Saturday, January 20, 2018

Burns #27: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

BURNS #27
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the second (and an update of the first) installment of part #27, "Other marks and images: burns," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. Again see also, "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (1): Burns and water stains."

[Main index #1] [Previous: Other marks and images #26] [Next: Water stains #28]


  1. Other marks and images #26
    1. Burns #27

Introduction The most obvious[2] and prominent[3] marks on the Shroud are those resulting from a fire in AD 1532 (see future below).

[Right (enlarge): Burns marks and patches on the frontal half of the Shroud resulting from the 1532 fire (outlined in green)[4]. Seen directly the body image is very faint (see "Faint #11") but it is enhanced by photography[5.]

The 1532 fire On 4 December 1532 a fire broke broke out in the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry, France (see below)[6], where the Shroud had been kept since 1502[7]. The Shroud was folded in 48 layers[8] inside a wooden chest overlaid with silver[9]

[Left (enlarge): The restored Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry, as it is today[10], after it was all but destroyed by a fire in 1532.]

that had been donated in 1509 by a former Duchess of Savoy, Margaret of Austria (1480–1530)[11]. The chest was in a cavity in the wall above the high altar behind an iron grille, secured by four locks each with a different key

[Right (enlarge): The cavity in a wall of the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry[12], from where the Shroud was rescued in the 1532 fire.]

and keyholder[13]. One of the keys was held by Canon Philip Lambert, who was present[14] but the other three keyholders could not be located in time[15]. A local blacksmith, Guglielmo Pussod[16], was summonsed who, at great personal risk from falling burning roof timbers, opened the grille[17], and with the help of Canon Lambert and two of his clergy, carried the Shroud in its burning chest to safety[18].

To be continued in the third installment of this part #27 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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. 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, p.22; Jumper, E.J., Adler, A.D., Jackson, J.P., Pellicori, S.F., Heller, J.H. & Druzik, J.R., in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin,"Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp.447-476, 449; Hoare, R., 1999, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence Updated," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, pp.18, 24; 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.10. [return]
4. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal: Overlays: Burn Holes (1532 A.D.)" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.21-22, 219; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 32; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.7, 10. [return]
6. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.45; Wilson, 1979, p.24; 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.30; 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.49; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.2; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.162; Hoare, 1999, pp.18-19, 24; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.141; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.18; Cassanelli, A., 2002, "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK, p.14; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.49; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.4, 76; Wilson, 2010, pp.14, 305. [return]
7. Iannone, 1998, pp.141-142; Oxley, 2010, p.76; Wilson, 2010, pp.249, 305. [return]
8. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.105; Wilson, 1979, p.24; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Wilson, 1986, p.2; Wilson, 1998, p.65; Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
9. Morgan, 1980, p.45; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.30; Wilson, 1986, p.2; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.162. [return]
10. "File:Sainte-Chapelle (Chambéry).jpg," Wikipedia, 7 May 2016. [return]
11. Ruffin, 1999, p.67. [return]
12. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.19. [return]
13. Wilson, 1986, p.2; 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.65. [return]
14. Crispino, D., 1982, "The Report of the Poor Clare Nuns: Chambéry, 1534," No. 2, March, pp.19-28, 19.. [return]
15. Wilson, 1986, p.2; Wilson, 1998, p.65; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
16. Humber, 1978, p.105; Wilson, 1998, pp.65, 289; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Oxley, 2010, pp.77, 277; Wilson, 2010, p.253. [return]
17. Wilson, 1986, p.2; Ruffin, 1999, p.67; Wilson, 2010, p.14, 305. [return]
18. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.30; Iannone, 1998, pp.141-142; Hoare, 1999, p.19; Ruffin, 1999, p.67; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Oxley, 2010, p.4; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]

Posted: 20 January 2018. Updated: 22 January 2018.

Friday, January 19, 2018

Other marks and images #26: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

OTHER MARKS AND IMAGES #26
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is "Other marks and images," part #26, of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" This page is a sub-index to topics under the heading, "Other marks and images." That is, marks other than wounds and bloodstains, and images other than of the Man on the Shroud (see under part #8, "The man on the Shroud" for those). Each topic will be a page containing items of evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud, under that topic heading. Each of those topic pages will be linked back to this sub-index and it in turn will be linked back to the Main index. See that Main index for more information about this series.

[Right (enlarge): Burns (outlined in blue) and "poker holes" (outlined in yellow) on a full-length pre-2002 restoration positive photograph of the Shroud[2].]

The order of topics in this "Other marks and images," section is from the perspective of what I imagine a person looking at the Shroud would notice first among the other marks and images, such as: the burns, the waterstains, etc., grading into those which are less obvious, such as flower images, coins over the eyes, etc. See also "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks."

[Main index #1] [Previous: No image under blood #25] [Next: Burns #27]


  1. Other marks and images #26
    1. Burns #27
    2. Water stains #28
    3. "Poker holes" #29
    4. Dirt #30
    5. Flower & plant images #31
    6. Coins over the eyes #32
    7. Writing #33


Continued in part #27 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]

Posted: 19 January 2018. Updated: 20 January 2018.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

12th-11th centuries: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (3): Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #11

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the fifth and final installment of part #11, "12th-11th centuries: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (3)," in my "Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory," series. For more information about this series see part #1, "Hacking an explanation & Index." References "[A]", etc., will be to that part of my original post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: "Vignon markings: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (2) #10" [Next: "11th century: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (4)" #11]

[Above (enlarge): "Scenes from the Passion of Christ ...The Lamentation"[2]: Part of a larger carved ivory panel (see below) in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London. Note that Jesus' arms cross awkwardly at the wrists, right over left, exactly as they are on the Shroud[3], in this late eleventh/early twelfth century Byzantine icon. This alone is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud existed at least a century before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud!]

Continuing with tracing the steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Shroud hacker theory in my early 2014 posts (last three): "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Further to my replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey"; "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #1"; "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #2 (Vignon markings)" and now "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #3."

This post continues from my previous "... against the preponderance of the evidence (2), and before that "... against the preponderance of the evidence (1), which presented historical evidence for the Shroud's existence in the 13th and 12th centuries [see also "Chronology ... 12th century"]. As I had previously explained, my purpose of documenting all this historical evidence of the Shroud's existence from the 13th to the 11th century is to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[4] must be wrong. And then [since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic] the key questions would be (and are): 1. "How could a 1st century cloth (absent fraud) carbon-date to the 13th-14th century?"; and 2. "How could the midpoint of that date range, 1325 ±65[5], `just happen' (absent fraud) to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c.1355"? Especially given that the leader of the Shroud carbon-dating project, Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), pointed out that the improbability of the Shroud being first century (which it is), yet its radiocarbon date was "between 1260 and 1390," is "about one in a thousand trillion"[6]). [A]

c. 1100 Late eleventh century portable mosaic, "Christ the Merciful"[7], in the former Ehemals Staatliche Museum[8], now Bodemuseum, Berlin.

[Left (enlarge): "Christ the Merciful" mosaic icon (1100-1150) in the Bodemuseum, Berlin[9].]

By my count this icon has 12 of the 15 Vignon markings [see "c.1100"], including a wisp of hair where the reversed `3' bloodflow is on the Shroud, a topless square, wide open staring eyes, a forked beard and a line across the throat, but they are more stylized[10]. [B]

1092 A letter purporting to be from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081-1118) to Count Robert II of Flanders (r.1093- 1111)[11], appealed for

[Right: "Portrait of Emperor Alexios I, from a Greek manuscript"[12].]

help to prevent Constantinople falling into the hands of the pagans[13]. The letter listed the relics in Constantinople including, "the linen cloths found in the sepulchre after his Resurrection"[14]. Although the letter may (or may not [see "1092"]) be a forgery, this need not invalidate its description of the relics then in the imperial collection[15]. [C]

c. 1090 Late eleventh/early twelfth century Byzantine ivory of the threnos, or lamentation scene of Jesus being mourned as he is laid out in death, in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London[16]. As already

[Left (original): Full carved ivory panel in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London[17], showing scenes of: crucifixion (top), deposition (middle) and burial threnos (bottom).]

mentioned above Jesus' hands are crossed awkwardly at the wrists, right arm over the left, exactly as on the Shroud! This late eleventh century artistic style of depicting Jesus laid out in death on a shroud coincides with the first references to the burial sheet (sindon) in Constantinople's relics[18]. [D]

c. 1080 Eleventh-century Christ Pantocrator mosaic in the dome of the monastery church of Daphni near Athens, Greece[19]. It has 13

[Right (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator mosaic from Daphni, Greece, ca. 1080-1100[20].]

of the 15 Vignon markings[21] (see #10). In this and other icons, some of these Vignon markings, for example the `topless square,' are more stylized than on the Shroud, having been rendered more naturalistic by very competent artists[22] copying these features second hand from the master-original[23], the Shroud face[24]. [E]

1058 The Christian Arab writer Abu Nasr Yahya recorded that he saw the cloth of Edessa in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople [25]. But it was not then publicly exhibited full length[26] as it was still regarded as too holy for ordinary gaze[27]. [F]

c. 1050 Eleventh-century mosaic bust of Christ Pantocrator in the narthex of the catholicon church (c. 1010) within the Hosios Loukas monastery[28] near the town of Distomo, Greece[29].

[Left (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator, c. 1050, Hosios Loukas monastery, Greece[30].]

The late art historian, Professor Kurt Weitzmann (1904-1993), who specialised in Byzantine and medieval art[31], noted that this icon had facial "subtleties" similar to the sixth-century Christ Pantocrator icon portrait in St. Catherine monastery, Sinai[32] [See "c. 550"] . In particular Prof. Weitzmann noted:

"...the pupils of the eyes are not at the same level; the eyebrow over Christ's left eye is arched higher than over his right ... one side of the mustache droops at a slightly different angle from the other, while the beard is combed in the opposite direction ... Many of these subtleties remain attached to this particular type of Christ image and can be seen in later copies, e.g. the mosaic bust in the narthex of Hosios Lukas over the entrance to the catholicon ... Here too the difference in the raising of the eyebrows is most noticeable ..." [33].

Those facial "subtleties" that Prof. Weitzmann noted were "attached to this particular type of Christ image and can be seen in later copies" are Vignon markings which are all found on the Shroud! [G]

c. 1050 The mid-eleventh-century Old French "Life of Saint Alexis"[34], the first masterpiece of French literature, contains the passage[35]:

"Then he [Alexis] went off to the city of Edessa Because of an image he had heard tell of, Which the angels made at God's commandment..."

[Right (enlarge): Miniature and text of the "Chanson de St Alexis" or "Vie de St Alexis," in the St. Albans Psalter (c. 1120-1145)[36].]

As philologist Linda Cooper has shown in a scholarly paper[37], the "image" referred to is the Image of Edessa, and from the various versions of St. Alexis's life it is clear that this was the Shroud[38]. Over two centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud! [H]

To be continued in the next part #12 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (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. "Scenes from the Passion of Christ; The Crucifixion, the Deposition from the Cross, The Entombment and the Lamentation," Victoria & Albert Museum, London. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.160; 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.270; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.182-183. [return]
4. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
5. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1,141,178,246; Wilson, 1998, p.7; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.169; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.170; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.87. [return]
6. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.303. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.160h. [return]
8. Ibid. [return]
9. Mosaic icon, "Christ the Merciful (1100-1150), in Museum of Byzantine Art, Bode Museum, Berlin, Germany: Wikipedia (translated by Google). [return]
12. "Alexios I Komnenos," Wikipedia, 13 January 2018. [return]
10. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
11. Wilson, 1979, pp.166-167. [return]
13. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.xxxv. [return]
14. de Wesselow, 2012, p.177. [return]
15. Wilson, 1979, p.314 n31. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.151. [return]
17. "Scenes from the Passion of Christ," Victoria and Albert Museum, London. [return]
18. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.88. [return]
19. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.77. [return]
20. "Daphni Monastery," Wikipedia, 28 December 2017. [return]
21. Maher, 1986, p.77. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
23. Wilson, 1991, p.168. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, p.270. [return]
26. Currer-Briggs, N., 1987, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.63. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, p.257. [return]
28. "Hosios Loucas (Stiris)," Pausanias Project, 29 August 2013. [return]
29. "Hosios Loukas," Wikipedia, 28 December 2017. [return]
30. Ibid. [return]
31. "Kurt Weitzmann," Wikipedia, 6 January 2018. [return]
32. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.107. [return]
33. Weitzmann, K., 1976, "The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Icons," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, p.15, in Wilson, 1986, p.107. [return]
34. Bauer, B.L.M. & Slocum, J., 2013, "Old French Online: Lesson 3," Linguistics Research Center in The College of Liberal Arts, University of Texas at Austin, 11 December. [return]
35. Wilson, I., 1987, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter 16, May, p.14. [return]
36. "St. Albans Psalter," Wikipedia, 1 July 2017. [return]
37. Cooper, L., 1986, "The Old French Life of Saint Alexis and the Shroud of Turin," Modern Philology, Vol. 84, No. 1, August, pp.1-17. [return]
38. Wilson, 1987, p.14. [return]

Posted: 14 January 2018. Updated: 19 January 2018.

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Obituary (2): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the eleventh and final installment of part #2 of my obituary of Dr. Alan D. Whanger. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. As stated in part #1, because this obituary was going to be too long, I split it into two (or more) parts. Also I had added links below to the major headings which will continue in this part #2.

[Points of Congruence] [Instruments and Objects of the Crucifixion]

[Above (enlarge): "Justinian II. first reign, 685-695 AD. AV solidus ..."[2].]

Points of Congruence (PC) [top] Whanger continued with his explanation in part #1:

"To tabulate and describe these similarities, we made use of a system of points of congruence, by which we mean the identity or marked similarity of points between the two images. These were then diagrammed on transparent plastic sheets covering large photographs so that the findings could be tabulated and demonstrated. We were not able to find any statistical method for validating our observations, so we used the forensic criteria for validating images, although this would probably not accurately apply to the type of image comparison we were using. In a court of law, 14 points of congruence between two fingerprints is sufficient to establish same source. For more complicated features, notably the human face, 45 to 60 points of congruence is sufficient to determine the same face or same origin. Therefore, we had a yardstick of sorts to try to understand the significance of our findings"[3].
However, I regret to say that, as congenial as this is to Shroud pro-authenticists (including me who had cited it in the past), Whanger's PC argument has several major flaws (some of which he tacitly admitted above), that invalidate it. Flaw #1 of Whanger's PC argument is that at its core it is subjective. Whanger effectively admitted this when he stated that there was no "statistical method for validating our observations." Mary Whanger has effectively admitted that a point of congruence is what they both agreed was so:
"To do comparisons, Alan would first superimpose two images, using what he came to consider `best possible alignment': eyebrows, tip of nose, and mouth. Then together we would do the comparisons. The first two we did were those of the Shroud face with the Pantocrator face and with the solidus coin face. Using a clear plastic sheet over an eight-by-ten photograph of the Shroud face, every feature that matched was drawn in with a red permanent marker. These features are not just the large structures, but small details, such as the tip of the nose, the shape of a blood stain in the hair, a dot to one side of the mouth, etc. We called these points of congruence (PC). This was carefully and meticulously done, and we did not draw in anything unless we both could see and be certain that it was really there. Then we counted the points of congruence"[4].
So it follows that if anyone else using Whanger's Polarized Image Overlay technique (PIOT) could not see that a claimed point of congruence was really there (for example Ian Wilson - see future below), then it was not a point of congruence!

Flaw #2 of the Whangers' PC argument is their claim above that, "In a court of law, 14 points of congruence between two fingerprints is sufficient to establish [the] same source." First, the Whangers have repeated this claim many times[5], but never, as far as I am aware, provided a reference to support it. Second, in a court of law, the prosecution would have to show photographs of the fingerprints and claimed points of congruence between them for a jury to assess the claim, with a defence lawyer vigorously attacking each claim. But as far as I am aware, the Whangers have never produced photographs of their claimed points of congruence, so that others can see for themselves if they are truly congruent. Third, this claim is an example of the Fallacy of False Analogy[6], in that it assumes that the correspondence of a fingerprint mark to the finger that produced it is essentially the same as a mark on an icon or coin to a mark at the corresponding location on the Shroud. But, for starters, fingerprint marks are so regular and objective that the matching of them can be, and is, computerised[7].

[Above (enlarge): "Classification of fingerprints. Fingerprints have general patterns of ridges that allow them to be classified and compared. All fingerprints are divided into three large groups, based on their ridge pattern"[8].]

Whereas (as we saw above) the Whangers' determination of what is a point of congruence is entirely subjective in that they both had to agree on whether a mark on an icon or coin is a match of a mark at the corresponding location on the Shroud. Whanger even admitted that "the analogy may not be strictly correct" and "the analogy is not fully correct"[9]!

Flaw #3 of the Whangers' Points of Congruence claims is their assumption that more is better. But the more claimed PCs the more the likelihood that some are wrong. In a court of law, a defence lawyer would attack the more doubtful claimed PCs to make them all appear doubtful to the jury. Ian Wilson realised this in his reduction of the original twenty Vignon markings down to a more reliable fifteen:

"In the 1930s Vignon turned his interest away from the scientific aspects of the Shroud, and began to study some of the post-sixth-century Byzantine portraits ... together with many similar pre-fourteenth-century portraits of Christ. He had noticed that in many of these portraits there were certain oddities, certain peculiarities to the Christ face ...Vignon, and after him the American scholar Edward Wuenschel, began to search for other such peculiarities, and found some twenty in all, oddities originating from some accidental imperfection in the Shroud image or weave, and repeated time and again in paintings, frescoes, and mosaics of the Byzantine period, even though artistically they made no sense ... Not all of the twenty markings deduced by Vignon and Wuenschel are acceptable ... But even so, one could still make a reasonable case for the validity of some fifteen ..."[10].
Similarly it would have been far better if the Whangers had produced a much shorter list (say 14 to match their court of law analogy) of their best PCs for each icon/coin and publish side-by-side photographs of those claimed congruent points for others to assess and reach a majority consensus. But with Alan Whanger's passing that seems now unlikely to happen and all we will be left with is the Whanger's assertions.

Flaw #4 of the Whangers' PC claims is the lack of realism of some, which discredits them all. For example, Whanger claimed of the Justinian II solidus coin in part #1 and above, that it had, "145 points of congruence"[11]. But the face of Jesus on this coin, "from the top of the head to the tip of the beard," is only nine millimetres high[12] - less than a centimetre. The Whangers admitted that the die-maker of this 7th century coin could not have seen with his unaided eye much of their claimed 145 PCs:

"How a seventh-century iconographer ever got such detail engraved in so small a space is beyond our understanding. Much of it you cannot even see with the unaided eye. Repeatedly, as we were comparing the photographs projected on a large screen and enlarged to fill the screen, we would have to remind ourselves of the tiny size of the icon, and we would pause and marvel! Surely, the engraver who did that work must have been one of the most skilled of all time"[13].
Magnifying lenses did then exist[14], so it is not impossible that the die maker could have used one. But why would he when those using the coin could not see its fine detail? The Whangers attempted to explain this by claiming that to the Byzantines, icons were the same as Scripture and so this coin's maker, "would no more create an image according to his own imagination than a scribe would ... rewrite Scripture":
"Why such incredible accuracy? Why go to such extraordinary lengths to reproduce with such meticulous care features that most people would never see? The answer has to do with the nature of icons. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, icons had (and still have) the same status as Scripture. Thus the iconographer would no more create an image according to his own imagination than a scribe would casually rewrite Scripture"[15].
But this explanation is self-evidently false, because when the Shroud face is compared with Jesus' face on the Justinian II solidus (below), it

[Above (enlarge): Positive of the Shroud face (left) as this solidus' die-maker would have seen it, and the solidus face (right) as the die-maker depicted it. While the coin was based on the Shroud (as evidenced by it having 11 out of the 15 Vignon markings - see above), the two prominent bloodstains on the Shroud man's forehead being depicted as two tufts of hair alone proves that the coin's iconographer did create the coin's image at least partly according to his own imagination!]

can be easily seen that the coin's die-maker did not meticulously copy the Shroud face as a scribe would have copied Scripture.

Further examples of the Whangers' lack of realism (i.e. failure step back and take a reality-check) in their points of congruence identifications, is their claim that the face of a statue of the pagan god Zeus, excavated from the ancient Syrian city Dura-Europos, and dated AD 31 (i.e. one year after Jesus' death in AD 30[16]!), was based on the Shroud, sharing 79 points of congruence with it:

"We examined in detail ... early depictions from Dura-Europos that were well preserved and of good quality, a relief of the god Zeus Kyrios or Baalshamin of A.D. 31 ... Using the Polarized Image Overlay Technique, we compared the face image of Zeus Kyrios with the face image on the Shroud of Turin and found a very good match of seventy-nine PC"[17].
But as can be seen below in these side-by-side photos of the positive of the Shroud face (which the claimed sculptor would need to have seen)

[Above (enlarge): Positive photo of the Shroud face[18](left)] compared with the photo of the face of the same statue of Zeus[19](right)] in the Whangers' 1998 book[20].]

and the face of the same Zeus statue on page 40 of the Whangers' 1998 book, the two faces have very little in common! The Whangers evidently did not even consider realistically that it would require a sudden and largely complete conversion of Syrian paganism to Christianity in a year (indeed in months because major sculptures take time to plan and create) for it to be true that the Dura-Europos pagans saw the Shroud, were convinced by it that Jesus had risen from the dead, and erected this idol (because that is what it was) with their traditional face of Zeus replaced by the face of Jesus, as seen on the Shroud! But if this had happened we would surely know about it in history but we don't. Wilson pointed out (with typical British understatement), "That the face of Jesus should have been used within two years of the ... crucifixion as a model for a pagan statue of the king of the gods ... put[s] an intolerable strain on our credulity":

"That the face of Jesus should have been used within two years of the earliest likely date for the crucifixion as a model for a pagan statue of the king of the gods is in itself quite sufficient to put an intolerable strain on our credulity"[21].
Moreover, Wilson continued, "the source of inspiration for Dura Europos' Zeus Kyrios was the magnificent ... statue of Zeus at Olympia, created ... in the fifth century BC":
"But in any case what Dr. Whanger seems sadly to have overlooked is the fact that with little doubt the source of inspiration for Dura Europos' Zeus Kyrios was the magnificent chryselephantine (gold and ivory) statue of Zeus at Olympia, created by the famous Greek sculptor Phidias back in the fifth century BC"[22].
This alone is sufficient to discredit as unrealistically subjective the Whangers' points of congruence claims, but as we shall see next, it gets even worse!

Instruments and Objects of the Crucifixion [top] The Whangers claim to have discovered on the Shroud images of some of the instruments of Jesus' crucifixion[23]. Mary Whanger described their search for these as an "adventure" and "a treasure hunt" (which is not the right frame of mind to have for an objective, scientific investigation):

"BY THIS TIME, THE ADVENTURE OF looking for images of objects on the Shroud had taken on the excitement of a treasure hunt. Once again, Alan began to study every square inch of the Shroud photographs, up close and at a distance. What he was looking for were areas whose appearance differed in some way from the surrounding area: patterns that do not follow the weave pattern, or alterations in the texture or density of an image, or unusual directions or configurations"[24].
They were using only their "Polarized Image Overlay" technique (PIOT)[25] (see part #1) and thus were vulnerable to Maslow's "Law of the instrument," i.e. "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail":
"The concept known as the law of the instrument, otherwise known as the law of the hammer, Maslow's hammer (or gavel), or the golden hammer, is a cognitive bias that involves an over-reliance on a familiar tool. As Abraham Maslow said in 1966, `I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail'"[26].
Instruments of Jesus' crucifixion that the Whangers claim to have found on the Shroud include a large Roman crucifixion nail[27].

[Right (enlarge): "The images of a large nail with two crossed smaller nails can be seen on the Shroud between a railroad spike for comparison on the left and a drawing of the images on the right."[28].]

From the Whangers' description of its location:

"The first such image found was of a six and one-half inch long spike on the dorsal image half of the Shroud a few inches away from the body on the anatomic right [sic] side at thigh level"[29]
I located this `nail' on the Shroud (except that it is on the anatomical left side - the Whangers were presumably confused by using only Enrie negative photographs of the Shroud[30]), using ShroudScope (see below). But as can be seen in my two versions of the same ShroudScope

[Above (enlarge)[31]: Positive image of the Shroud showing the `nail' outlined in red (left) alongside the same original image autocorrected (right), showing that the sides of the `nail' are part of the weave of the cloth!]

image, and even in the Whangers' photo above, the sides of the `nail' are part of the longitudinal weave of the cloth and therefore this Roman crucifixion `nail' is merely an illusion!

Another image of an instrument of the crucifixion of Jesus that the Whangers claim to have found on the Shroud is that of the spear which

[Left (enlarge)[32]: "The image of the upper end of the shaft of a spear and of part of its head can be seen on the Shroud between a drawing of the spear on the left and a model on the right. The upper part of the image on the Shroud, repres- ented by a dotted line in the drawing, is lost in a water stain. The spear image is compatible with a Roman hasta, or thrusting spear"[33].]

was thrust into Jesus' side to make sure that He was dead (Jn 19:33-34)[34]. The Whangers' further describe this claimed spear image and its location on the Shroud:

"The next object we found on the Shroud was the spear, located on the dorsal half of the Shroud near the edge on the anatomic left. The head or blade of the spear is about level with the head of the man. The upper part of the shaft apparently was made of wood. The upper end of the shaft is rounded. A narrow neck, which is inserted into both the shaft and the head, connects the shaft with the head. The outline of the lower part of the spear head is not difficult to see, but the upper part disappears into a water stain area"[35].
But contrary to the Whangers' claim above that the this spear image is compatible with a Roman hasta, in fact the cross-section shape of the side wound on the Shroud is elliptical[36], which matches a Roman leaf-like lancea[37], not the more pointy hasta[38]. And as can be seen in the ShroudScope negative below (I cannot see it at the equivalent

[Above (enlarge)[39]: ShroudScope Enrie negative with `spear' head outlined in red (left) alongside same original ShroudScope image (right). ]

place on the ShroudScope positive), if enlarge is clicked it can be seen that the head of the `spear' is part of longer diagonal marks (wrinkles or water stains) on the Shroud, and its shaft is part of the cloth's longitudinal weave! So again the Whangers' `spear' is a an illusion! Moreover, this is yet another example of the lack of realism in the Whangers' claims. For there to be an image on the Shroud of the spear that a Roman soldier had just used to pierce Jesus' side (Jn 19:33-34), one of the disciples present would have had to ask the soldier to hand over his spear. The Whangers claim is that the centurion present at the crucifixion of Jesus who remarked, "Truly, this man was the Son of God" (Mt 27:54; Mk 15:39), recovered all the items touched by Jesus' lifeblood, and gave them to the disciples to be wrapped in the Shroud[40]. But not only is there no Gospel evidence for this, and it surely would have been mentioned if it had happened; the spear did not have Jesus' lifeblood on it because He was already dead when speared (Jn 19:33-34). And as Whanger concedes it would have been "a capital offence for a Roman soldier to give away his spear":

"It was also a capital offence for a Roman soldier to give away his spear. However, it was an immediate capital offence for a Roman soldier to disobey his centurion. So, if a centurion ordered a soldier to leave his spear in the tomb, it would be done"[41].
But their excuse that "it was ... [a] capital offence for a Roman soldier to disobey his centurion" is surely false in this context, because the centurion's order would have been illegal!

An object that the Whangers' claim is on the Shroud and associated with Jesus' crucifixion is a head phylactery[42] (see below). But as

[Right (enlarge): "Composite showing the face image on the Shroud including a head phylactery on the forehead and the model below"[43].]

can be seen below left, the Whangers' `desecrated phylactery' (see below) is merely an illusion caused by the longitudinal weave of the cloth and horizontal

[Above (enlarge)[44]: The Whangers' claimed `desecrated phylactery' (see below) outlined in red on part of a ShroudScope Enrie negative photo of the Shroud. As can be seen, the sides of this `phylactery' are the longitudinal weave of the cloth and the image of the nose, which both continue past the `phylactery'. An obvious refutation of this being the desecrated "leather" (see below) back of a phylactery is that it would have had to be transparent because the same nose features and weave above and below it can be seen through in it!]

marks which continue across the nose! Problems with the Whangers' `phylactery' include: ■ They admit that "Scripture makes no mention of a phylactery at the time of Jesus' death and burial"[45]. ■ The Whangers explained away that their `phylactery' is not complete as in their photo above by claiming that when Jesus was mocked by Roman soldiers in their Praetorium (Mt 27:57-31; Mk 15:16-20), the soldiers "desecrat[ed]" the "leather" phylactery by cutting the front of it off with "a sharp knife"[46]. But not only is this entirely imaginary, it has the obvious problem (as mentioned above) that the leather back of the phylactery would have had to be transparent because the same nose and weave features above and below where the claimed phylactery was can also be seen through it! ■ They explained away that "the phylactery is too low on the forehead for its normal placement ... It should be close to the hair line" (see below)

[Above (enlarge): "Jewish men wearing phylacteries during prayer at the Western Wall, Jerusalem, 2003"[47].]

by claiming that "it was pushed down by the crown of thorns"[48]. But they did not consider the reality that the final placement of the phylactery, if it existed, would have occurred at burial after the crown of thorns had been removed (since there is no image of it on the Shroud), when out of respect for the deceased the phylactery would have been placed in its customary position - at the hair line.

Leading pro-authenticists Ian Wilson and Barrie Schwortz and "many others who favour the Shroud's authenticity" dismissed the Whangers' identification of instruments and objects of crucifixion on the Shroud as equivalent to seeing "faces in clouds" (pareidolia):

"Dr Alan Whanger ... further reported seeing numerous other objects both on the man of the Shroud's body, and in the cloth's ostensibly plain background. These included ... two desecrated Jewish phylacteries [prayer boxes], one on the forehead and the other on the left arm, an amulet of Tiberius Caesar, a crucifixion nail, a Roman spear, a crown of thorns, a sponge tied to a reed [John 19:29], a large hammer, a pair of pliers, two Roman scourges ... two sandals, a scoop ... two brush brooms, a pair of dice, a coil of rope, several letters on the title or titulus [the `King of the Jews' placard of John 19:19], and possibly partial images of the cloak, the tunic and two more nails'[49]. All of these objects ... Whanger argued ... must have been placed within the Shroud at the time of the man's burial, somehow becoming imprinted onto the cloth in much the same manner as the body ... For such reasons Barrie Schwortz and I, along with many others who favour the Shroud's authenticity, dismissed Alan Whanger's insights as having too much of a `faces in clouds' character ..."[50]
Not only did the Whangers' self-indulgent "adventure" and "treasure hunt" (see above) for images of instruments and objects of crucifixion on the Shroud bring discredit upon them in the pro-authenticity community, it also brought discredit on the Shroud in the Shroud sceptic community. In an article titled, "Scandals and Follies of the 'Holy Shroud'," leading Shroud sceptic, Joe Nickell, likened the Whangers' identification of images on the Shroud as akin to seeing imaginary shapes in a Rorschach ink-blot test:
"Shroud of Rorschach ... a retired geriatric psychiatrist, Alan Whanger, and his wife Mary, former missionaries who have taken up image analysis as a hobby ... visualized ... perceived shapes seen--Rorschach-like--in the shroud's mottled image and off-image areas. These include ... head and arm `phylacteries' (small Jewish prayer boxes), an `amulet,' and such crucifixion- associated items (cf. John, ch. 19) as `a large nail,' a `hammer,' `sponge on a reed,' `Roman thrusting spear,' `pliers,' `two scourges,' `two brush brooms,' `two small nails,' `large spoon or trowel in a box,' `a loose coil of rope,' a `cloak' with `belt,' a `tunic,' a pair of `sandals,' and other hilarious imaginings including `Roman dice'--all discovered by the Whangers (1998) ..."[51].
However, as we shall see in future parts of this obituary, Alan Whanger made a number of other important discoveries which added to the already overwhelming evidence that the Shroud is authentic. Including one discovery which may be the most important of all [see X-rays #22], because it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus Christ and bears His crucified and resurrected image!

To be continued in part #3 of this obituary of Dr. Alan D. Whanger.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (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. Justinian II - Byzantine Coinage - WildWinds.com ... SB 1249." [return]
3. Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M.W., "A Quantitative Optical Technique for Analyzing and Authenticating the Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Berard, A., ed., "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, 1991, pp.303-324, 307. [return]
4. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998a, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.19. [return]
5. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.307; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.19, 27; Whanger, A.D., 1998b, "Knowing a Hawk from a Handsaw," BSTS Newsletter, No. 47, May/July; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.6; Rogalski, J., 2007, "Fact or Forgery? Whangers Apply Test of Science to Shroud of Turin," DukeMed Alumni News, 10 November; Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M.W., 2008b, "Revisiting the Eye Images: What are They?," in Fanti, 2009, pp.134-139, 137. [return]
6. Downes, S., 1995, "The Logical Fallacies: False Analogy," 26 May. [return]
7. "Fingerprint Recognition — FBI," Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013. [return]
8. "CSI'/ Forensics Fingerprint Identification," March 8, 2010. [return]
9. Whanger, A.D., in Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 303; Whanger, A. & Whanger, M., 1999, "The Real Date of the Shroud: The Visual Evidence," in Walsh, B., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.69-77, 71. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised, pp.103-104. [return]
11. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, pp.308, 310; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.20. [return]
12. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.20-21. [return]
13. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.308; Whanger & Whanger, 2008a, p.143; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.20. [return]
14. "Magnifying glass: History," Wikipedia, 28 October 2017. [return]
15. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.21. [return]
16. Doig, K.F., 2015, "New Testament Chronology: Part IV, The Crucifixion of Jesus" & "The 30 CE Crucifixion," 22 April. [return]
17. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.43; Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M., 1991, "Evidence of early origin and nature of the Shroud of Turin by image analysis and optical comparison," Shroud News, No 65, June, pp.8-18, 15-16; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.73. [return]
18. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
19. Extract from "Dura Europos - Gods," St. Louis Community College, St. Louis MO, nd. [return]
20. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.40. [return]
21. Wilson, I., 1986, "Dr. Alan Whanger - A New Claim," BSTS Newsletter, No. 13, April, pp.9-12, 10-11. [return]
22. Ibid. [return]
23. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.86; Whanger, 1998b. [return]
24. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.86 (emphasis original). [return]
25. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.88. [return]
26. "Law of the instrument," Wikipedia, 5 October 2017. [return]
27. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.88; Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M.W., 2015, "Other Images," Council for the Study of the Shroud of Turin, Durham NC. [return]
28. Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
29. Ibid. [return]
30. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.8-9. [return]
31. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
32. Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
33. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.89. [return]
34. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.88; Whanger, 1998b; Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
35. Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.48; Meacham, 1983, p.290; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.62; 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.41; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.63. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, pp.48-49; Meacham, 1983, p.290; Iannone, 1998, p.62; Wilson, 1998, p.41; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.63. [return]
38. Wilson, 1979, p.48; Meacham, 1983, p.290; Iannone, 1998, pp.62-63. [return]
39. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
40. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.58; 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.109. [return]
41. Selinsky, D., 1991, "'Off the body' images - new Whanger research: A report from Duke University," Shroud News, No. 68, December, pp.3-4, 3. [return]
42. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.60-65; Whanger, 1998b; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.73; Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
43. Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
44. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
45. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.63. [return]
46. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.63. [return]
47. David Roberts, 2013, "Phylactery: Judaism," Britannica.com. [return]
48. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.64. [return]
49. Whanger, A., CSST News, July 1998. Not online. See Whanger & Whanger, 2015, "Other Images." [return]
50. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.82-84; Wilson, I., 1997, "Very Like a Whale," BSTS Newsletter, No. 46, November/December. [return]
51. Nickell, J., 2001, "Scandals and Follies of the 'Holy Shroud'," Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 25, No. 5, September, pp.17-20. [return]

Posted: 18 December 2017. Updated: 13 January 2018.

Monday, January 1, 2018

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, December 2017

Shroud of Turin News - December 2017
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: November 2017, part #1] [Next: January 2018, part #1]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1, of the December 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed linked news article about the Shroud in December as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing them.

Contents:
Editorial
"Is Shroud of Turin really Christ’s burial cloth? Conference will give Utahns chance to weigh the debate," The Salt Lake Tribune, Bob Mims, December 08, 2017.
"Shroud of Turin," Sharing Jesus, Jerry Blount, December 21, 2017.


Editorial
Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of the 118 issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz, for him to convert to PDFs and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in December up to issue #92, December 1995. [Right (enlarge)], i.e ~78% completed. Issues in that archive are still up to #84, August 1994.

Posts: In December I blogged only 3 new posts (latest uppermost): "Obituary (1): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)" - 18th; "18 November 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" - 11th and "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, November 2017" - 9th.

Updates There were no significant updates in the background of past posts in December. Except that I continued going through my posts in 2017, saving linked photos in case they become no longer online.

Comments: In December, I received a comment under my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Seventh century" post which amongst other things, questioned whether it was possible for the 7th century French bishop Arculf to have been shipwrecked off the coast of Scotland while returning by boat from the Holy Land:

"Because as he [Irish Abbot Adamnan (c. 624–704)] tells the story Arculf was shipwrecked on Iona, off the coast of Scotland. Arculf came from the Holy Land by boat ... But is it possible to get into a storm that takes you from the South of France between England and Ireland to an island off Scotland?"
I responded:
"Yes. I remember from my high school history that the Spanish Armada in the 16th century was caught in a storm and some of its ships were wrecked on the coast of Scotland. See:
"In September 1588 the Armada sailed around Scotland and Ireland into the North Atlantic ... However, there being at that time no way of accurately measuring longitude, the Spanish were not aware that the Gulf Stream was carrying them north and east as they tried to move west, and they eventually turned south much further to the east than planned ... Off the coasts of Scotland and Ireland the fleet ran into a series of powerful westerly winds, which drove many of the damaged ships further towards the lee shore ... The late 16th century, and especially 1588, was marked by unusually strong North Atlantic storms ... As a result, more ships and sailors were lost to cold and stormy weather than in direct combat." ("Spanish Armada: Return to Spain," Wikipedia, 20 December 2017)

"After the defeat of the Spanish armada by the English navy in 1588, it is said that a critically damaged Spanish vessel took shelter in the bay of Tobermory on the Isle of Mull, Scotland. The ships that survived the English onslaught were forced to navigate their way home around the north and west coasts of Scotland. Several ships were lost along the treacherous Scottish coastline in terrible weather." ("The Spanish Armada In Scotland")

The same problem of accurately measuring longitude in the 16th century existed in the 7th century."
I deleted a comment as substandard in December because the commenter told me that I should not post on a topic. I always have and always will delete as substandard comments that tell me what I should, or should not, post. If someone doesn't like what I post, the remedy is simple: don't read my blog!

I deleted as substandard another comment in December because it was a bare assertion with no reference(s) or link(s). I have updated my "substandard" `tagline' which I will include under my comments where applicable:

"MY POLICIES. Comments deleted as sub-standard include: bare assertions with no supporting reference(s) and/or link(s); bare link(s) to another website with little or no explanatory text; and comments that are inane, i.e. empty, insubstantial, lacking significance, meaning, or point."
Besides that, the comments was doubly wrong:
"... has left a new comment on your post "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Thirteenth century..." "What you call "A Justinian II gold solidus coin" is a "A Constantine VII gold solidus coin" from about 945 AD."
First, there is nothing in my post, "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Thirteenth century" about, "A Justinian II gold solidus coin." Second, I did mention a Justinian II gold solidus coin in my latest post, "Obituary (1): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)" where the image of Jesus on the coin is cropped. However, I did show the uncropped image of the same coin in my post, "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Seventh century," where its inscription ends with what looks like "J II." Unfortunately that coin is no longer online at "Money Museum" as my footnote 25 to my then latest post states. But I had already decided to show at the start of part #2 of my obituary of Alan Whanger, a front and back (obverse and reverse) another Justinian II solidus which is online and clearly is a copy of the same coin (see below):

[Above (enlarge): "Justinian II. first reign, 685-695 AD. AV solidus ..." (Justinian II - Byzantine Coinage - WildWinds.com ... SB 1249."]

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: I did not blog any posts directly about my hacker theory in December, but indirectly my "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" series will provide further evidence to support my theory.

My book: In December I finished the section, "First century" of "Chapter 6, "History and the Shroud," in the dot-point outline of my book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" (see 06Jul17).

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 December 2017, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 832,506. This compares with 670,590 (up 161,916 or ~24.1%) from the same time in December 2016. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear ," Mar 18, 2011 - 178; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified.," Dec 2, 2013 - 104; "The Letter from Alexius Comnenus": My response to Dan Porter," May 8, 2014 - 102; "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, November 2017," Dec 9, 2017 - 50; and "Re: Why couldn't Joseph of Arimathea have taken the Shroud?" Jan 30, 2011 - 50. Again I cannot explain the continued popularity of some of my older posts.


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Posted: 1 January 2018. Updated: 4 January 2018.

Monday, December 18, 2017

Obituary (1): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #1 of my promised obituary of Dr. Alan D. Whanger. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. Because this post was going to be too long, I have split it into two (or more) parts. Part #2 continues with "Points of Congruence." Below are links to the major headings in this part #1.

[About Whanger] [The Shroud] [1978 exposition] [Pantocrator, St. Catherine's, Sinai] [Polarized Image Overlay]

About Whanger [top] Alan D. Whanger was born on 17 July 1930 in Detroit, Michigan to Edgar and Catherine (Noel) Whanger, and died on 21 October 2017 at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina[2]. He is

[Right (enlarge): Dr Alan D. Whanger (1930- 2017)[3].]

survived by his wife of nearly 63 years, Mary (Whittle) Whanger, his two daughters, grand- children and great-grandchildren[4]. Whanger graduated as a doctor in 1956 from the Duke University School of Medicine[5]. After an internship and residency in General Surgery in Cleveland Ohio, and a diploma in Tropical Medicine and Hygiene in London, Alan and Mary served as missionaries with the United Methodist Church from 1961-1965 in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe[6]. In 1965

[Left: Mary and Allan Whanger in 2007[7].]

they returned to the United States, where Alan completed a residency in psychiatry at Duke from 1965-1968 and then a fellowship in geropsychiatry from 1968-1970[8]. He remained on the Duke faculty as a professor of psychiatry until his retirement in 1993[9].

The Shroud [top] Whanger's interest in the Shroud began in 1977 with his finding a book, "The Sacred Shroud," by Thomas Humber [Right[10].], in a local bookstore, with only a strange photograph on the cover[11]. Being an avid photographer Whanger bought the book and once home read it straight away[12].

1978 exposition [top] Up to then the Whangers knew nothing about the Shroud[13] and being Protestants they were sceptical of Catholic relics[14]. However, in the next year, 1978, there was an exposition of the Shroud in Turin, and they began to take note of the various news articles about the Shroud before, during and after the exposition[15]. They also followed the debates about the Shroud's authenticity, having no conviction, nor wish, either way in that regard, for the next year and a half[16].

Pantocrator, St. Catherine's, Sinai [top] The Whangers' interest in the Shroud was given new impetus in 1979 when a friend, James H. Charlesworth (1940-), then a Duke religion professor, returned from a research trip to St. Catherine's Monastery at Mt. Sinai with a photo-

[Left (enlarge): Sixth century (c.550) Christ Pantocrator from Saint Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, founded by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565), late in his reign, so it is believed this icon was donated by him at that time, i.e. c.550[17]. By my count this c.550 icon has at least eleven of the fifteen Vignon markings which are on the face of the Shroud [see 16Feb12].]

graph of a sixth century portrait of Jesus called the Christ Pantocrator[18]. A monk at the monastery told Charlesworth that the icon had been painted from the Shroud of Turin[19].

In 1981, Whanger developed his "Polarized Image Overlay" technique[20] (see next). The Whangers compared the face of this icon with the Shroud face and claimed they found "one hundred [and] seventy PC" (points of congruence-see part #2)[21]. In 1991 they revised this up to "well over 200 points of congruence"[22] and in 1998 they revised this up again to "over two hundred [and] fifty PC"[23].

Polarized Image Overlay [top] In 1979 Whanger began searching for a way to confirm if the monk's story (above) was correct, that the St Catherine's Pantocrator icon was painted from the Shroud[24]. Over the next two years, Whanger experimented using slide projectors to compare the face of Jesus on the St Catherine's Pantocrator icon with a Byzantine gold solidus coin minted in the reign of Byzantine Emperor

[Right (enlarge)[25]: A Justinian II gold solidus coin, cropped to show only the head and neck. By my count, Jesus' face on this 7th century Byzantine coin has at least twelve out of fifteen Vignon markings that are on the face of the Shroud [see 23Feb12]. See future below more on this coin.]

Justinian II (r. 685–695, 705–711)[26], super- imposed over a high quality Enrie 1931 negative photograph of the Shroud face[27]. In late 1981 Whanger decided to mask everything except the eye area of a photograph of the Justinian II gold solidus coin, and using two projectors superimposed that over a photograph of the eye area of the Shroud, and immediately he could see that both eye areas almost completely matched[28], but the projected images were blurred and made it difficult to determine which feature belongs to which image[29]. Then in December 1981

[Above (enlarge)[30]: Polarized Image Overlay: superimposing a projected polarized photograph of a coin over a projected polarized photograph of the Shroud face.]

Whanger hit on the idea of projecting the two images (icon or coin and the Shroud face), through polarizing filters at right angles to each other[31]. As Whanger explained:

"Polarizing filters are crystalline filters that render light rays essentially into one plane. When polarizing filters have their axes at right angles, almost all the light is blocked. Turning one of the filters to the same angle as the other lets a significant part of the light through. By viewing the projected images on a lenticular screen through a third polarizing filter which is rotated, one may see first one image and then the other in a highly controlled way so that accurate observations can be made on individual points to determine the similarity or dissimilarity"[32].

Continued in part #2 of this obituary of Dr. Alan D. Whanger.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (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. "In Memory of Alan Duane Whanger," Cremation Society of the Carolinas, October 21, 2017. [return]
3. Ibid. [return]
4. Ibid. [return
5. Ibid; "About CSST," Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin, 2015. [return]
6. "In Memory of ...," 2017; "About CSST ...," 2015. [return]
7. Rogalski, J., 2007, "Fact or Forgery? Whangers Apply Test of Science to Shroud of Turin," DukeMed Alumni News, 10 November. [return]
8. "About CSST ...," 2015; "In Memory of ...," 2017. [return]
9. Ibid; Ibid. [return]
10. Humber, T., 1977, "The Sacred Shroud," Amazon.com. [return]
11. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998a, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.3; Whanger, A. & Whanger, M., 1999, "The Real Date of the Shroud: The Visual Evidence," in Walsh, B., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.69-77, 70; Rogalski, 2007; "About CSST ...," 2015; "In Memory of ...," 2017. [return]
12. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.3; Rogalski, 2007; "In Memory of ...," 2017. [return]
13. Rogalski, 2007. [return]
14. "About CSST ...," 2015. [return]
15. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.12; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.70. [return]
16. Ibid. [return]
17. "Saint Catherine's Monastery," Wikipedia, 10 December 2017. [return]
18. Whanger, A.D. & M.W., "A Quantitative Optical Technique for Analyzing and Authenticating the Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Berard, A., ed., "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, 1991, pp.303-324, 306; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.12; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.70; Rogalski, 2007. [return]
19. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.306; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.12; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.70; Rogalski, 2007. [return]
20. Whanger, A.D., 1998b, "Knowing a Hawk from a Handsaw," BSTS Newsletter, No. 47, May/July; Rogalski, 2007; Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M.W., 2008a, "Aspects of the Shroud in Botany and Related Art," in Fanti, G., ed., 2009, "The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, pp.140-144, 140. [return]
21. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.307; Rogalski, 2007; Whanger & Whanger, 2008a, p.140; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.17-20. [return]
22. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.307. [return]
23. Whanger, 1998b; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.71. [return]
24. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.13-14; Whanger, 1998b; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.70. [return]
25. Money Museum. Image no longer online. [return]
26. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, pp.308, 310; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.16; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.70. [return]
27. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.8-9; Rogalski, 2007; Whanger & Whanger, 2008a, p.140. [return]
28. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.16. [return]
29. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.107; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.70. [return]
30. Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M., 1985, "Polarized image overlay technique: a new image comparison method and its applications," Applied Optics, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp.766-772. [return]
31. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.35; Whanger & Whanger, 1991, pp.306-307; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.42-42; Whanger, A.D., 1998c, "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.185; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.6; 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.106; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.71. [return]
32. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, pp.306-307. [return]

Posted: 18 December 2017. Updated: 2 January 2018.

Monday, December 11, 2017

18 November 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #7, "18 November 1987," of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1. As explained in part #1, the first significant days 30 years ago in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud have already passed, but I will catch up and thereafter publish each day's post as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 10Oct87 #6] [Next: 22Jan88 #8]

18 November 1987 In response to the letter of 10 October 1987 [see 10Oct87a], from the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989), advising that only three Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) laboratories: Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, would radiocarbon-date the Shroud[2], not five AMS and two small gas counter laboratories as per the 1986 Turin workshop protocol[3], a letter in Italian from the three chosen laboratories: Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, was sent to the Cardinal Ballestrero, requesting that the

[Right[4]: Professor Emeritus Douglas J. Donahue, co-founder of the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory, and the principal author of the 18 November 1987 letter (see below).]

1986 Turin workshop protocol which specified seven laboratories, using two different methods[5], be given further consideration[6 ].

But before that, on 20 October, in his response to Cardinal Ballestrero's letter of 10 October, the unofficial leader of the Shroud carbon-dating project, Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), proposed that all seven laboratories write an open joint letter to Pope John Paul II (r. 1978-2005), appealing against Cardinal Ballestrero's letter[7]. This was a suggestion to Gove by Dr Vittorio Canuto [see 07Jul17a], an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and a scientific aide of Prof. Carlos Chagas Filho (1910-2000)[see 07Jul17b], the President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences[8], that the seven laboratories send an open letter to the Pope via Prof. Chagas, advising that the 1986 Turin workshop had produced a protocol that specified seven laboratories and that Cardinal Ballestrero "was getting bad advice" from his scientific advisor, Prof. Luigi Gonella (1930–2007)[9]. Initially I thought that it was only Canuto's idea because surely Chagas would have told Canuto and Gove that overturning Ballestrero's letter had no chance of success because, as they all knew, it was sent with the full authority of the Vatican's Secretary of State, Cardinal Agostino Casaroli (1914–98)[see 13Sep17], and surely Chagas would know that it was highly unlikely that the Pope would override his Secretary of State in such a matter (especially since Casaroli had presumably briefed the Pope on it). But on 2 November Canuto told Gove that Chagas thought that the seven laboratories' letter to the Pope "was a good idea"[10]! Which makes me think that it was Chagas' idea as a last-ditch attempt to reverse his now having "no role at all" in the dating of the Shroud[11]. In which case Chagas would have been manipulating the unwitting Gove for Chagas' own ends!

Following Canuto's (which was presumably Chagas' - see above) suggestion, Gove began drafting a letter to the Pope as well as a joint press release about the letter[12]. Gove first phoned Willy Woelfli [Left[13].], Director of the Zurich AMS laboratory, but his being one of the chosen three laboratories, Woelfli was against a press release and wanted to see the draft letter to the Pope before he agreed to add his name to it[14]. Gove next sent a telex message to Jean-Claude Duplessy, Director of the Gif-sur-Yvette AMS laboratory, and he replied that would sign a joint letter to the Pope only if all the other laboratories did, but he did not want to be involved in any press release[15]. Realising that he was not going to get all seven laboratories to sign a joint letter to the Pope, on 29 October Gove sent the following memo to the Directors of the six laboratories other than his own:

"Some of us have been persuaded, as a result of the 10 October letter from the Archdiocese of Turin, that a direct appeal to the pope [sic], preferably through Professor Chagas, is now in order. Such a letter would only have a chance of being effective if it were signed by at least six of the seven laboratories and I would only send it in that circumstance. If, for whatever reason, this proposed appeal fails it is hard to see how this unilateral rejection of the Turin Workshop Protocol by the Cardinal of Turin can be concealed from the world press; hence the proposed press release. Please let me know as quickly as possible whether you would be willing to sign the attached letter to the pope"[16].
Attached was the draft of Gove's letter to the Pope and a press release, the latter only to be sent to media outlets if the appeal to the Pope failed[17]. Gove's draft letter to Pope John Paul II was as follows:
"Your Holiness: Following your specific instructions, representatives of scientific laboratories specializing in the technique of carbon dating small samples met in Turin on 29 September-1 October 1986, to discuss the protocol to follow should you permit the dating of the Holy Shroud of Turin. The workshop was held under the joint sponsorship of His Eminence Cardinal A Ballestrero and of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. At the end of this workshop a detailed protocol was arrived at that was agreed upon by all participants [sic]. The two main guiding principles were: 1. Removal of a minimum amount of Shroud material. A total of 12½ square centimetres (less than 0.03 per cent of the total surface of the Shroud) will suffice for all the laboratories. 2. Absolute scientific credibility. It was unanimously decided that, to improve the statistical credibility of the analysis, a minimum of seven laboratories should perform the dating. It is important to note that they use different techniques. In a letter dated 10 October 1987 to all the workshop participants, Cardinal Ballestrero has ordered substantial modifications to the original protocol. In particular, the number of laboratories is reduced, without any explanation, to three. This change was made in spite of a cable sent on 5 July 1987 to Cardinal Ballestrero with a copy to the Secretary of State, Cardinal A Casaroli, signed by all seven laboratories and the British Museum, in which the dangers of such a change were clearly spelled out. It is our collective impression that Cardinal Ballestrero has received very unwise scientific advice. The proposed modifications will confirm the suspicion of many people around the world that the Church either does not want the Shroud dated or it wants to have it done in an ambiguous way. The procedure that the Cardinal of Turin is suggesting is bound to produce a result that will be questioned in strictly scientific terms by many scientists around the world who will be very skeptical of the arbitrarily small statistical basis when it is well known that a better procedure was recommended. Since there is great world expectation for the date of the Shroud, the publicity resulting from a scientifically dubious result will do great harm to the Church. We respectfully urge Your Holiness to persuade the Cardinal of Turin that the scientific advice being given to him is not shared by the world experts in this field. He should be urged to seek the advice of the eminent scientific organization expressly created to advise you, namely the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that enjoys the respect of the scientific world at large. Rather than following an ill advised procedure that will not generate a reliable date but will rather give rise to world controversy, we suggest that it would be better not to date the Shroud at all"[18].
So the "procedure" that actually was used to date the Shroud: by three AMS laboratories, Gove stated before the dating in a letter to the Directors of the other six laboratories, that it was "ill advised," "will not generate a reliable date" such that, "it would be better not to date the Shroud at all"[19]!

The first reaction to Gove's draft letter to the Pope and press release was on 2 November from Canuto who (as we saw above) said that Chagas thought it "was a good idea"[20], presumably because it was Chagas' idea! Next was from Zurich's Woelfli who said he would sign the joint letter to the Pope if the other two chosen AMS laboratories, Oxford Arizona signed[21]. Zurich had received an invitation from Ballestrero to date the Shroud (and so had Arizona and Oxford)[22]. That same day Donahue of Arizona told Gove he favoured the three chosen AMS laboratories negotiating with Ballestrero and if that were not successful (whatever that meant) they should withdraw, but he thought that the approach to the Pope would be "fruitless" (Donahue is a Roman Catholic[23]) and might mean that the Shroud would not be dated[24]. Harbottle of the non-AMS Brookhaven laboratory, preferred to wait and see what the three chosen laboratories did[25]. On 3 November, Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall (1924–2001) [below right[26].] told Gove that he would not sign the joint letter to the Pope, because Ballestrero would consider it "blackmail" and the project might be cancelled[27]. Hall blamed Gove's antagonism towards Gonella for the reduction of the laboratories from seven to three[28]!

Gove then got back to Donahue[29], presumably to let him know of Hall's refusal to sign the joint letter. Both he and Paul Damon (1921-2005), co-founder with Donahue of the Arizona laboratory, would not sign Gove's joint letter to the Pope[30]. Donahue told Gove that he was composing a letter to be sent jointly with Oxford and Zurich to Ballestrero saying that they were upset with the new procedures, were unwilling to go along with three laboratories and would appeal to him to raise the number of laboratories to five or six[31]. But Damon told Gove that Donahue's preliminary version of the same joint letter of the three laboratories to Ballestrero would only say that "Arizona preferred that the original protocol be followed" but if Ballestrero refused (which he would since his "instructions [were] from the Holy See personally signed by the Cardinal Secretary of State" - see 10Oct87b]), they did not know what they would do[32]!

On 5 November Gove received from Donahue a draft of the letter from the three chosen laboratories to be sent to Cardinal Ballestrero, as follows:

"Your Eminence: We have received your letter of 10 October 1987, and we are honoured to have been selected to participate in the determination of the age of the cloth of the Shroud of Turin. However, we are concerned to learn that a decision has been made to limit the number of participating laboratories to three. We are in agreement with the conclusions reached at the workshop held in Turin in September-October 1986, that is: 'a minimum amount of cloth will be removed which is sufficient to (a) insure a result that is scientifically rigorous and (b) to maximize the credibility of the enterprise to the public. For these reasons, a decision was made that seven laboratories will carry out the experiment ... We believe that reducing the number of laboratories to three will seriously reduce 'the credibility of the enterprise' which we are also anxious to achieve. As you are aware, there are many critics in the world who will scrutinize these measurements in great detail. The abandonment of the original protocol and the decision to proceed with only three laboratories will certainly enhance the skepticism of these critics. While we understand your desire to use a minimum amount of material from the Shroud, we believe that the increased confidence which would result in the inclusion of more than three laboratories in the programme would justify the additional expenditure of material. Although improvements in statistical errors resulting from including more measurements might not be great, the possibility of the occurrence of unrecognized non-statistical errors would be substantially reduced. For example, if only three laboratories participate, and one of them obtains a divergent non-understandable result, the entire project could be jeopardized, but if results from a larger number of laboratories are available, a divergent result could be more easily recognized as such and can be treated appropriately in a statistically accepted manner. Clearly it is the reduction of unrecognized non-statistical errors in measurements that leads to increased confidence in the final result. We would very much like to take part in the programme to determine the age of the cloth in the Shroud, but we are hesitant to proceed under the arrangement in which only three laboratories would participate in the measurements. We urge that the decision to change the protocol of the Turin workshop and to limit participation to only three laboratories be given further consideration. Respectfully..."[33]
But as Gonella had pointed out in the Turin Workshop, this argument that seven laboratories were needed to date the Shroud was not scientific but "political"[34]. That is, despite Gove's Rochester laboratory being where radiocarbon dating was invented[35], Gove admitted in the Turin Workshop that Rochester had the least experience of radiocarbon dating[36]. Therefore, unless seven laboratories dated the Shroud, Gove would have no part in it. Moreover, as Gonella pointed out, if seven laboratories were required to date an archaeological sample, then most radiocarbon dates would be unreliable[37], since the vast majority of carbon dating is of only one sample by one laboratory. Archaeologist William Meacham said in the workshop that in his experience, he knew of only one example in which as many as five laboratories had been involved and that was testing ten thousand kilograms of charcoal from the site of a Chinese emperor[38]!

On 17 November Donahue told Gove that Canuto's Italian translation of the three laboratories' joint letter to Ballestrero had been completed and would the next day, 18 November 1987 (see above), be express mailed to Cardinal Ballestrero, with copies to Hall and Woelfli[39].

To be continued in the next part #8 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (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. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, pp.115-116; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.213-214; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.40-41; 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.183, 307; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.87, 281; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.166. [return]
3. Gove, 1996, pp.9, 174; de Wesselow, 2012, p.165. [return]
4. University of Arizona, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory: Staff: Douglas J. Donahue (no longer online). [return]
5. Gove, 1996, pp.9, 174. [return]
6. Gove, 1996, pp.222-223. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, p.217. [return]
8. Gove, 1996, p.84. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, p.216. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.220. [return]
11. Gove, 1996, p.215. [return]
12. Gove, 1996, p.217. [return]
13. "Historical Restrospect [sic]," Ion Beam Physics, ETH Zurich, 2017. [return]
14. Gove, 1996, p.220. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Gove, 1996, pp.217-218. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, p.218. [return]
18. Gove, 1996, pp.218-219. [return]
19. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.179. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.220. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
22. Ibid. [return]
23. Wilson, 1998, p.11. [return]
24. Gove, 1996, p.220. [return]
25. Ibid. [return]
26. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7 & pl.3b. [return]
27. Gove, 1996, pp.220-221. [return]
28. Gove, 1996, pp.220, 221. [return]
29. Gove, 1996, p.221. [return]
30. Ibid. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. Ibid. [return]
33. Gove, 1996, pp.221-223. [return]
34. Gove, 1996, p.151. [return]
35. Gove, 1996, p.7. [return]
36. Gove, 1996, p.156. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, p.158. [return]
38. Gove, 1996, p.153. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.223. [return]

Posted: 11 December 2017. Updated: 23 December 2017.