Wednesday, December 30, 2015

The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #5

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

A happy New Year to all my readers! Will 2016 be the year when the anti-authenticists world will finally realise that it had been duped by a computer hacker (allegedly the late Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick), these last ~27 years, into thinking, falsely, that the authentic, first century Shroud, had a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390?

Since I wrote that yesterday (1 January 2016) it is suddenly looking more likely! I have discovered that Timothy W. Linick was the son of a Dr Leroy M. Linick (18Oct63, 10Jun64, 29May65, 16Aug75) and was a much younger half-brother to an Anthony Linick (1938-). Leroy Linick (1907-67) and his wife Etta (nee Gordon) (1905-70) divorced and she married "the composer and conductor Ingolf Dahl" (1912–70). Anthony grew up with his stepfather Dahl (who was a homosexual). Leroy Linick married a Delphine Weiler (1911-93), and she gave birth to Timothy Weiler Linick in 1946. Anthony wrote a biography of his stepfather titled, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl" (2008) [Left: Amazon.com]. I don't have that book but have now ordered it [since arrived]. However, I was able to read online Google books snippets about Timothy in it, that he became so deeply introverted that Anthony had difficulty connecting with him (p.249). There was one page (p.619) in the index about Timothy near the end of the book which was not hyperlinked, but I was able to tab through the online book until I found it. And it confirmed that Timothy Linick "took his own life at age 42 in 1989" (see below).

I will go into this in more detail when I get to Timothy W. Linick's suicide in the next part #6 of this series. I note that Linick's family were Jewish (which might furnish an anti-Christian motive to Timothy Linick's alleged hacking of the Shroud). Also, I don't rule out that Linick might have killed himself out of remorse on 4 June 1989, when he learned that German police had announced a day earlier on 3 June 1989, that the charred body made to look like suicide was that of German hacker Karl Koch, who Linick may have known. See my previous posts in this series for references. I had sent a message to Anthony Linick on 2nd January, setting out the evidence that his half-brother Timothy was the leaker of Arizona's "1350" date and asking if he knew anything about that. I did not mention hacking or Timothy Linick's suicide. Anthony replied on 3rd January, mentioning that "a few hours after receiving" my message he "also heard from Mr. Hugh Farey [the anti-authenticist Editor of the BSTS Newsletter] on the same topic." Anthony Linick's reply continued:

"Of course I have encountered materials on the controversies surrounding the Turin Shroud, including theories of conspiracy – including those on the death of my half-brother, Timothy Linick, in 1989. I have to say that I have nothing to add to these matters. I spent only one year under the same roof as Tim – and that was when he was six years old. ... I never visited any member of this family after their move to Arizona nor did I have any direct contact with my half-brother while he was there. I knew, of course, that he was a specialist in carbon dating but I don’t remember when I learned that he was part of the team charged with dating the shroud. When my step-mother, Del (Delphine) [Timothy Linick's mother] called to share the news of his passing she said only that he took his own life and that he had been suffering from depression. I called her every few months but from this point until her death in 1993 she never alluded to any mysteries or controversies involving Tim’s death or work."
I found this helpful in that, even though (again), I did not mention hacking or suicide (although Farey may have), Anthony Linick was aware of "theories of conspiracy – including those on the death of my half-brother, Timothy Linick, in 1989" and that his half-brother was "suffering from depression." This adds weight to the alternative that Linick "killed himself out of remorse" (see above).

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

[Right (enlarge): Rev. H. David Sox's book, "The Shroud Unmasked," states in its Introduction that it was written by "August 1988"[5], and the London Sunday Times had a copy of it by 18 September 1988[6], more than three weeks before the official announcement on 13 October 1988[7] that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!"[8]. In the book Sox surprisingly (to put it mildly) quotes "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist" (see below), and while Sox cites no date of the Shroud in the book, it is clear (as we shall see) that he knew the result of Arizona's first carbon dating of the Shroud was "1350"[9] up to two months before the official announcement[10].]

■ Evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the leaker of Arizona laboratory's first "1350 AD" date [#10(6) & #6] As part of my evidence that Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[11] was allegedly the primary hacker who allegedly wrote and installed on Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS computer a program which, when also passed on to KGB for which he was allegedly working, to be installed on Zurich and Oxford's identical AMS computers, by confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–89)[12], ensured that the Shroud samples' actual radiocarbon dates would be replaced by dates which, when calibrated, combined and averaged clustered around 1325; here is my evidence that Linick allegedly leaked Arizona's "1350" first radiocarbon date of the Shroud to the Rev. H. David Sox, an American Episcopalian priest, teaching at the American School in London[13]; and that Sox in turn leaked that date to the

[Left (enlarge): David Sox (centre), meeting with Harry Gove (right) and a BBC representative (left) in 1986[14].]

media through others (see next), well before the official announcement on 13 October 1988.

• Linick was an extreme Shroud anti-authenticist. In his 1988 book, "The Shroud Unmasked," the Rev. H. David Sox, a former Shroud pro-authenticist General Secretary of the British Society of the Turin Shroud[15], but later turned anti-authenticist[16], quoted "Timothy Linick" as saying before Arizona's 6 May 1988 dating of the Shroud, "If we date it back 2000 years ... It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?":

"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?'"[17].

This is not only anti-authenticist of Linick, it is extreme anti- authenticist, which would not accept that the Shroud was authentic, even if its radiocarbon age was "2000 years"! That contrasts with non-extreme anti-authenticists like the late Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001) of Oxford laboratory and the late Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009) of Rochester laboratory who quoted Hall approvingly, both of whom would have accepted that the Shroud was authentic if its carbon-date was first century (see future below).

Indeed Linick's quoted words are similar to what the extreme Shroud anti-authenticist, the late Dr Walter McCrone (1916-2002) wrote in 1981, "A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ...":

"Our work now supports the two Bishops [Henri de Poitiers and Pierre d'Arcis] and it seems reasonable that the image, now visible, was painted on the cloth shortly before the first exhibition, or about 1355. Only a carbon-dating test can now resolve the question of authenticity of the 'Shroud' of Turin. A date significantly later than the first century would be conclusive evidence the `Shroud' is not genuine. A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ, would, no doubt, be so accepted by nearly everyone."[18]
This is evidence that Linick was aware of, and agreed with, McCrone's 1980 claim that the Shroud "image ... was painted on the cloth ...about 1355". But Linick (unlike McCrone who was "unschooled in carbon dating"[19]) would have realised that because McCrone's "about 1355" date was when the Shroud's image was supposedly painted on the linen, the radiocarbon date for him to aim for was that of the harvesting of the flax[20], which more plausibly would have been a few decades before 1355.

• Sox was allegedly the secondary leaker of Arizona's "1350 AD" date. In the first of many leaks of the Shroud's carbon dating results[21], on 3 July 1988, columnist Kenneth Rose (1924-2014) in the London Sunday Telegraph reported on the then ongoing radiocarbon

[Right: The late Kenneth Rose[22], was the first to leak on 3 July 1988 that the carbon dating of the Shroud would be "medieval". Rose kept detailed private diaries from the 1940s until his death this year, totalling "six million words," which are being edited for publication by historian D. Richard Thorpe[23]. It will be interesting to see if Rose's published diaries mention who leaked the information to him that the Shroud would carbon date "medieval"!]

dating of the Shroud that, "In spite of the intense secrecy surrounding the investigation I hear signs that the linen cloth has been proved to be mediaeval"[24]. The story was picked up by news media around the world[25]. Suspicion fell on Oxford laboratory having leaked the results, but Oxford's Prof. Hall and Dr. Hedges[26] in letter to The Times of 9 July denied that, pointing out that Oxford had not yet begun its dating of the Shroud[27].

On 21 July 1988 the BBC's Neil Cameron phoned Gove and told him that after filming the Timewatch "Shreds of Evidence" documentary on the Shroud in Zurich, between 8th[28] and 13th May 1988[29], accompanied by Sox[30] as the program's sole consultant[31], that Cameron had "gleaned ...that the shroud dated to the 13th century"[32]. Zurich carried out its dating on 26 May[33], twenty days after Arizona[34] and, according to Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper[35], Zurich's average age of the Shroud was 676 ± 24 years, which is 700-652 years before 1950[36], which in turn is 1250-1298, entirely in the thirteen century (see my uncalibrated and calibrated spreadsheet tables and and bar charts in part #5).

Then on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran a front-page story, "Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake"[37], with an accompanying article by Cambridge librarian Dr. Richard Luckett stating that "a

[Left: "Dr Richard Luckett [who] has been the Pepys Librarian at Magdalene College, Cambridge, since 1982"[38], i.e. Luckett's position in August 1988 when he leaked, allegedly on behalf of Sox, who allegedly received it from Linick, Arizona's "1350" date of the Shroud to the London Evening Standard.]

probable date of about 1350 looks likely" and remarking that "laboratories are rather leaky institutions"[39].

This generated another world-wide media frenzy, yet none of the laboratories nor the British Museum knew Luckett or how he had obtained his information[40]. It was generally assumed that the Oxford laboratory, which had completed its dating on 6 August, had leaked the "1350" date to Luckett[41]. But not only was Oxford's mean date "several decades less than 1350 AD"[42], in an Associated Press story of 9 September 1988, Luckett was quoted as saying: "I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories and it wasn't Oxford"[43].

Gove, knowing that Luckett's date of 1350 was Arizona's first date of the Shroud on 6 May 1988, became "worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement" (as Linick was)[44]. I have been told privately of a possible connection between Sox, Luckett and Rose, but I am not at liberty to reveal it.

On 23 September 1988, Ian Wilson in a special letter to all BSTS members, publicly named "the Revd. David Sox" as "the ... source of possibly all the leaks" and "his `inside' information ... can only have come from Arizona or Zurich"[45]. On the day of Wilson's special letter, Sox phoned Gove to deny he was the source of the leaks, but tellingly Gove did not record that he told Sox that he believed him, but on the contrary Gove later wrote that Arizona's Donahue and Damon and Turin's Gonella had come to the conclusion that "Sox was the source of the leaks"[46]. The next day, 24 September, in La Stampa, Sox was quoted as admitting he was partly to blame for the leaks: "May I be damned if I were to let the entire blame fall on myself"[47].

And since, according to Table 1 of the 1989 Nature paper, none of Zurich's dates were anywhere near 1350[48], Sox's source of the "1350" date of the Shroud, which he evidently leaked through Luckett, had to have been someone from Arizona laboratory, who was present at that first dating run, as "T W Linick" was:

"The next morning at about 8 am (6 May 1988) I arrived at the Arizona AMS facility. ... I would be the only one present outside the Arizona AMS group. Doug immediately asked me to sign the following statement: `We the undersigned, understand that radiocarbon age results for the Shroud of Turin obtained from the University of Arizona AMS facility are confidential. We agree not to communicate the results to anyone - spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public.' It had been signed by D J Donahue, Brad Gore, L J Toolin, P E Damon, Timothy Jull and Art Hatheway, all connected with the Arizona AMS facility, before I signed. My signature was followed by T W Linick and P J Sercel, also from the Arizona facility"[49].

• Linick was allegedly the primary leaker of Arizona's "1350" date. How would Sox even know that Linick existed to quote him, unless Linick contacted Sox? Linick was not an Arizona laboratory

[Above: Quote of "Timothy Linick , a University of Arizona research scientist ...," on page 147 of Sox's book, "The Shroud Unmasked" (1988). This is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Linick was in direct contact with Sox in the period from just before Arizona's first dating of the Shroud as "1350" on 6 May 1988 and the last date in Sox's book "August 1988."].

leader who might be more widely known, but merely an ordinary `back room' scientist. And Sox could have been known to Linick from a 1981 Washington Post article, which mentioned demands for the Shroud to be radiocarbon dated and Sox as Secretary of the BSTS, but now sceptical of the Shroud's authenticity:

"The Shroud of Turin ... will soon come under severe scientific and historical criticism. The shroud, allegedly the burial cloth of Christ, bears the marks of a crucified human figure and of the face of a man which became fully visible only during this century, when it was treated as a photographic negative. Since the shroud was publicly displayed in Turin in 1978, there has been a widespread demand for scientific analysis of it, particularly by carbon dating, to seek to establish if it is 2,000 years old ... The big blow to its authenticity is the imminent publication by the microscopist, Dr. Walter McCrone of Chicago, of evidence that he has found traces of iron oxide on it, indicating that the image was painted on ... By this reasoning, the shroud was the creation of some unknown medieval artist. The Rev. David Sox, an American Episcopal priest working in London, is the secretary of the British Society for the Shroud of Turin. His book, `The Image of the Shroud,' to be published next month, is a good deal more sceptical than most on the subject. `So far as I am concerned, if the existence of paint is proved, that is the end of the shroud as a miraculous object,' he said. ... Sox believes that future study of the shroud may have to concentrate on exactly how it and other medieval Christian relics were produced." [50]

Sox's book has at the end of its Introduction its last date before publication, "August 1988"[51], and the book had its official launch on 15 October 1988[52]. So the 16 February 1989 Nature paper to which Linick was a signatory[53] was still four months in the future. Before then, outside of radiocarbon dating circles, Linick would have been unknown.

Besides, Sox in the above page states that the context of Linick's statement was "before the test," and specifically, before the day of the test. But according to Sox's own book, there was no opportunity for Gove to talk with Linick, before the day of the test:

"Harry Gove and Shirley Brignall arrived in Tucson, Arizona at 4.00pm on 5 May, three days before Neil Cameron and I were in Zurich. ... Gove called Douglas Donahue at the Arizona lab, and he told them to be at the Physics Department at 8.00 the next morning. They were starting the preparation for their first run on the samples at 7.00am. Paul Damon called an hour later and suggested he came over to the motel and have a beer and a chat with Gove and Brignall ... Gove arrived at the Physics Department around 9.00am"[54].

In Gove's book he adds that after the Damon left, he and Brignall had dinner and then Gove was interviewed by Donahue's journalist son-in-law at 9:30 pm, and at 8 am the next morning Gove was at the Arizona laboratory[55]. So again there was no opportunity for Linick to have said the above words to Gove before the day of the test, and there is nothing in Gove's account about him chatting with Linick or the other AMS staff while they were busy preparing the samples and carrying out final checks of the AMS system. And even if Gove had talked with Linick immediately before the test, Sox later stated in writing that it was not Gove who had told him Arizona's "1350" date (see below).

So how would Sox know that Linick said the above words, unless Linick said them directly to Sox, either over the phone, by email, or letter? In Gove's list above of all those who were present at Arizona's dating on 6 May, Sox wasn't there. According to Sox's book he was in Zurich on 8 May, two days after Arizona's first dating, consulting for the BBC's Timewatch documentary on the Shroud[56]. Then Gove in his book records that he had dinner with Sox in London on 12 May[57].

On the last page of Sox's book, in an end note, Sox wrote:

"Section XXIX Most of the observations in this section come from Harry Gove."[58]
That section begins with the arrival of Gove and his partner Shirley Brignall in Tucson on 5 May, the day before Arizona's first dating of the Shroud, and it ends on page 147 above with the AMS computer's calculations of the Shroud's age being displayed on the computer's control console screen, and that Gove won his bet that the Shroud's age would be 1000 years against Brignall's 2000 years. So Gove had to admit in his 1996 book that he told Brignall the "1350" date, in breach of his signed undertaking above "not to communicate the results to anyone":
"I had a bet with Shirley on the shroud's age-she bet 2000 ±100 years old and I bet 1000 ±100 years. Whoever won bought the other a pair of cowboy boots. Although my guess was wrong, it was closer than Shirley's. She bought me the cowboy boots. The reader, by now, will have guessed that despite the agreement I had signed, I told Shirley the result that had been obtained that day."[59]
and Gove must have told Sox that Arizona's first dating was closer to 1000 years than 2000. But Gove insisted that he never divulged to Sox that Arizona's first date was "1350"[60], and Gove was puzzled when Luckett quoted the date of the Shroud as "1350"[61]. And indeed Sox, in a letter of 12 October 1988, to Fr Peter Rinaldi (1910-93), a copy of a which was forwarded to Gove, stated:
"Woelfli [Zurich laboratory's Director] did not tell me [the "1350" date of the Shroud], Gove didn't and I will never say how I came to have an inkling about the results"[62].
Moreover, Gove would be most unlikely to quote Linick's words to Sox, given again that Linick was just another Arizona scientist. Gove would have said it directly to Sox with more weight than Linick. And, going by Gove's approving quote of Oxford's Prof. Hall, that, "if the carbon date turned out to be around the start of the first century AD, he [Hall] would then find it difficult to dismiss the shroud's authenticity."[63], Gove didn't agree with Linick's and McCrone's extreme anti-authenticism.

Neither Sox nor Gove said anything in their books about Sox flying to Arizona before its dating on 6 May 1988, or after Zurich's dating on 26 May and before his book was completed in August 1988. And why would Sox go over there? He would have had his hands full writing his book in record time. Also, Sox was employed as a teacher at the American School in London (see above). So either someone in Arizona lab quoted Linick's words to Sox (and again why would another scientist do that when he could say it himself?), and then Sox quoted Linick's words as hearsay in his book (a dangerous thing for an author to do especially in such a controversial topic). The publisher of Sox's book, to avoid possible legal action by Linick, would have checked with Sox to make sure that Linick said those words directly to Sox. And Sox's quote of Linick is in quotation marks, which means that Linick did say those words directly to Sox. Otherwise Sox would have had to preface Linick's words with something like, "X, in the Arizona laboratory before the dating of the Shroud, heard Timothy Linick, an Arizona laboratory scientist, say ..." So the simplest, and the only reasonable, explanation is that Linick communicated his quoted words directly to Sox over the phone, or by a written account. And since Sox was the secondary source of the leak of Arizona's "1350" leak (see above), the inference is irresistible that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's "1350" date to Sox.

Moreover, Gove must have, after Sox's 1988 book was published on 15 October 1988 (two days after the official announcement[64]!), read that Sox had quoted Linick, and therefore Linick must have been the leaker of Arizona's "1350" date to Sox. Gove's confession above that he had revealed that date to his partner Shirley Brignall, and therefore had breached his signed confidentiality agreement, would have been unnecessary otherwise. And so presumably would Linick's Arizona colleagues have read that Sox quoted Linick, not to mention the staff at the other two laboratories. Sox's book was the first out on the 1988 radiocarbon dating and it beggars belief that no one at the Arizona laboratory (let alone at the other two laboratories) read it. Which means that Gove suppressed that information in his 1996 book, presumably because of Linick's suicide. And Linick would surely have had to `please explain' to the Arizona laboratory leadership why he: 1) breached the signed confidentiality agreement in communicating with Sox; and 2) leaked Arizona's "1350" date to Sox. The pressure that would have put Linick under and the guilt of having further secretly betrayed his colleagues in (allegedly) hacking their radiocarbon dating, may in part explain why Linick "had been suffering from depression" (see above), and why he took his own life (if he was not executed by the KGB).

That Linick was the primary leaker of Arizona's first run "1350" date to Sox and through him the media, does not in itself prove that Linick was the alleged primary hacker, who wrote and installed a program on Arizona's AMS computer (and indirectly on the counterpart computers at Zurich and Oxford), which replaced the Shroud's first (or early because of irremovable contamination by younger carbon[65]) century radiocarbon dates with computer-generated dates which, when calibrated, and averaged, yielded the `bull's eye' date of 1325 ±65, but it is consistent with, and evidence for, that he was. And as we shall see next, there is further evidence that Linick was allegedly the primary hacker of the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, which produced its bogus, computer-generated "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" date.

Continued in part #6 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
3. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
4. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 5 May 2015. [return]
5. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.6. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1988a, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.19. [return]
7. Ibid. [return]
8. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.6-7. [return]
9. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
10. Wilson, 1988a, p.19. [return]
11. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
12. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
13. Gove, 1996, p.176G. [return]
14. Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Ibid. [return]
17. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
18. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.138, 331. [return]
19. Gove, 1996, p.49. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
22. "Kenneth Rose - obituary," The Telegraph, 29 January 2014. [return]
23. Shawcross, W., 2014, "Kenneth Rose: we'll miss his wit, warmth and wry sense of humour," The Telegraph, 1 February. [return]
24. Wilson, I., 1988b, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [return]
25. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
26. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
27. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.91. [return]
28. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
29. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
30. Sox, 1988, p.160. [return]
31. Wilson, I., 1988c, "Two Recent B.B.C. Television Programmes," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.23. [return]
32. Gove, 1996, p.274. [return]
33. Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.131. [return]
34. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.87. [return]
35. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.613. [return]
36. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
37. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
38. "Birthdays: Dr Richard Luckett," The Times, July 1 2010. [return]
39. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
40. Ibid. [return]
41. Gove, 1996, p.277. [return]
42. Gove, 1996, pp.277-278. [return]
43. Gove, 1996, p.278. [return]
44. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
45. Wilson, I., 1988b. [return]
46. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
47. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
48. Damon, 1989, p.613, 611. According to Table 1, the mean uncalibrated dates of Zurich's five Shroud samples runs were: 733, 722, 635, 639 and 679 years before 1950, which equates to 1217, 1228, 1315, 1311 and 1271. [return]
49. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
50. "Shroud of Turin to Undergo Close Scientific Criticism," The Washington Post/London Observer, January 2, 1981. [return]
51. Sox, 1988, p.6. [return]
52. Wilson, 1998, p.311. [return]
53. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
54. Sox, 1988, pp.143,145. [return]
55. Gove, 1996, pp.261-262. [return]
56. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
57. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
58. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
59. Gove, 1996, p.265. [return]
60. Gove, 1996, pp.267, 276, 281, 283. [return]
61. Gove, 1996, pp.277-281. [return]
62. Gove, 1996, p.283. [return]
63. Gove, 1996, pp.184-185. [return]
64. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.109. [return]
65. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.87. [return]


Posted: 30 December 2015. Updated: 27 September 2016.

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Naked #9: 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
NAKED #9
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the "The man on the Shroud: Naked," part #9 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: The man on the Shroud #8] [Next: Double image #10]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Naked #9

Introduction. On the Shroud are the front and back images of a man's naked body[2]. His hands had been crossed modestly over his genitals[3]. The man

[Right (enlarge): Dorsal (back) image of the man on the Shroud[4], showing that he is completely naked[5]. No medieval or earlier Christian artist (as far as I am aware) ever depicted Jesus' full-length naked back. So no medieval or earlier forger would have depicted Jesus' full- length naked back, because a forger wants his work to be accepted as genuine[6].]

is completely naked[7] as shown by the back (dorsal) image[8]. While his hands block the full frontal nudity, his buttocks are in full view[9]. Jesus was crucified naked, His clothes having been taken off Him and divided between His Roman soldier executioners (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:23-24)[10].

Historical. The Hungarian Pray Codex (or Manuscript), which is dated 1192-95[11], depicts Jesus completely naked[12], when in

[Left (enlarge): "Entombment" (upper) and "Visit to the Sepulchre" (lower), ink drawings in the Hungarian Pray Codex (1192-1195)[13]. As can be seen, Jesus is depicted nude with His hands crossed right over left, crossing awkwardly at the wrists, covering His groin, identical to the Shroud[14].]

medieval art Christ's modesty was almost always preserved by a loincloth or a burial cloth[15]. This is only one of the at least "eight telling correspondences between the Shroud and ... the Pray Codex."[16], 65 years before the earliest possible radiocarbon date of 1260[17].

After the sack of Constantinople in 1204, Nicholas Mesarites, keeper of the Emperor's relics in the Pharos Chapel, Constantinople, recalled that in 1201, in that chapel, was "the sindon [which] wrapped the mysterious, naked dead body [of Christ] after the Passion" (my emphasis)[18]. The Greek word variously translated "mysterious"[19], "indefinable"[20] and "uncircumscribed"[21], is aperilepton[22], which literally means "un-outlined"[23] or "outlineless"[24]. The Shroud-image uniquely has no outline[25], so there could be no stronger proof that the Constantinople shroud is that of Lirey, Chambéry and Turin![26]

Problem for the forgery theory. This is another (see #1, #3, #4, #5, #6 & #7) problem for the medieval forgery theory. In this late antiquity period, Jesus was almost never depicted naked[27] but wearing at least a loincloth[28]. The sole known exception (that proves the rule) is in the "Holkham Bible Picture Book," an Anglo-French, mid-fourteenth century, manuscript[29], which has a depiction of an entirely naked Christ[30]. But in

[Right (enlarge): Crucifixion scene in the Holkham Bible[31].]

those scenes where Jesus is depicted naked, e.g. the crucifixion scene [right], Jesus is shown side-on so that His genitals cannot be seen. Or rather, Jesus doesn't have genitals, since they would be seen in that side-on pose! The same is true of other scenes in the Holkham Bible where Jesus is portrayed naked: He is also either side-on and/or doesn't have genitals. So those scenes depicting Christ naked in the Holkham Bible are not realistic but cartoon-like (Wilson likens the Holkham Bible to "modern-day children's horror comics"[32]), unlike the Shroud's photographic realism. The Holkham Bible's words are Norman French, but its illustrations are of 14th-century England[33]. The British Library's description of the book: "Holkham Bible, London?, England, second quarter of the 14th century"[34], indicates that it doesn't know exactly where or when the book originated. According to Ian Wilson the Holkham Bible was "created in northern France ... during the lifetime of Geoffrey de Charny [c. 1300-56], the first known owner of the Shroud"[35] and "there is an argument for the Shroud itself possibly having influenced" the Holkham Bible[36]. According to the British Library, the Holkham Bible was made for a "Dominican friar ... as a teaching aid for the rich and powerful ..."[37], so it may have only existed as one manuscript and never been widely known. And it's cartoon-like, ~265 x 200 mm[38] (10.4 x 7.9 inch), pictures cannot be a forgery of the burial shroud of Christ. No medieval forger (i.e. who intended his work to be accepted as genuine), would have depicted Jesus fully naked[39], when almost all artists who copied the Shroud added a loincloth[40]. The Holkham Bible notwithstanding, a realistic naked image of Jesus, as on the Shroud, would be a violation of the ethics of the medieval era[41]. A realistic depiction of a nude Christ would have been considered offensive in the Middle Ages, lessening, if not destroying, its economic and ceremonial value[42]. Indeed, as Wilcox points out:

".... the portrayal of Jesus on the shroud is non-traditional, non-European ... the nakedness of the loins would not inspire the devotional or artistic sensibilities of fourteenth-century Europe; rather they would have gotten the forger burned at the stake."[43]

Continued in part #10 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. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.11. [return]
3. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.vii, 1; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.1. [return]
4. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Horizontal" (rotated right 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.115. [return]
6. Barbet, P., 1987, "Proof of the Authenticity of the Shroud in the Bloodstains: Part II," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 23, June, pp.3-15, 14. [return]
7. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.105. [return]
8. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.17. [return]
9. Messenger, J., 2002, "More on the `Mysterious' Shroud: In Response," Voice News, June 14 (no longer online). [return]
10. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.52, 314; Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.43. [return]
11. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, p.19; Wilson, 1986, pp.114-115; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.150-151; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.162-163; Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, 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, p.64; 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.146; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.116; ; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.178, 180. [return]
12. Wilson, 1986, p.115; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.154; Wilson, 1998, p.271; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.105. [return]
13. Berkovits, 1969 , pl. III. [return]
14. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.160; Wilson, 1986, pp.114-115; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178-179. [return]
15. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178-179. [return]
16. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180; Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
17. Maloney, P.C., "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, 2002, p.33. [return]
18. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," 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.196; Wilson, 1998, p.272; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.122; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.25-26, 29. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, pp.168, 257; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.93; Guerrera, 2001, p.6; Wilson, 2010, p.185. [return]
20. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.89; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.79. [return]
21. Scavone, D., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, p.321; Wilson, 1998, p.272. [return]
22. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.176, 180; Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.321; Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145. [return]
23. de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
24. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, pp.145, 201. [return]
25. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.14; Iannone, 1998, pp.71, 156, 178; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
26. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p. 31. [return]
27. Drews, 1984, p.29; Scavone, 1989, p.15. [return]
Iannone, 1998, p.70. [return]
28. Hynek, 1951, pp.8, 30; Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
29. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.54. [return]
30. Wilson, 1986, p.71; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.54-55. [return]
31. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.54. [return]
32. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.55. [return]
33. "Holkham Bible," British Library, 21 December 2010. [return]
34. Ibid. [return]
35. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.54-55. [return]
36. Wilson, 1998, p.32. [return]
37. "Holkham Bible," British Library, 2010. [return]
38. "Digitised Manuscripts: Add MS 47682," British Library, n.d. [return]
39. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.41. [return]
40. Barbet, 1987, p.14. [return]
41. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.89. [return]
42. Meacham, 1983, p.293. return]
43. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, pp.170-171, 188. [return]

Posted: 27 December 2015. Updated: 29 October 2016.

Saturday, December 26, 2015

The man on the Shroud #8: 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 #8
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is "The man on the Shroud," part #8, of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" This page is a sub-index to topics under the heading, "The man on the Shroud." Each topic will be a page containing items of evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud, under that topic heading. Each of those 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): The man on the Shroud[2].]

The order of topics in this "The man on the Shroud," section is from the perspective of what I imagine a person looking at the Shroud would notice first, such as: the man is naked, it is a double image, etc., grading into features of the man's image that are less obvious, such as no paint, pigment or dye accounts for the image, etc.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Yarn #7] [Next: Naked #9]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Naked #9
    2. Double image #10
    3. Faint #11
    4. Colour #12
    5. Non-traditional #13
    6. No outline #14
    7. No paint, etc. #15
    8. No style #16
    9. Non-directional #17
    10. Superficial #18
    11. Negative #19
    12. Three-dimensional #20
    13. No decomposition #21
    14. X-rays #22
    15. Real human blood #23
    16. Blood before image and clots intact #24


Continued in part #9 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 post. [return]
2. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]

Posted: 26 December 2015. Updated: 19 June 2017.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Shroud of Turin News - November 2015

Shroud of Turin News - November 2015
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: October 2015] [Next: December 2015]

To all my readers, I wish you and yours a happy and safe Christmas. This is the November 2015 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. See the April 2015 issue for more information about this series. Following my editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related November news articles to this post, latest uppermost, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine.

Contents (click on a link below to go to that article):
Editorial
Retirement
"Winners Announced for 2015 Paris Photo-Aperture Foundation PhotoBook Awards".


"Winners Announced for 2015 Paris Photo-Aperture Foundation PhotoBook Awards," TIME, Rachel Lowry, November 13, 2015 ... The 2015 Paris Photo-Aperture Foundation PhotoBook Awards winners were announced in Paris, with Daniel Mayrit receiving the $10,000 top prize for First PhotoBook. Other winners included Diane Dufour and Xavier Barral, Thomas Mailaender and Will Steacy. ... Diane Dufour and Xavier Barral's Images of Conviction: The Construction of Visual Evidence looks at how the photography has served as evidence of a crime for more than 150 years. The book examines 11 cases, from the famous Shroud of Turin images to ... cell phone shots of drone strikes in Afghanistan. The book was selected for this year's Photography Catalogue of the Year ... The following are a few examples of the ten case studies that appear in the exhibition. The Shroud of Turin Secondo Pia, an

[Above [enlarge): "Two enlarged views of Secondo Pia, The Holy Shroud, 1898"[2].]

amateur photographer, was the author of the first photographs of the Shroud of Turin as it was displayed in 1898. Apart from Pia's photographic positives being negatives, which showed that the Shroud image is a photograph negative (see future installment), Pia's photograph on the right above (enlarged) shows the hand bones of the man on the Shroud are x-ray images, because they reveal his beneath-the-skin finger, metacarpal and wrist bones! (see 14May07, 06Oct13, 01Dec07). That this was not a quirk of Pia's 1898 amateur photography is evident in that these x-ray images of the Shroud man's under-the-skin hand bones are also in a 1931 Shroud photograph by Giuseppe Enrie and in 2002 by Gian Carlo Durante (below). In 1982

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a 1931 Shroud negative photograph (flipped horizontally to correct for lateral inversion), by professional photographer Giuseppe Enrie (1886-1961), showing x-ray images of the Shroud man's under-the-skin hand bones[3].]

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a 2002 Shroud photograph by another professional photographer, Gian Carlo Durante, also showing xray images of the Shroud man's under-the-skin hand bones[4].]

Giles F. Carter (1930-2010), a Professor of Chemistry at Eastern Michigan University, proposed that the Shroud man's image was the result of "x-rays [which] emanated from the elements sodium, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, potassium, and calcium on the surface of the skin":

"Intensive study of the Shroud of Turin by previous investigators has shown that the image very probably was not formed by painting, dyeing, rubbing, or staining. Indeed no hypothesis satisfactorily explains all attributes of the image, such as its inherent three-dimensional information or its shallow depth. The new hypothesis suggests that x-rays emanated from the elements sodium, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, potassium, and calcium on the surface of the skin. These long-wavelength x-rays, which are easily absorbed by air, apparently account for most attributes of the body-image. Calculations show the x-ray image would be moderately, but not severely, out of focus. Iron, which is present over the entire Shroud in varying concentrations, catalyzes the image formation by x-rays or by scorching"[5]
In support of his hypothesis, Dr Carter noted that the Shroud image's "fingers are extremely long for a man of [his] ... height" and so "the finger images may be due ... to x-rays emanating from the bones [which] ... continue throughout much of the hand, and they could cause the fingers to look too long":
"Many observers have noted the `too-long' fingers in the Shroud image. The fingers are extremely long for a man of 1.73-1.78 m (5'8" - 5'10") height ... The probability is very small that a man of this height would have such long fingers ... A disease called Marfan's syndrome could also cause a person to have unusually long fingers but other parts of the body would be similarly affected; however, the Shroud body is muscular and not slender as is found in those afflicted with Marfan's syndrome, and this explanation seems improbable. ... The author's suggestion is that the finger images may be due at least in part to x-rays emanating from the bones in the body. Finger bones continue throughout much of the hand, and they could cause the fingers to look too long. In normal bodies, the ratio of the distance from the middle fingertip to the base of the finger divided by the distance from the middle fingertip to the wrist (wound area) is about 0.5. This compares with a ratio of about 0.6 for the image on the Shroud, meaning that the fingers are unusually long and the rest of the hand is grotesquely small. The probability for this to have occurred must be small."[6]

[Above (enlarge): Extract from Enrie 1931 negative photograph of the Shroud man's face showing under-the-skin teeth and bones including cheekbones, eye sockets and skull[7].]

Moreover, other beneath-the-skin features which are visible, include "teeth," "cheekbones," skull (see above), and even part of the "the backbone":

"A second curious part of the Shroud image is the mouth area. Close inspection, particularly of slides from a distance, shows the presence of what appear to be eight or more objects, two rows of four or six ... Perhaps these could be teeth images ... Because the lips probably covered the teeth of the body of the Shroud, any images of teeth may indicate that x-rays have been involved in the formation of the Shroud image ... A third observation indicating possible image formation by x-rays is the high, pronounced cheekbones. The face is somewhat skull-like .... Part of the backbone may be visible on the dorsal image ..."[8]
As can be seen in the enlargements below of the mouth area of the 1931 Enrie negative sepia print of the Shroud face, (flipped horizontally to correct for lateral inversion), and the Durante 2002 Face Only positive, there are at least three teeth-shaped images, visible where the man's

[Above (enlarge): Extracts of the mouth area of the Enrie 1931 sepia print of the Shroud face [9] (upper), flipped horizontally to correct for lateral inversion, and the Durante 2002 Face only Vertical photo on Shroud Scope[10] (lower). I used the Enrie sepia print of the Shroud face, which I had already scanned from Vignon's 1939 book (see [9]), because it is larger than the maximum enlargement of the Enrie Negative photograph in Shroud Scope.]

front upper teeth would have been, under the flesh of his mouth area. And when I printed the above enlarged composite photo on my colour printer, obtaining further enlargement without distortion, and traced over the objects on the print out of the lower Durante positive extract with a pencil, I found at least four pairs of upper and lower teeth-like objects, meeting at a line cross the mouth. These cannot be part of the weave as they cross over and through the weave. The improbability of there being teeth-like objects, exactly where the man's teeth would have been, in such a tiny area of the ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre Shroud, would be astronomical, unless it can be shown that there are similar shaped objects randomly distributed across the entire Shroud. I therefore conclude they are teeth, under the flesh of the man's mouth, and therefore, like the man's finger and other hand bones (see above), also x-ray images!

Prof. Carter's x-ray images hypothesis has since been confirmed by others[11], including Dr Alan Whanger[12], Dr John Jackson[13], and Dr. August Accetta[14]. Although a Professor of Psychiatry, Whanger was formerly a surgeon with extensive experience in interpreting x-rays[15]. In applying his Polarized Image Overlay technique to the Shroud man's hands, Whanger realised that he was seeing the bones in his fingers (phalanges) and his palms (metacarpals)[16].

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a comparison between an x-ray of hands, hands and the Shroud man's hands under Whanger's Polarized Image Overlay[17].]

Whanger took a photograph of his Polarized Image Overlay to a Professor of Skeletal Radiology who confirmed that the bones of the hand were visible[18]. Therefore Whanger concluded that the Shroud man's image is in part an autoradiograph, meaning there is some type of x-radiation coming from within the man's body and revealing part of his skeletal system on the Shroud[19]. Whanger then with his Polarized Image Overlay technique identified on the Shroud man's head features of his underlying skull[20], including:

"... the teeth with their roots, the nasal cavities, and the orbit of the eye ... The bony structure of the orbits of the eyes ... accounts for the large, staring eyes found on so many of the early icons. The nasal bone may be seen, as well as the nasal cavities and maxillary sinuses. Perhaps most surprising of all is that twenty-four teeth with their roots may be seen!"[21]

[Above (enlarge): Split image of Whanger's Polarized Image Overlay of the Shroud head (L), showing visible, under-the-skin, features and a three-dimensional x-ray of a a human skull (R)[22].]

Whanger's findings have been reviewed by a number of physicians, including three professors of radiology, who all agreed that the Shroud image is, in part, an autoradiograph, i.e. an x-ray![23].

As he developed his photographs, he discovered on the picture negative an imprint of a face and body, which he thought were those of Christ. Who else could it have been? Pia's photographs were not just of the Shroud "face" but also its "body." And even arch-sceptics Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) and Steven D. Schafersman (quoted approvingly by Joe Nickell) have admitted that because of the distinctive pattern of wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud man's face and body, he can only be Jesus or a deliberate artistic representation of Him:

"As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head, can still be clearly distinguished ... If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other person since the world began could these details be verified" (my emphasis)[24]

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[25] and Stevenson and Habermas[26] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[27]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'" (my emphasis)[28]
Strangely enough, face and body were positive imprints, as if the shroud itself, which has been dubbed "the first photograph of crime," was the negative. It is not "as if" the Shroud image (not "the Shroud") "was the negative." The Shroud image is a photographic negative! Which "raised the question of how any forger back in the Middle Ages could produce an image like that, without any means of checking his work, and without anyone ... able to appreciate it for another five hundred years":
"Pia had little if any expectation that its negative would prove any more meaningful - but he received the shock of his life. Under the developer there began to appear an image so extraordinarily lifelike that it was as if the Shroud itself was a negative, so that photography produced a `positive' photograph from it. To all appearances the Shroud man's face and body were `lit' with natural light and shade, with the blood-flows as from crucifixion and the wound in the chest showing up in white. This immediately raised the question of how any forger back in the Middle Ages could produce an image like that, without any means of checking his work, and without anyone properly able to appreciate it for another five hundred years."[29]
This was the start of a long-lasting debate on the authenticity of the relic. It was not merely the start of a "debate" on the authenticity of the Shroud. It was the start of modern scientific investigation of it:
"In 1898, when the Shroud was first photographed, the image was found to be a negative: its light and dark values were reversed when it was `printed' on a piece of photographic film. This `print' was far more detailed and lifelike than the original ... Millions of Christians became intensely interested in the Shroud when the photographs of the negative image were published in books, magazines, and newspapers throughout the world. These photos revealed a crucified body in extraordinary detail. Believers and nonbelievers alike could count the scourge wounds, observe a bloody wound in the man's side, see his pierced wrists and feet, and note the signs of a beating in the face. The man of the Shroud, it seemed, suffered and died very much the way the gospels say Jesus of Nazareth suffered and died. Thus began the phenomenon of the Shroud. ... The Shroud of Turin was an unexceptional relic until people began to examine it with modern scientific instruments. The result has been a remarkable possibility: the more we learn about the Shroud, the more likely it seems that the cloth is what it purports to be-the burial garment of Jesus Christ."[30]
In 1902, the biologist Paul Vignon published a detailed study of the photographs. My comment on this became so large that I will post it separately as, "Paul Vignon (1865-1943)".

In 1986, the shroud was tested with carbon 14 and the test revealed that the fabric only dated back to sometime between 1260 and 1390. It was 1988. And again (see 23Jul15, 24Aug15, 11Sep15, 24Nov15), because the Shroud is authentic (according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence), then it must be the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval. ... AD 1260-1390" which was wrong. But then because the improbability would be "astronomical"[31], "one in a thousand trillion"[32], "totally impossible"[33], and indeed "a miracle"[34], for the authentic, first-century, Shroud to have a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, it cannot have been a radiocarbon dating error. Especially since the midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65 years[35], which is a mere 25-30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c. 1355[36]. Therefore because of this `bull's eye' "1325 ± 65 years" date, the agnostic but pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow considers that fraud in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was a real possibility[37]. But since conventional forms of fraud such as switching a 13th century control sample for the Shroud sample are highly implausible, this leaves the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud being the result of a computer hacking as the best (if not the only viable) explanation!

Today the shroud still remains an object of veneration for the faithful, Again (see 24Nov15) this is an example of Naturalism's ("nature is all there is - there is no supernatural") false dichotomy between "the faithful" versus "scientific proof."

fascinated by the image and unconvinced by the scientific proof. The boot is on the other foot. The "scientific proof" is overwhelming on the side of the authenticity of the Shroud. And Shroud anti-authenticists are also "fascinated by the image." But as I pointed out in a comment under this post:

  • If the Shroud is authentic (as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), then it is a miraculous work of Jesus[38]

  • In the Gospels Jesus called on those who witnessed His miraculous works to believe in Him on the evidence of those works (Jn 10:25,37-38; 14:10-11).

  • Jesus warned those residents of towns in Israel who had witnessed His miraculous works, but still did not believe in Him, they will face a more severe judgment than unbelieving residents of other towns who had not witnessed Jesus' miracles (Mt 11:20-22; Lk 10:13-15).

  • By analogy this applies to those non-Christians who know the evidence of the Shroud's authenticity but refuse to accept it. They will face a more severe judgment from Jesus (2Cor 5:10; Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5) than they otherwise would have had they not known that evidence of Jesus' miraculous work.

  • Those non-Christians who don't accept the Shroud is authentic, but are ignorant of that evidence, are in the same position as those residents of towns in Israel who did not believe in Jesus but did not witness Jesus' miraculous works. They will still be judged by Jesus, if they remain non-Christians, but less severely.

  • This is according to Jesus' stated principle: "But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required ..." (Lk 12:48)

So Shroud sceptic, you who know the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but refuse to accept it, Jesus (the Man on the Shroud) commands YOU to "repent" (Gk. metanoia = change your mind) and believe in Him, who is God in human flesh (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1,14; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20), and died a horrific death on the cross for YOUR sins (Php 2:8; Heb 12:2), so that YOU may be saved from God's righteous Judgment (Jn 3:16-18), and receive from Jesus eternal life (Jn 3:15-16,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; Acts 13:48; 1Tim 1:16; 1Jn 5:13). [top]


Retirement. I have today, 11th December 2015, retired as a relief (aka substitute, supply) high school teacher! I will now

[Left: [39] I will be happy that the phone no longer will ring at 6am from a school asking if I am available to teach today!]

be able to (except for more holidays that my wife will insist upon!) invest more time blogging about the Shroud. [top]


Editorial. Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of Rex Morgan's Shroud News for Barrie Schwortz to put online on his Shroud News archive, continued in November up to issue #33, February 1986 [Right (enlarge)]. But it is still up to issue #28 on that archive. Topic index: I continued adding my old posts to my Topic Index in November up to and including my post of 4 February 2012. In November I blogged 6 posts: "Were struck in the face #6: Bible and the Shroud: Jesus and the man on the Shroud: Shroud of Turin quotes," "Shroud of Turin News - October 2015," "Carried their cross #7: Bible and the Shroud: Jesus and the man on the Shroud: Shroud of Turin quotes," "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #4," "News articles #1: Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud," and "News articles #2: Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud" Most pageviews: Google Analytics listed as my blog's most viewed pages for November as: "Shroud of Turin News - October 2015," Nov 10, 2015 - 138," "News articles #1: Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud," Nov 24, 2015 - 94, "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 90, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #4," Nov 18, 2015 - 73, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #6", Jun 24, 2014 - 72. I am pleased to see my hacking posts being currently read. I am quietly confident that eventually it will be widely accepted by Shroud pro-authenticists. If it is ever accepted by the secular world, it will rank as one of the greatest scientific frauds, and be a case study in philosophy/sociology of science of how scientists (and indeed the media) can suspend their normally sceptical mindset when it is something they want to believe. As was candidly admitted by Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall, "I have to admit I am an agnostic and I don't want at my time of life to have to change my ideas":

"The Holy Shroud of Turin - revered by Catholics for centuries - is a piece of linen woven between AD1260 and 1390. Therefore the image it bears cannot be the imprint of the bloodstained body of the crucified Jesus Christ ... At a press conference in London, Dr Michael Tite, keeper of the British Museum research laboratories, who masterminded the three tests, and Professor Edward Hall and Dr Robert Hedges of Oxford, who conducted the British radiocarbon dating, all confirmed that there could be no serious doubt in the results. ... Their finding, they said, was consistent with the known historical evidence for the shroud, which was first recorded in about 1389 by the Bishop of Troyes. He described it as a cunning forgery and said his predecessor had met the forger. Professor Hall, who heads the Oxford research laboratory in archaeology and the history of art, said he was not disappointed in the result. 'I have to admit I am an agnostic and I don't want at my time of life to have to change my ideas.'"[40]
There was an anonymous comment about a week ago from someone who knew the late Art Hatheway, an Engineer at the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory and a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper. I asked the commenter, "Have you any information you can give me on this?" but he has not replied. Comments: I rejected three comments in November that I considered sub-standard, as per my longstanding stated policies (see lower right). The first rejected comment was a quote of one line from one of my posts, with just a bare assertion that it was "completely false." I am happy to approve comments that criticise my posts but they must state their reasons. The second rejected comment was from a person with a Spanish sounding name to whom English apparently was his/her second language (or not even that because it could have been a Google translation). Apart from it being hard to understand, it was just a string of bare assertions, e.g. "the C14 test is overwhelming, the fibers are of medieval age," etc. The third rejected comment was from an individual who wanted me to add a link to to his webpage which stated that the Shroud was a forgery. Apart from I generally regard bare links as substandard comments, I read his page and it repeated the usual Shroud sceptics' false statements about the Shroud, relying largely on the "deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:13) false and self-deluded claims of Joe Nickell. If Shroud sceptics were true sceptics they would be sceptical

[Left (original): Shroud skeptic Joe Nickell, whose "Ph.D. is in English for graduate work focusing on literary investigation and folklore" posing as a white-coated scientist![41]. Presumably that is yet another of the already "1,064 `personas'" of Nickell, which include "stage magician ... blackjack dealer ... and paranormal investigator"[42].]

of what Nickell writes about the Shroud. By relying on Nickell, they are `the blind, being led by the blind' (Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39)! I take seriously the Apostle John's warning in 2 John 1:10-11 to not "receive ... into your house or give ... any greeting" to those bearing false teaching, because whoever does so, "takes part in his wicked works." So by analogy, I don't receive into my blog, or give its support to, those who would use it to spread their false teaching about the Shroud. [top]


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 this post. [return]
2. Naggar, C., 2015, "Images of Conviction at Le Bal, Paris," Aperture, June 29. [return]
3. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," (flipped horizontally), Sindonology.org. [return]
4. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
5. Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., p.425. [return]
6. Carter, 1982, p.431. [return]
7. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
8. Carter, 1982, p.433. [return]
9. Vignon, P., 1939, "Le Saint Suaire de Turin: Devant La Science, L'archéologie, L'histoire, L'iconographie, La Logique," Masson et Cie. Éditeurs: Paris, Second edition, plate I. [return]
10. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
11. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.213-214. [return]
12. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, pp.114-115; 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, 184-185, 187-188. [return]
13. Jackson, J.P., 1990, "Is the Image on the Shroud Due to a Process Heretofore Unknown to Modern Science?," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 34, March, pp.3-29, p. 18; 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, pp.333-335. [return]
14. Accetta, A.D., Lyons, K. & Jackson, J., 1999, "Nuclear Medicine and its Relevance to the Shroud Of Turin," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.3-8. [return]
15. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.114; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.38. [return]
16. Whanger, 1998, p.187. [return]
17. "Image Gallery: Shroud University"; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.112-113. [return]
18. Whanger, 1998, p.187. [return]
19. Ibid. [return]
20. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.116-117; 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.29; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38. [return]
21. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.116-117. [return]
22. "Autoradiography - Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin," 2015; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.117. [return]
23. Wilson, I., 1994, "Special Feature - Four New Theories of How the Shroud Image May Have Been Formed," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 37, March/April; Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Knowing a Hawk from a Handsaw," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 47, May/July. [return]
24. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19, in Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.52. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, pp.51-53. [return]
26. 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, pp.121-129. [return]
27. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
28. Schafersman, S.D., "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp.37-56, p.42 in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
29. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.29. [return]
30. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.4. [return]
31. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7. [return]
32. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.303. [return]
33. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.114-115. [return]
34. Tipler, F.J., 2007, "The Physics of Christianity," Doubleday: New York NY, pp.178-179; 216-217. [return]
35. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1,141,178,246; Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
36. Wilson, 1998, p.111,278; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.222-223. [return]
37. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," p.170. [return]
38. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin By an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.174-177. [return]
39. "Dallas County R-I School District - Info for Substitute Teachers." [return]
40. Radford, T., 1988, "Shroud dating leaves 'forgery' debate raging," The Guardian, October 14. [return]
41. Extract from photograph "Triptych," 2005, by Andrew A. Skolnick, joenickell.com. [return]
42. "Joe Nickell," Wikipedia, 21 November 2015. [return]

Posted: 10 December 2015. Updated: 8 May 2016.