Saturday, November 11, 2017

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Thirteenth century

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

This is the seventh (and an update of the fourth) installment of part #13, "Thirteenth century," of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. See also 21Jun17. For more information about this series see part #1, "1st century and Index." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 12th century #11] [Next: 14th century #14]


13th century (1201-1300).

[Above (enlarge): Deposition fresco in Holy Sepulchre Chapel, Winchester Cathedral[2]. Note the double body length shroud about to be placed over Jesus, in a fresco painted in at least 1225, i.e. 35 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud! See future below "c. 1225".]

1201 Nicholas Mesarites (c. 1163–1216), keeper (skeuophylax[3]) of the relic collection in Constantinople's Pharos Chapel[4], in defending the chapel and its relics against a mob during a palace revolution[5] led by a usurper John Comnenus (c.1150-1201)[6], gave an impassioned speech warning the would-be looters of the sanctity of the relics within[7]. These included, "the sindon [shroud] with the burial linens":

"In this chapel Christ rises again, and the sindon with the burial linens is the clear proof"[8].
Nicholas continued:
"The burial shrouds [sindones] of Christ ... are of linen ... still smelling of myrrh and defying decay since they wrapped the outlineless [aperilepton], naked ... body after the Passion"[9]
Mesarites' mention of a sindon, the same Greek word in the Gospels for Jesus' burial shroud (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53)[10] among these burial linens, together with aperilepton meaning "un-outlined"[11], which is a unique descriptor of the image on the Shroud which has no outline[12 & #14]; and Jesus body being "naked"[14], can only be the Shroud already in Constantinople at the very beginning of the thirteenth century[15], nearly 60 years before its earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[16]!

1202 The Fourth Crusade[17], which had been called for by Pope Innocent III (r.1198-1216)[18], set out from northern France[19]. Its objective was to succeed where the Third Crusade had failed [see "1189"]: the recapture of Jerusalem from the Muslims who had captured it in 1187 [see "1187"][20]. On the earlier advice of King Richard I of England (r. 1189-99) one of the leaders of the Third Crusade[21], the route to Jerusalem should be through Muslim controlled Egypt[22]. That required a fleet of boats, to be provided by Venice, to transport the crusader armies across the Mediterranean Sea to Egypt[23]. However, the crusaders were unable to raise the full cost of the fleet, so they accepted the Venetian offer that in lieu of the shortfall, they stop on their way at Constantinople, and assist in dethroning the Byzantine Emperor, Alexios III Angelos (r.1195-1203), who had usurped the throne of the legitimate Emperor, his half-bother, Isaac II Angelos (r.1185-1195, 1203-1204), blinding and imprisoning him[24]. Isaac's son, Alexios IV Angelos (r.1203-1204) had promised the Venetians increased trade[25] and the crusaders a large payment and help on their crusade, if they overthrew the usurper Alexios III and overthrew the usurper Alexios III so that he could ascend to the throne of his father Isaac II[26].

1203 In June 1203 the main Fourth Crusade fleet arrived at Constantinople[27]. In July the crusaders attacked Constantinople and breached its walls[28] so Alexios III fled the city[29]. However, Constantinople's citizens released the blind Isaac II from prison and proclaimed him Emperor[30]. This was unacceptable to the crusaders, especially since Isaac II was the Emperor who failed to support the Third Crusade [see "1189"], and so they forced Isaac II to proclaim his son Alexios IV co-Emperor[31]. But Alexios IV had been living in exile from Constantinople since 1195 when he was only ~13[32]. and so he was unaware that the Empire did not have the money to fulfill his promises to repay the crusaders' debt to the Venetians as well as provide financial assistance to their crusade[33]. The crusader army, led by Marquis Boniface de Montferrat (c.1150–1207), was demanding payment for deposing Alexios III and seating Alexius IV on the Imperial throne[34]. Alexius was forced to raise part of the promised payment by melting down into gold and silver priceless icons and this shocked and angered the populace[35].

1204 In January 1204 Isaac II died[36]. Opposition to his son and co-Emperor Alexios IV had grown, so the Byzantine Senate elected as Emperor the leader of the anti-crusader faction, Alexios V Doukas (r. 1204-1204) who then overthrew and executed Alexios IV in February[37]. Doukas was then crowned Emperor Alexios V and immediately strengthened Constantinople's fortifications and forces[38]. The crusaders and Venetians demanded that Doukas honour Alexios IV's promises but the new Emperor refused[39], so they decided on an outright conquest of Constantinople[40]. In

[Above (enlarge): "Conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204," 15th century miniature. Author unknown[41].]

April 1204, the crusaders captured and sacked the city[42]. Alexios V's army stayed to fight but Alexios V himself fled during the night[43]. The crusaders then set up a new Latin Empire as well as partitioning other Byzantine territories among themselves[44].

To be continued in the eighth installment of this part #13 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. "Reflecting back on this week of poems of the Passion," The Pocket Scroll blog, 19 April 2014. [return]
3. Scavone, D.C., 1989a, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.89; 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, pp.171-204, 195; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.154. [return]
4. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.27; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.179; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.123; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 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.25. [return]
5. Adams, 1982, p.27; Antonacci, 2000, p.123; Guerrera, 2001, p.7. [return]
6. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.53; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, pp.62-63. [return]
7. Adams, 1982, p.27; Scavone, 1991, p.196; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.179; Antonacci, 2000, p.123; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.40. [return]
8. Adams, 1982, p.27; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.179; Antonacci, 2000, p.123; Guerrera, 2001, p.7; Tribbe, 2006, p.26; Oxley, 2010, p.40. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.167-168, 257; Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989b, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, pp.320-321; Scavone, 1991, p.196; Wilson, 1991, p.155; 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.145; Guerrera, 2001, p.7; Tribbe, 2006, p.26; Oxley, 2010, p.40; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.185; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.176. [return]
10. Wilson, 1998, p.269; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.109; Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, pp.145-147, 148; Wilson, 2010, p.50. [return]
11. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
12. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.176-177, 181. [return]
14. Barnes, 1934, p.53; Antonacci, 2000, p.122; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
15. Antonacci, 2000, p.122; de Wesselow, 2012, p.177. [return]
16. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
17. "Fourth Crusade," Wikipedia, 14 November 2017. [return]
18. "Pope Innocent III," Wikipedia, 10 November 2017. [return]
19. Latourette, K.S., 1953, "A History of Christianity: Volume 1: to A.D. 1500," Harper & Row: New York NY, Reprinted, 1975, p.411; Walker, W., 1959, "A History of the Christian Church," [1918], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Revised, Reprinted, 1963, p.223. [return]
20. Oxley, 2010, p.41. [return]
21. Oxley, 2010, p.41. [return]
22. Latourette, 1953, p.411; Walker, 1959, p.223; Oxley, 2010, p.41. [return]
23. Latourette, 1953, p.411; Walker, 1959, p.223; Oxley, 2010, p.42. [return]
24. Latourette, 1953, p.411; Walker, 1959, p.223; Oxley, 2010, p.42; Wilson, 1998, p.272. [return]
25. Latourette, 1953, p.411; Walker, 1959, p.223; Oxley, 2010, p.42; Wilson, 1998, p.272. [return]
26. Latourette, 1953, p.411; Walker, 1959, p.223; Wilson, 1998, p.272; Oxley, 2010, p.42; "Alexios IV Angelos: Fourth Crusade," Wikipedia, 2 October 2017. [return]
27. "Fourth Crusade," Wikipedia, 14 November 2017. [return]
28. de Wesselow, 2012, p.174; "Fourth Crusade," Wikipedia, 14 November 2017. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, p.272; de Wesselow, 2012, p.174; "Alexios III Angelos," Wikipedia, 5 August 2017. [return]
30. "Alexios IV Angelos: Emperor," Wikipedia, 2 October 2017. [return]
31. "Alexios IV Angelos: Emperor," Wikipedia, 2 October 2017. [return]
32. "Alexios IV Angelos: Prince in exile," Wikipedia, 2 October 2017. [return]
33. "Alexios IV Angelos: Emperor," Wikipedia, 2 October 2017. [return]
34. Antonacci, 2000, p.122. [return]
35. "Fourth Crusade: Further attacks on Constantinople," Wikipedia, 14 November 2017. [return]
36. Ibid. [return]
37. Ibid. [return]
38. Ibid. [return]
39. Ibid. [return]
40. "Fourth Crusade," Wikipedia, 14 November 2017. [return]
41. "File:ConquestOfConstantinopleByTheCrusadersIn1204.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 10 June 2017. [return]
42. "Fourth Crusade," Wikipedia, 14 November 2017. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. "Fourth Crusade," Wikipedia, 14 November 2017. [return]

Posted: 11 November 2017. Updated: 19 November 2017.

Sunday, November 5, 2017

No image under blood #25: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

NO IMAGE UNDER BLOOD #25
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #25, "The man on the Shroud: No image under blood," 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 "The man on the Shroud #8." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Blood clots intact #24] [Next: Other images and marks on the Shroud #26]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. No image under blood #25

Introduction There is no image under the bloodstains on the Shroud[2]. Therefore the blood was on the cloth before the image[3].

[Right (enlarge): The Shroud, showing major bloodstains outlined in red[4]. Most (if not all) of these are comprised of many minor bloodstains, which would have had to be individually depicted by an artist/forger if the Shroud was a forgery. And note that these are only the major bloodstains. There are hundreds of minor bloodstains, especially when it is realised that each of the over 100 scourge marks[5] includes a tiny bloodstain[6]. Since the blood was on the Shroud before the image, if the Shroud was a forgery, the artist/forger would have had to apply the blood first and then depict the image around the blood[7]! That this is not how an artist/forger would have worked[8], and is in practice impossible[9], is evidenced by the fact that every claimed replication of the Shroud adds the blood after the image (see future "Problem for the forgery theory")!

There is no image under the bloodstains There are no yellowed image fibres under blood stained fibres on the Shroud[10]. When bloodstained linen fibrils from body image areas were treated with proteases, enzymes which digest blood, after the blood had been dissolved by the proteases, the underlying fibrils were white like those from non-image areas[11]. This meant that blood on the linen had protected it from the image-forming process[12].

The blood was on the cloth before the image That there was no underlying image on fibrils from bloodstained image areas means that the blood was on the cloth before the image[13]. The blood came first, then the image[14].

Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #22, #23 and #24). That there is no image under the blood means that the order of events was blood first followed by the image[15]. This is the correct sequence if the Shroud is authentic[16] but effectively impossible for an artist[17]. The artist/forger would have had to paint the wound areas with real human blood [see #23] with no image under the blood areas to guide him[18]. All attempts to replicate the Shroud add blood after the image was already created[19].

For example Joe Nickell (1987) arguing for his brass rubbing method of Shroud image formation[20], requires that the brass bas relief would be sculpted first, the image produced next and after that the bloodstains would be added (his question marks are only about how long it would take):

"A couple of days to sculpt the relief? Two more to produce the image and add the `flagellation marks' and the picturelike `blood' stains? Or perhaps it would take longer"[21].
Picknett and Prince (1994), after they had produced their "final image" then "add[ed] the `bloodflows'":
"Was there anything else that would be revealed when the final image appeared? ... When the image was 'developed' by the washing and heating, it left us ... with a perfectly graded, if faint, scorched image, visible on one side of the cloth only ... Then we turned our attention to adding the `bloodflows': because of their anatomical accuracy on the Shroud it has always been thought they would be difficult to fake. In fact, they were surprisingly easy. The trick is to make them backwards. Place a drop of 'blood' on the cloth (we used theatrical blood), then use a cocktail stick to trace out a thin line to the point where the 'wound' welled up"[22].
Prof. Nicholas Allen (1998), in support of his Medieval Photography theory [see 07Aug16, 01Sep16 & 05Sep16], after having produced his `medieval photograph' [but see here where I allege that it wasn't by medieval technology!], Allen then claimed the "medieval `photographers' paint[ed] on the stigmata with real blood":
"On the positive image of the Shroud of Port Elizabeth, it is possible to make out the finest detail of the original subject, details which are not visible in its negative state ... Having achieved a similar result, our medieval 'photographers' only had to paint on the stigmata with real blood ..."[23]
Earlier (1995) Allen had falsely claimed that "the denatured haemoglobin [i.e. blood] ... on the Shroud ... was applied by brush or stylus after the image was produced":
"Only a photographic technique could produce an image like the one which appears on the Shroud of Turin today. It is no use pointing aimlessly to the denatured haemoglobin which is found on the Shroud, since this was applied by brush or stylus after the image was produced"[24].
Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli (2009), first produced his `shroud' and "then added blood stains ... to achieve the final effect":
"An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake ... `We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud,' Luigi Garlaschelli ... said. A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli ... reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face ... The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud ... They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect"[25]
See my my 08Oct09 and Prof. John Jackson's refutation of Garlaschelli on that point.

That "there is no image under the blood meaning that the order of events is blood first followed by image" alone invalidates all claimed `replications' of the Shroud which all add the blood after the image[26]!

Further evidence of Jesus' resurrection That the blood was on the Shroud before the image is consistent with the Gospels that Jesus' blood first stained His shroud when He was taken down dead from His cross on a Friday evening and His body was wrapped "in a linen shroud" (Mt 27:57-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:50-54). And it is further consistent withe the Gospels that the image was later imprinted, as a "snapshot," on Jesus' already bloodstained shroud at His resurrection:

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... its image ... becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection"[27]!
early on the ensuing Sunday morning (Mt 28:1-6; Mk 16:2-6; Lk 24:1-7; Jn 20:1-9). Moreover, as those Shroud sceptics have unwittingly demonstrated in their `replications' of the Shroud, by all producing their image first, and then adding the blood, that the blood on the Shroud having been first, and after that the image, is only consistent with that order having been uniquely the result of Jesus' resurrection!

We have already seen in this series the following evidence for the image and blood of the man on the Shroud being the result of Jesus' resurrection: image has no style #16; image is non-directional #17; image is extremely superficial #18; image is a photographic negative #19; image is three-dimensional #20; the body shows no signs of decomposition #21; bones and teeth are x-rays #22; blood clots are intact #24. So together this is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Man on the Shroud is Jesus and the image is of His resurrected body!

It is an assumption of modern-day secular man (including many who profess to be Christians) that continuing scepticism of Christianity, despite the overwhelming evidence for it being true, is not only acceptable, but even commendable. For example Dan Porter wrote in his final post on his blog:

"Skepticism is the healthiest of attitudes with all things having to do with religion. I believed that. For instance, a Christian should never fear new discoveries in science and history. There can be no better test of the strength and truth of one’s faith than to face the questions posed by new views of reality"[28]
I agree that a Christian should never fear new discoveries (and I for one don't), but it does not follow that a perpetual scepticism of the Shroud's authenticity, and of Christianity itself, is the answer. And what's more, Jesus warned against it! When the Apostle Thomas was told by his fellow apostles that they had seen the risen Jesus who had appeared to them in locked room when Thomas was absent, Thomas said he would not believe that Jesus had been raised:
"Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side" (Jn 20:19-26).
A week later Jesus appeared again in the same locked room, but this time Thomas was present. Jesus, knowing what Thomas had said, invited him to put a finger in the nail wounds in His hands and place his hands in the spear wound in Jesus' side (Jn 20:26-27). After which Jesus commanded Thomas:
"Do not disbelieve, but believe"(Jn 20:27)!
So Jesus had tolerated Thomas' scepticism up to the point where He had given Thomas sufficient evidence to believe in His resurrection. Thereafter Jesus commanded Thomas to cease his scepticism and start believing that Jesus had in fact risen from the dead. The same applies to modern day `doubting Thomases'. If you have read this far, then Jesus, 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) has given you sufficient evidence for you to cease your scepticism and start believing in Him, and say to Jesus, as Thomas did, "My Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28)!

[Above (enlarge)[29]: Image of Jesus' face imprinted on the Shroud at the moment of His resurrection!

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'"[30]. Yes it is!!]
To be continued in the next part #26 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. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.203; Minor, M., 1990, "Shroud of Turin Manuscript Discovered By Texas Member," The Manuscript Society News, Vol. XI, No. 4, Fall, pp.117-122, 122 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, 189; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.66; Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.103-112, pp.106-107; Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.113-127, 121; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.10-27, 22; Lavoie, G.R., 2000, "Resurrected: Tangible Evidence That Jesus Rose from the Dead," [1998], Thomas More: Allen TX, p.62; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.123; Breault, 2009, "Is the Shroud of Turin a Fake?," EzineArticles.com, October 11; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.239. [return]
3. Heller, 1983, p.203; Minor, 1990, p.122; Adler, 1999, pp.106-107; Iannone, 1998, p.66; Adler, 2000a, p.121; Adler, 2000c, p.22; Lavoie, 2000, p.62; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.71; Whiting, 2006, p.123; Breault, 2009; Oxley, 2010, p.239. [return]
4. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal (rotated right 90 °): Major bloodstains overlay," Sindonology.org. [return]
5. Minor, 1990, p.122. [return]
6. Minor, 1990, p.122. [return]
7. Guerrera, 2001, p.71. [return]
8. Heller, 1983, p.203; Iannone, 1998, p.66. [return]
9. Breault, 2009. [return]
10. Guerrera, 2001, p.71. [return]
11. Heller, 1983, p.203; Adler, 1999, pp.106-107; Adler, 2000c, p.22; Oxley, 2010, p.239; Whiting, 2006, p.123. [return]
12. Heller, 1983, p.203; Minor, 1990, p.122; Iannone, 1998, p.66; Adler, 1999, p.107; Adler, 2000a, p.121; Adler, 2000c; Lavoie, 2000, p.62, p.22; Whiting, 2006, p.123; Oxley, 2010, p.239. [return]
13. Heller, 1983, p.203; Minor, 1990, p.122; Adler, 1999, pp.106-107; Iannone, 1998, p.66; Adler, 2000a, p.121; Adler, 2000c, p.22; Lavoie, 2000, p.62; Guerrera, 2001, p.71; Whiting, 2006, p.123; Breault, 2009; Oxley, 2010, p.239. [return]
14. Lavoie, 2000, p.62; Breault, 2009; Oxley, 2010, p.239. [return]
15. Breault, 2009. [return]
16. Ibid. [return]
17. Ibid. [return]
18. Minor, 1990, p.122. [return]
19. Breault, 2009. [return]
20. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.101-106. [return]
21. Nickell, 1987, p.106. [return]
22. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 1994, "Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?: The Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.169-170; Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, pp.202, 204. [return]
23. Allen, N.P.L.,1998, "The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens: Testament to a Lost Technology," Empowerment Technologies: Port Elizabeth, South Africa, pp.109-110. [return]
24. Allen, N., 1995, "Letter from Dr Nicholas Allen," Shroud News, No. 92, October, pp.20-23, 22 (not yet online). [return]
25. Pullella, P., 2009, "Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin," Reuters, October 5. [return]
26. Breault, 2009. [return]
27. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.251; 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.234. [return]
28. Porter, D., 2015, "Thank You, Everyone," Shroud of Turin Blog, December 15. [return]
29. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA. [return]
30. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189. [return]

Posted: 5 November 2017. Updated: 19 November 2017.

Saturday, November 4, 2017

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

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

[Previous: September 2017, part #1] [Next: November 2017, part #1]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1, of the October 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed linked news article(s) about the Shroud in October as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing them. If I do comment on an article it will be in a separate Shroud of Turin News post and I will add after the link, "- see "ddmmmyy, part #n."

Contents:
Editorial
"Gary Vikan will lead a talk "Two Museum Thefts that Made Headlines in Baltimore, Herald-Mail Media, Crystal Schelle, October 8, 2017. [Anti-authenticist art historian Gary Vikan mentions his upcoming book on the Shroud. But what he says in this article about the book:

"The shroud appears in history in the 1350s for the first time, and that's about the time it was made,"
falsifies his book! See my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Twelfth century," for starters.]

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 October up to issue #87, February 1995. [Right (enlarge)], i.e ~74% completed. Issues in that archive are up to #84, August 1994.

Posts: In October I blogged only 3 new posts (latest uppermost): "Vignon markings: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (2): Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #10," - 29th; "10 October 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud," - 22nd; and "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, September 2017" - 21st. Note that I only started my first October post on the 21st, due to an `overhang' from September.

Updates In October there were no significant updates in the background of past posts. Except that, having been through all my posts from 2007 to 2016, saving linked photos in case they become no longer online and replacing those which had gone offline, in October I started going through my posts from 2017 forwards.

Comments: In October I deleted as substandard another comment which I considered inane. In October I received an email that asked:

"My question is always and may never get answered. Who took the Shroud from the tomb?"
I replied:
"My answer is that Jesus took His Shroud out of the tomb and later gave it to `the servant of the priest' who was the Apostle John. See my series, "Servant of the priest".

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: I blogged two posts about my hacker theory in October: "10 October 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" and "Vignon markings: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (2)."

My book: In October I continued to make slow progress in writing a dot-point outline of my book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" on my smartphone (see 06Jul17). I am still working on Chapter "6. History and the Shroud: AD 30 to 944," going through the Resurrection accounts (Mt 28:1-15; Mk 16:1-8; Lk 24:1-12 & Jn 20:1-18), but I hope to finish those early in November.

News: ANTI-authenticist Hugh Farey no longer is Editor of the British Society FOR the Turin Shroud Newsletter! Barrie

[Left (enlarge): Hugh Farey[2].]

Schwortz's October Fall Update, under "BSTS Newsletter June 2017 Issue No. 85 Now Online," contained the good news that:

"BSTS Newsletter June 2017 Issue No. 85 Now Online ... This issue also marks the last issue from current Editor Hugh Farey, who is retiring from the position he has held since December 2013 and handing it over to long time BSTS member, David Rolfe. David is best known in Shroud circles for his films on the Shroud which include The Silent Witness, the BAFTA-winning production from 1978 which introduced so many to the subject for the first time."
As far as I am aware, Farey never did, as Editor of the BSTS Newsletter, author an article in it, or anywhere, in support of his ABSURD, "accidental 14th century origin" of the Shroud theory:
"Unlike my predecessors, whom I think are more or less committed to a pro-authenticity point of view, I myself currently incline more towards an accidental 14th century origin for the cloth now preserved in Turin." ("Editorial - by Hugh Farey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 78, December 2013. My emphasis).
If this is so, it shows that: 1) Farey does not really believe his own "accidental 14th century origin" theory, and 2) he does not believe any other Shroud anti-authenticist theory either!

Farey could not resist firing a parting shot at pro-authenticists, patronising us all as dwellers in "the sunlit uplands of the conventional acceptance of authenticity":

"Since I first took on the job, I was keen to make this publication a window onto all aspects of current Shroud research, and not simply the sunlit uplands of the conventional acceptance of authenticity" ("Editorial - by Hugh Farey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 85, June 2017. My emphasis).

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 October 2017, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 813,706. This compares with 609,349 (up 204,357 or ~33.5%) from the same time in October 2016. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Twelfth century," Sep 23, 2017, 195; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified.," Dec 2, 2013 - 154; "29 June 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud," Sep 13, 2017 - 128; "Blood clots intact #24: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Sep 4, 2017 - 99


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]
2. Extract from, "Hugh Farey Is The Shroud of Turin a Forgery?" YouTube, August 24, 2015. [return]

Posted: 4 November 2017. Updated: 5 November 2017.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Vignon markings: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (2): Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #10

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the sixth and final installment of part #10, "Vignon markings: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (2)," 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: "VT-100 terminal to a DEC mini-computer, Timothy Linick and Karl Koch" #9] [Next: "Twelfth century: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (3)" #11]

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?: Revised #1," "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Further to my replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey" and now "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #2 (Vignon markings)".

[Above (enlarge) The Vignon markings:

"The Vignon markings-how Byzantine artists created a living likeness from the Shroud image. (1) Transverse streak across forehead, (2) three-sided "square" between brows, (3) V shape at bridge of nose, (4) second V within marking 2, (5) raised right eyebrow, (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, (10) heavy line under lower lip, (11) hairless area between lower lip and beard, (12) forked beard, (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair. "[2].

This post (originally "... Revised #2") continues from my previous "... against the preponderance of the evidence (1)... #8" (originally Revised #1) post, which presented historical evidence for the Shroud's existence in the 13th and 12th centuries [see also "Chronology ... 12th century"] ... The purpose of documenting all this historical evidence of the Shroud's existence from the 13th to the 1st century is to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" had to 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[3], `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"?

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, yet its radiocarbon date was "between 1260 and 1390," is "about one in a thousand trillion"[4]), I will document how courts decide, on the basis of high improbability alone, that a scientific fraud must have occurred.

And then, having proved beyond any reasonable doubt that there must have been fraud in carbon-dating the 1st century (or earlier) linen of the Shroud to 1325 ±65, I will re-present the evidence for: 1) the fraud having been perpetrated by computer hacking; and 2) I will tentatively identify the hackers as Timothy W. Linick (1946-89), of Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory, aided by Karl Koch (1965–89), a self-confessed hacker who had worked for the KGB. [A]

The Vignon markings From the fifth century Jesus began to be consistently depicted in Byzantine Christian art as dark, Jewish, with long hair, a full forked beard, a long nose, large staring eyes, with a rigid front-facing posture[5]. In the 1930s, French biology professor and artist, Paul Vignon (1865-1943), began to study a number of oddities that Byzantine portraits of Christ from the fifth century[6] shared in common[7]. After a painstaking comparison of hundreds of paintings, frescoes and mosaics with the face on the Shroud[8],

[Above (enlarge): Positive photograph of the Shroud face, with Vignon markings numbers 1-15 superimposed[9]. Compare the above sketch showing the 15 Vignon markings with this photograph of the Shroud face, which is what artists looking at the Image of Edessa/Shroud directly would have seen.]

Vignon identified 20 such oddities (reduced by Ian Wilson to a more certain 15 - see below), most of which artistically made no sense, including imperfections in the Shroud's weave, but were repeated slavishly[10] by Byzantine artists from the 5th to the 12th century[11]. Confirmation that the artists were copying the Shroud is evident in that they were trying to make sense of a negative image[12], for example open staring eyes which were actually closed in death[13], of which they could have had no concept, the camera using negative film not having been invented until the 19th century[14]. [B]

Vignon paid particular attention to a topless square (Vignon marking (2) above) on the 8th-century Christ Pantocrator in the catacomb of Pontianus, Rome[15] Artistically it made no sense, yet it appears on

[Above (enlarge): Bust of Christ Pantocrator from the catacomb of Pontianus, Rome[16]. Note in particular the Vignon marking on this 8th century fresco[17]: "(2) three-sided [topless] `square' between brows." See "c. 710".]

other Byzantine Christ portraits, including the 11th century Christ Pantocrator in the dome of the church at Daphni, near Athens[18],

[Above (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator mosaic in the church at Daphni, Greece[19].]

has 13 of the 15 Vignon markings[20]. Some of them (e.g. the three-sided, or topless square) are stylized having been rendered more naturalistic by a competent artist[21]. The 11th century Pantocrator in the apse of Sant'Angelo in Formis church, near Capua, Italy. This

[Above (enlarge): Extract of Christ's face which is part of a larger 11th century fresco in the church of St. Angelo in Formis, Capua, Italy[22].]

"Christ enthroned" fresco[23] has 14 out of the 15 Vignon markings that are on the Shroud[24], many of which are just incidental blemishes on the cloth[25]. The 10th century Hagia Sophia narthex

[Above (enlarge): Extract from the larger mosaic above the narthex of Constantinople's Hagia Sophia cathedral[26].]

mosaic, and the 11th century "Christ the Merciful" mosaic in

[Above (enlarge): "Christ the Merciful" mosaic (1100-1150) in the Bodemuseum, Berlin[27]. By my count this icon has 12 of the 15 Vignon markings]

Berlin[28].

And at the equivalent point on the Shroud face[, there is exactly the same `topless square' feature where it is merely a flaw in the weave[29] (see below).

[Above (enlarge): Extract from ShroudScope showing outlined in red the `three sided' or `topless square' (Vignon Marking no 2), superimposed on the above 8th century bust of Christ in the catacomb of Pontianus, Rome: Shroud Scope and Wikipedia. As can be seen, on the Shroud this "topless square" is merely a flaw or change in the weave[30], which in fact runs all the way down the Shroud! [C]]

In 1938 Vignon presented his discoveries as an "Iconographic Theory" in his book, "Le Saint Suaire de Turin: Devant La Science, L'archéologie, L'histoire, L'iconographie, La Logique" ("The Shroud of Turin: Before Science, Archeology, History, Iconography, Logic")[31] in which he proposed that the Shroud was known and revered as far back as the fifth century[32]. Historian Ian Wilson reduced Vignon's list of 20 peculiarities down to 15 more certain "Vignon markings"[33] (see above). No one work featured every peculiarity[34], but of the 15 Vignon markings, some have 13 (e.g. the 11th century Pantocrator in the dome of the church of Daphni, Greece [see above]) and even 14 (e.g. the 12th century Cefalu apse mosaic (see below) and the 11th

[Above: (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator, Cefalu Cathedral, Sicily[35]. As can be seen, this mosaic depicts a Shroud-like, long-haired, fork-bearded, front-facing likeness of Christ[36]. It has 14 out of 15 Vignon markings (see above)[37], including a triangle between the nose and the eyebrows, concave cheeks, asymmetrical and pronounced cheekbones, each found on the Shroud, and a double tuft of hair where the reversed `3' bloodstain is on the Shroud[38]. But at c.1150 it is still over a century before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[39]!

century Sant'Angelo in Formis [see above] fresco[40]. Wilson sampled depictions of Christ's face from the sixth, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries and found between eight and fourteen of these Vignon markings features on them, an average of 80 percent incidence[41]! [D]

As Wilson pointed out of the 8th-century Christ Pantocrator in the catacomb of Pontianus, Rome (see above) that:

"Just as the viewing of a single footprint on fresh sand provided for Robinson Crusoe the conclusive evidence that there was another human being (later revealed as Man Friday) on his island, so the presence of this topless square on an indisputably seventh/eighth-century fresco virtually demands that the Shroud must have been around, somewhere, in some form at this early date"[42].
so is "this topless square on an ... eighth-century fresco" (and on the other pre-1260 portraits of Christ above) conclusive evidence that the Shroud existed in at least the eighth century! That is, six centuries before the earliest 1260 date given to it by radiocarbon dating[43]!

To be continued in the next part #11 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. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82e. [return]
3. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1,141,178,246; 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.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]
4. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.303. [return]
5. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.76. [return]
6. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.60. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised, p.103. [return]
8. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, p.157. [return]
9. Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Face Only Horizontal (cropped and rotated right 90°). [return]
10. Wuenschel, 1954, p.60. [return]
11. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
12. Wuenschel, 1954, p.58. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.105. [return]
14. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.82. [return]
15. Wilson, 1979, p.103. [return]
16. "Catacomba di Ponziano," Google Translate, Wikipedia, 25 January 2016. [return]
17. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.105; 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, pp.171-204, 189, 191; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.153. [return]
18. Maher, 1986, p.77. [return]
19. "Daphni Monastery," Wikipedia, 7 May 2017. [return]
20. Maher, 1986, p.77. [return]
21. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.84; Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
22. Wilson, 1986, p.110A. [return]
23. Wilson, 1991, p.47. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, p.102. [return]
25. Wilson, 1991, p.47. [return]
26. "File:Byzantinischer Mosaizist des 9. Jahrhunderts 001.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 22 February 2015. [return]
27. Mosaic icon, "Christ the Merciful (1100-1150), in Museum of Byzantine Art, Bode Museum, Berlin, Germany: File:Mosaikikon Bode Berlin 2.jpg, Wikipedia (translated by Google), 3 August 2015. [return]
28. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
29. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.142. [return]
30. Scavone, 1991, p.185; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.166. [return]
31. Wilson, 1991, pp.161-162. [return]
32. Walsh, 1963, pp.154-157. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
34. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
35. "File:Master of Cefalu 001 Christ Pantocrator adjusted.JPG," Wikipedia, 15 June 2010. [return]
36. Wilson, 1986, p.105; Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, p.105; Maher, 1986, p.82. [return]
38. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.193. [return]
39. Wilson, 1986, p.104. [return]
40. Wilson, 1979, pp.104-105. [return]
41. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.128. [return]
42. Wilson, 1991, p.168; Wilson, 2010, p.142. [return]
43. Wilson, 2010, p.142. [return]

Posted: 29 October 2017. Updated: 3 November 2017.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

10 October 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #6, "10 October 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, Index. As explained in part #1, the first few significant days 30 years ago have already passed, but with this post I have almost caught up and when I do I will thereafter publish each day's post as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 29Jun87 #5] [Next: 18Nov87 #7]

10 October 1987 The Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989) [Below right[2].], on the advice of, and presumably written by[3], his scientific adviser, Professor Luigi Gonella (1930–2007)[4], wrote to all the participants in the laboratories who were to have dated the Shroud [see 27Apr87], advising them that only three of their number: Arizona, Oxford and Zurich, had been chosen to carry out the dating[5]. This confirmed Gonella's statement in La Stampa of 27 April 1987 [see 27Apr87] and Cardinal Casaroli's leaked letter of 21 May 1987 to Cardinal Ballestrero [see 29Jun87].

Now that the seven laboratories using two different methods had been reduced to three laboratories using the one AMS method, the alleged hacker, Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (see below), would have realised that it was feasible for him to write a

[Left: Photo of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances"[6]. In fact Linick "shot himself" (or so it was assumed) but left no suicide note [see 22Feb16]. That was on 4 June 1989, only one day after hacker Karl Koch's burnt body was publicly identified by West German police on 3 June 1989 [see again 22Feb16]. According to my hacker theory, Linick's "suicide," like Koch's, was murder by the KGB made to look like suicide, to prevent them publicly confessing their part in the Soviet sponsored hacking of the Shroud's 1988 radiocarbon dating, which produced the `too good to be true' 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 radiocarbon date of the authentic first-century Shroud.]

program to be installed on the AMS computers at the three laboratories (which were effectively clones[7]), that would substitute the Shroud's actual carbon-14 dates with computer-generated dates, which would make the Shroud seem to date from just before it's first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c.1355[8]. [See 22Feb16]

The key points of Ballestrero's letter (the text of which is online) were (in bold): ■ It was based on, "positive instructions from the Holy See [Pope John Paul II] personally signed by the Cardinal Secretary of State [Cardinal Casaroli-see again 29Jun87] on how to proceed to the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin"[9]. Prof. Harry Gove's attempts to sideline Turin by getting Rome, in the person of Prof. Carlos Chagas Filho, President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, to take full control of the radiocarbon date of the Shroud[10] had utterly failed!

■ The "choice of the three laboratories among the seven ... was made ... on a criterion of internationality and consideration for the specific experience in the field of archaeological radiocarbon dating, taking also into account the required sample size"[11]. On the criterion of "the required sample size", the non-AMS laboratories Harwell and Brookhaven would need two to three times the amount of Shroud sample than the AMS laboratories[12]. From Turin's perspective, "reducing the amount of cloth to be taken was the principal consideration"[13]. for its departure from the 1986 Turin workshop protocol"[14]. This alone eliminated the non-AMS laboratories[15]. By the criterion of "specific experience in the field of archaeological radiocarbon dating," among the remaining AMS laboratories, Gove's Rochester and Gif-sur-Yvette in France had less than Arizona, Oxford and Zurich[16]. And the criterion of "internationality," meant only one laboratory each from the USA, England and Europe, leaving "the following laboratories ... selected: Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Arizona"; "Research Laboratory for Archaeology, Oxford University"; and "Radiocarbon Laboratory, ETH, Zurich"[17].

■ "Professor Carlos Chagas, President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, will be invited to be present at the operation as ... my personal guest"[18]. This meant that Chagas "would play no role at all"[19].

■ It is not "... necessary for representatives of the measurement laboratories to attend the sample-taking operation"[20]. Gove regarded this "as absolutely outrageous" and Sox as "shocking"[21].

■ "The decisions took more time to be worked out than originally wished, owing to ... (the) initiative of some participants in the workshop who stepped out of the radiocarbon field to oppose research proposals in other fields, with implications on the freedom of research of other scientists ..."[22]. Gove admitted that the Archbishop's "thinly veiled accusation that we were attempting to prevent STURP from carrying out its scientific investigations was quite accurate"[23]! [see also 27Apr87, 15Jun87]. But having just admitted that Ballestrero's criticism of him regarding STURP was "quite accurate," in the same paragraph, Gove claimed that they were "false" and he "resented" them: "I had never before been directly or indirectly chastised by a cardinal and I resented the falseness of his charges"[24]!

■ "Besides, when the competent Authorities, advised me they deemed we ought to proceed with three samples ... Not only Turin's Gonella but also "a group of scientific consultants of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences" had advised that, "[c]utting seven pieces would have been too destructive"[25]), "...a concerted initiative was taken to counter the decision, with the outcome of a telegram [see 13Sep17] "... sent to H. E. the Cardinal Secretary of State and myself by some participants in the workshop, a telegram where the meaning of my introductory words at the workshop was heavily misinterpreted"[26]. The telegram sent to Cardinal Ballestrero on 6 July 1987 by Gove on behalf of the seven laboratories [see 29Jun87] quoted from Ballestrero's introductory words at the 1986 Turin workshop:

"Your Eminence, In your opening statements to the delegates of the Turin Workshop on Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud, you charged us with designing 'a valid and acceptable project for at last carrying out the radiocarbon dating of the shroud cloth'"[27]
Gove commented on this:
"One had to concede that only he could know what he meant to say in his introductory remarks but I think we correctly reported what he actually did say"[28].
But this is another example of the egotistical Gove[29] being blind to the effects of his own words and actions [see 07Jul17]. Clearly by "acceptable" Cardinal Ballestrero meant acceptable to all participants in the workshop: the laboratories, STURP, the Turin Archdiocese and the Rome Pontifical Academy of Science. But by Gove's own account in his book of his words and actions in the workshop, he adopted a confrontational and divide-and-conquer approach, riding roughshod over both STURP and Turin's Gonella, to achieve a result that was acceptable only to the seven laboratories!

■ "After further deliberation and scrutiny of the situation with the Cardinal Secretary of State, we are now proceeding on the already decided terms, that I was just going to write you when I received the above quoted telegram"[30]. Gove further commented that, "It was also clear that the cable we had sent to Ballestrero had really annoyed him intensely"[31]. When he first learned that his laboratory, Rochester, had been excluded, Gove conceded that, he "should probably take a course in diplomacy"[32]. Indeed! In response to Gove's blatant disregard of, and active working against, Cardinal Ballestrero's request for a protocol "acceptable" to all the particpants to emerge from the Turin workshop, Ballestrero would have been will within his rights to suspend the dating until all the participants came back to him with a consensus protocol!

■ "In consideration of the great attention from the public and the press that all of us know that this measurement is attracting, it seems to me worthwhile to stress again what I said in my opening address at the Turin workshop, about the purely scientific character of this enterprise, which does not mean to, nor could, address any issue related to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nor do I mean with this analysis to charge the laboratories that have been selected with the task of 'authenticating' the Shroud of Turin: the analysis is strictly meant to ascertain the radiocarbon date of its cloth as an objective datum of the highest importance for evaluating the complex issues of its authenticity and conservation"[33]. It is true that "the radiocarbon date of its [the Shroud's] cloth," if it turned out to be medieval (as it did), would not "address any issue related to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ," since the Shroud could be a fake but Jesus' resurrection be true (as the majority of Christians maintain, including me for ~40 years). But the same does not hold for "'authenticating' the Shroud of Turin." If the Shroud's "radiocarbon date ... as an objective datum" was truly medieval, then the Shroud could not be authentic. But since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic, it is the "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[34] radiocarbon date of the Shroud which cannot be "an objective datum"!

■ "As we move on to the executive phase of the project of radiocarbon dating the Shroud of Turin, I would like to thank again all those who brought positive contributions to it, and to offer my heartfelt good wish to those who will undertake it, trusting that they will carry it out with utmost scientific rigour in order to add this important objective datum to the scientific quest that has long been growing on the illustrious image entrusted to my stewardship. Anastasio Cardinal Ballestrero, Archbishop of Turin, Pontifical Custodian of the Shroud of Turin"[35]. Not "thanks to all participants" but "thanks to all those who brought positive contributions." Evidently aimed at Gove whose attitude in the 1986 Turin workshop was negative towards STURP and Turin's Gonella[36]. For example:

"At a point later on in the workshop, a list of the participants was passed around for people to correct their addresses or make whatever changes they wanted. Several people did make changes, for example, Professor Alan D Adler of the Chemistry Department, Western Connecticut State University, removed his tame completely ... In the case of Adler, I suspected it was a case of playing hookey"[37].
This further shows Gove's negativity towards STURP, of which Alan D. Adler (1931-2000) was a representative. Adler did later attend the workshop as Gove even mentioned (p.153), so Adler simply may not have been able to attend the opening session and his name had been removed from that session's list by the workshop organisers.
"Dr Robert Dinegar gave as his address USA Shroud of Turin Research Project only, with no location. Finally, the person listed as Professor Steve Lukasik, from the J P Getty Conservation Institute, corrected his tame to Dr Stephen J Lukasik and gave as his address Shroud of Turin Research Project, USA, just as Dinegar had done ... I was a little surprised at the requested changes. Perhaps they reflected a slight embarrassment at indicating a connection between such esteemed organizations such as NASA (Canuto), Los Alamos National Laboratory (Dinegar) and Northrup (Lukasik), and the Turin Shroud"[38].
If Gove had not been so prejudiced against STURP, he might have realised that they were not at the workshop representing their employers but in a private capacity, and so the corrections were more accurate. Besides, "Professor Steve Lukasik, from the J P Getty Conservation Institute" presumably was the organisers' mistake, because there was a James Druzik of the J.P. Getty Museum who was to attend the workshop, as Gove actually mentions in his book (at pages 95 and 113, etc), and Gove knew that Lukasik was from Northrup.
"Lukasik ... is Vice President–Technology of the Northrup Corporation whose headquarters are in Los Angeles, California. Northrup is a manufacturer, among other things, of military aircraft, and supplies one of the fighter planes for the US Air Force. It is interesting that there are several 'warriors', including atom bomb builders from Los Alamos, connected with STURP. Perhaps it is some sort of compensation for their occupation that makes them take an interest in the 'Prince of Peace'" (i.e. Jesus - Isa 9:6)[39]
This is another example of Gove the agnostic's anti-Christian prejudice [see 31May17]. What does it matter, scientifically, that there were Christians at the workshop, who were fully qualified scientists working in the USA's defence industries, and who were also members of STURP? The implication of Gove's attitude is that the Shroud of Turin, a Christian relic, should only be studied by atheist/agnostics like him!

But by far the greatest failing of the workshop, which would completely invalidated it, was that Gove, Chagas and the laboratories completely ignored Gonella's unhappiness with the proposal that seven laboratories were needed, requiring seven samples:

"During much of this part of the discussion, Gonella made incoherent teeth grinding sounds from time to time. He was clearly not in favour of seven samples for seven labs. He was also clearly unhappy about the assumption that all seven labs be involved. Harbottle's statement that four labs would be unacceptably too few bothered him greatly. He asked whether this meant that all dating made on only one archaeological sample should be considered unreliable? ... Chagas tried to sum up by saying that we needed two controls from two different age populations plus a shroud sample for each of the seven labs. Gonella indicated he was very unhappy about this conclusion"[40].
Gonella again stated there was no scientific justification for seven laboratories taking seven samples:
"Gonella [spoke] ... As far as dating the shroud was concerned, Turin could have proceeded like any archaeologist in the field who wanted an object dated - just send shroud samples to a couple of labs of their choice ... But we had decided to proceed differently. He criticized the decision to involve seven labs. He said that 12½ cm2 would be the largest sample ever taken from the shroud. There was no technical justification for this many labs and this much sample. He said he did not understand why the labs had to be present at the sample taking to be able to put the samples in their pockets. Did we not trust the British Museum?"[41]
But again Gonella, representing the Custodian of the Shroud, who would in the end have the final say, was ignored by Chagas, Gove and the laboratories:
"The workshop reconvened at 2:45 pm [on 1 October 1986] and Chagas presented a summary: (1) This was the moment for carbon dating. (2) We would take a minimum amount of cloth to ensure rigorous scientific results and to ensure public credibility but would not include charred material. (3) For statistical purposes it was decided that 7 labs would be involved, 5 accelerator and 2 small-counter labs..."[42]

To be continued in the next part #7 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. "Ballestrero, Anastasio Alberto," Araldica Vaticana.com, n.d. [return]
3. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.116 [return]
4. 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.307. [return]
5. Sox, 1988, p.115; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.213; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.40; Wilson, 1998, pp.5-6. 307; 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; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.223; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.87; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.166. [return]
6. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178; Wilson, 2010, p.281. [return]
8. Wilson, 2010, p.222. [return]
9. Sox, 1988, p.115; Gove, 1996, p.213. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, pp.101-102. [return]
11. Sox, 1988, p.116; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.41; Gove, 1996, p.214; Wilson, 1998, p.307; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.179; Wilson, 2010, p.87. [return]
12. Gove, 1996, p.155. [return]
13. Tribbe, 2006, p.169; Gonella, L., "Discussant's contribution," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, 2000, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, p.509. [return]
14. Wilson, 1998, pp.183-184. [return]
15. Antonacci, 2000, pp.178-179. [return]
16. Gove, 1996, pp.156-157; Wilson, 1998, p.183. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, p.214; Wilson, 1998, p.183; Oxley, 2010, p.223; Wilson, 2010, p.87. [return]
18. Sox, 1988, p.115; Gove, 1996, p.214; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.41. [return]
19. Gove, 1996, p.215; Wilson, 1998, pp.183, 307; Wilson, 2010, p.281. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.214; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.41. [return]
21. Sox, 1988, p.115; Gove, 1996, p.215. [return]
22. Sox, 1988, p.115; Gove, 1996, p.214; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.42; Antonacci, 2000, p.200. [return]
23. Gove, 1996, p.216; Antonacci, 2000, p.200. [return]
24. Gove, 1996, p.216. [return]
25. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.41. [return]
26. Gove, 1996, pp.214-215; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.42-43. [return]
27. Gove, 1996, p.200. [return]
28. Gove, 1996, pp.215-216. [return]
29. Wilson, I., 1997, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 45, June/July; de Wesselow, 2012, p.164. [return]
30. Gove, 1996, p.215. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. Gove, 1996, p.213. [return]
33. Gove, 1996, p.215. [return]
34. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
35. Gove, 1996, p.215. [return]
36. Sox, 1988, p.116; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.43. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, p.147. [return]
38. Ibid. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.148. [return]
40. Gove, 1996, pp.156-157. [return]
41. Gove, 1996, pp.170-171. [return]
42. Gove, 1996, p.174. [return]

Posted: 22 October 2017. Updated: 3 November 2017.

Saturday, October 21, 2017

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

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

[Previous: August 2017, part #1] [Next: October 2017, part #1]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1, of the September 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I would normally list Shroud-related September 2017 news articles in separate posts, linked back to this post, but there were none I considered worth listing.

Contents:
Editorial


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 September up to issue #85, October 1994. [Right (enlarge)], i.e ~72% completed. Issues in that archive are up to #84, August 1994.

Posts: In September I blogged 5 new posts (latest uppermost): "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Twelfth century," - 23rd; "VT-100 terminal to a DEC mini-computer, Timothy Linick and Karl Koch, #9," - 18th; "29 June 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud," - 13th "Blood clots intact #24: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," - 4th "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, August 2017," - 3rd.

Updates In September there were no significant updates in the background of past posts. Except that in September I finished going through my posts from 2015 backwards, and started from 2016 forwards, saving linked photos in case they become no longer online and replacing those which had gone offline.

Comments: In September I deleted as substandard two comment which I considered inane and not worth me wasting my scarce time answering them.

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: I blogged no posts about my hacker theory in September.

My book: In September I continued to make progress in writing a dot-point outline of my book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" on my smartphone (see 06Jul17). Chapter(s) I

[Left (enlarge): My book's planned cover.]

worked on in September were: "6. History and the Shroud: AD 30 to 1355," but since changed to "...944." I had became bogged down in the Resurrection accounts (Mt 28:1-15; Mk 16:1-8; Lk 24:1-12 & Jn 20:1-18), but re-reading John Wenham's "Easter Enigma" is helping me disentangle them.


Pageviews: At midnight on 30 September 2017, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 798,759. This compares with 593,586 (up 205,173 or ~34.6%) from the same time in September 2016. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "Blood clots intact #24: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," - 120; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Twelfth century," Sep 23, 2017 - 87; "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, August 2017," Sep 3, 2017 - 80;"Obituary: Rev. H. David Sox (24 April 1936 - 28 August 2016)," - Aug 15, 2017 - 72; "John P. Jackson, `An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image' (1991)," Aug 13, 2017 - 69


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: 21 October 2017. Updated: 4 November 2017.