eusebius' reply, she seems to be asking for a specific image of Christ, presumably the Mandylion/Shroud. This is supported by Eusebius' reply in which, instead of simply answering Constantia along the lines of, "Sorry, but I don't have an image of Christ to send to you," he gave a long-winded refusal which indicated that Eusebius knew which image Constantia meant, but he needed to find a way to refuse Constantine's half-sister's request without actually saying "no". This is further evidence that the Mandylion/Shroud existed in the fourth century, known in Christian circles, but hidden from those who would seize it. [see also above and "400" below].

325 Eusebius, in his Church History, includes an account of the story of Jesus and Abgar exchanging letters [see "50"]. Eusebius states that he had seen the original letters in Edessa's archives, but significantly he makes no mention of any cloth imprinted with Jesus' likeness.

c. 330 Athanasius (c. 296–373), who was bishop of Alexandria from 328 to 373, affirmed in the times of Constantine the Great (c.272–337), who was Roman Emperor from 306-337, that a sacred Christ-icon, traceable to Jerusalem in the year 68, was then present in Syria, when Syria did not include Edessa.

337 Constantine, the first Christian Roman Emperor, abolished crucifixion throughout the Roman Empire in 337 out of veneration for Jesus, crucifixion's most famous victim. Crucifixion continued to be banned in the remnants of the Roman Empire which included Europe. Neither the Bible, nor writers in the Roman era, described crucifixion in detail, presumably because everyone then knew those details, and crucifixion was so abhorrent. Therefore a medieval European forger, ~1000 years later, would not know enough about Roman crucifixion to depict it accurately as it is on the Shroud [See future "1389" and "1988"].

c. 375 Composition of the Doctrine of Addai (Syriac for "Thaddeus") in Edessa, based on earlier versions of the Abgar story [see "50"], but incorporating later interpolations, including a story of Abgar's keeper of the archives, Hannan, painting Jesus's portrait "with choice paints". This may be a garbled memory of a likeness of Jesus having once been brought to Edessa.

c. 338 St. Nino (c. 296–340), spent her youth in Jerusalem from c. 308. In 338 she wrote in her memoirs that she had been told that the linen strips (othonia - Lk 24:12; Jn 11:44) had been taken by Pilate's wife, who took them to Pontus, but later they were brought back to Jerusalem. The soudarion - Jn 20:7, Nino had heard, had been taken by Peter, but it was not by then known where it was.

c. 384 Visit to Edessa by the pilgrim nun Egeria who had travelled from Spain in a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. In her travel diary Egeria describes churches and other landmarks of Edessa,

[Right (enlarge)[3]: A portrait of Egeria (artist and date unknown to me).]

but significantly Egeria makes no mention of any cloth bearing Jesus' imprinted image. How- ever Egeria does mention a letter purportedly from Jesus to King Abgar V [see "50"], the text of which was displayed on Edessa's main gate.


c. 400 The late German Shroud pro-authenticist scholar, Prof. Werner Bulst (1913-95), dated the "picture in the catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus" (above) to "about 400" and noted that "...the image on the Cloth of Turin ... shows a very striking similarity to ... a picture in the catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus (about 400)"[4]. This is additional evidence that the Shroud existed in the fourth century, and so is more evidence against the of the 945 Official History's highly implausible story that the Mandylion/Shroud was bricked up above Edessa's public gate c.60, was completely forgotten, and not rediscovered until 525 [see c. 60 and future "525"].

Continued in part #5, fifth century, 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 page. [return]
2. "File:ChristPeterPaul detail.jpg," Wikimedia, 15 January 2015. [return]
3. Inza, J.G., 2011, "Egeria: the first pilgrimage to the Holy Land," Blogs of religion in freedom, January 23, Google translate. [return]
4. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.41. [return]

Posted: 4 October 2016. Updated: 10 November 2016.

Monday, October 3, 2016

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

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

[Previous: August 2016, part #1] [Next: September 2016, part #2]

This is my "Editorial and Contents," part #1 of the September 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related September 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.
"The Shroud of Turin as the Burial Cloth of Jesus - Answers for Critics," Northwest Creation Network, September 7th, 2016.
"Pope Francis: Christians Must Believe 'Jesus' Bodily Resurrection Was Real' or Faith Is Empty," The Christian Post, September 19, 2016.
"Shroud of Turin remains a mystery," The Citizen, September 27, 2016.
"Photo Diary: Shroud of Turin Museum, Alamogordo NM," September 28, 2016.


Editorial

Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word- processing of issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz for him to convert to PDF and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in September up to issue #58, April 1990 [Right (enlarge)]. Issues in that archive are now up to issue #57, February 1990.



Topic index: In September I realised that my new topics series is also too time-consuming, so I have abandoned it to make time for more important posts. Much as I like the idea of a topic index, there will be no more topic indexes of my blog, ever!

Posts: In September I blogged only 5 new posts (latest uppermost): "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #10"; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Third century"; "No style #16: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!"; "How my radiocarbon dating hacker theory started;" and "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, August 2016"

Comments: In September I deleted as substandard an anonymous comment that was just a bare assertion, with no supporting evidence, which I will do every time. I deleted as substandard another comment that seemingly agreed with me, but was a `too clever by half' trap that I was aware of from my more than a decade (1994-2005) of debating atheist/agnostics on Creation/Evolution forums.

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, I blogged two posts about my hacker theory in September. The first, "How my radiocarbon dating hacker theory started," I discovered was more complex that I originally thought. I am now thinking of including it in the final part #11 of my current hacker series. Part III of Joe Marino's, "The Politics of Radiocarbon Dating," with its promised paragraph about my "hypothesis that the labs results were the result of a computer hacking," and a link to the start of my current hacker series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking," does not appear to have been posted in Shroud.com's September update as expected (or anywhere).

Late news: As Joe Marino later emailed me, "It was mentioned in the "Recently Published Papers and Articles" of Shroud.com's September Update:

"The Politics of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud - Part III by Joseph G. Marino. This is the third and final part of a 3-part article published by Joe Marino on his website on September 19, 2016."
I will in a separate post report what that Part III says about my hacker theory.

Pageviews: At midnight on 30 September, Google Analytics [below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 593,586 and "Pageviews last month" as 9,279. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month as: "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, August 2016, Sep 1, 2016 - 84; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 72; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Third century," Sep 13, 2016 - 72; "No style #16: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!, Sep 5, 2016 - 69; and "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (3)." - 66.


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]

Posted: 3 October 2016. Updated: 22 September 2017.