[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [My The Shroud of Turin blog]
The following are quotes added to my Shroud of Turin unclassified quotes in August 2007 (2). See copyright conditions at end.
[Index: May, Jun, Jul, Aug (1), Sep , Oct, Nov, Dec]
10/08/2007 "One such shroud, the one which now resides in a reliquary in the Turin Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, is different from most of the others in that it features a full-length front-and-back image of the crucified Jesus. To the modern mind, the existence of the image ought in itself to have ruled out any possibility of authenticity. But in 1898 a man named Secondo Pia managed to photograph the cloth for the first time. Much to his astonishment (he almost dropped the wet plate), in negative the image of the Shroud revealed itself to be a remarkably lifelike representation of Jesus. It was argued then, as now, that no medieval artist could have known how to produce such a perfect negative image, and that therefore the Shroud cannot be a forgery. " (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "But if it isn't a forgery, what is it? There are only two alternatives: either it is a rare but natural phenomenon, or it results from a miraculous event. The first alternative can be dismissed immediately: no corpse in history has left a projected, optically focused image of itself on a burial cloth. The second alternative, equally without historical precedent is, however, consistent with the way many people, from Matthias Grunewald to any number of special effects directors, have imagined the moment of Jesus' Resurrection. As one of the Shroud's enthusiasts has put it, `I am forced to conclude that the image was formed by a burst of energy - light, if you will.' And in the National Review, Jerome S. Goldblatt has presented the even more up-to-date theory that the image was formed by the bright flash of a pulsed laser beam. This, he says, seems to be what happens when people rise from the dead, and it is what Paul referred to when he prophesied that we would all be transformed at the Resurrection of the Last Judgment "in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 15:52). As Goldblatt helpfully explains, `Both the speed of a pulsed laser beam and the twinkling of an eye are calibrated in similarly incredible speeds.' " (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "Incredible indeed, skeptics will snort. But the Holy Shroud has of late been receiving an impressive amount of ink in publications quite beyond the supermarket tabloids, or even the National Review. The most recent spate of coverage began with the work of the Shroud of Turin Research Project, a group of about forty scientists formed in 1977, which subjected the cloth to an extensive series of tests in 1978. Articles by members of the group, known as STURP, have appeared in such technical journals as Applied Optics and Analytica Chimica Acta. A discussion even appeared in Science in 1978, and in 1980 National Geographic had as its lead article a major report by that magazine's Science Editor, Kenneth F. Weaver. This latter article, published with a nervous introduction by editor Gilbert M. Grosvenor, breathlessly detailed the activities of STURP and many of the proauthenticity arguments; though it mentioned the possibility, it presented virtually no evidence favoring forgery. By thus seeming implicitly to validate the central miracle of Christianity - a miracle taken by many believers as proof that it is the only true religion - National Geographic departed from its tradition of treating with balanced respect the religions of the world. " (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "Harper's, not generally known as a religious organ, had a long and very supportive piece in 1981 and perhaps most surprising of all was the appearance in 1982 of an extensive discussion of the Shroud in, of all places, Current Anthropology. Titled, "The authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," William Meacham's article purports to demonstrate `an almost inescapable conclusion' about the cloth: `it is the very piece of linen described in the biblical accounts as being used to enfold the body of Christ.' As for the question of forgery, it `should be permanently buried,' along with `notions of the Marlowe authorship of Shakespeare's plays or an Egyptian influence on the Mayas.' Meacham brands as outside the realm of `reputable scholarship' hypotheses that a clever Medieval artist might have produced the image on the Shroud. Whether one agrees with Meacham or not, a National Revieweditorial is right about one thing: Shroud Science has gotten respectable." (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "STURP is young, but the Shroud is old, and ... we would do well to review some historical facts about the relic in question. Around the middle of the fourteenth century there appeared in France a cloth which its exhibitors claimed was the true Holy Shroud. No attempt was made by the object's owners to establish a provenance for it, and its authenticity was dismissed by Henri de Poitiers, the Bishop of Troves, as well as by his successor, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis. In 1389, d'Arcis sent a memorandum to Clement VII in Avignon, the Pope of the Great Western Schism, charging that the Shroud was a fake. In this letter, the earliest extant written document dealing with the Shroud, the Bishop declares it to be a `cloth cunningly painted upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man .' D'Arcis says that it had been determined how the cloth had been painted, `the truth being attested by the artist who painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.' (Clement eventually issued an edict declaring that whenever the cloth is exhibited it be announced that `it is not the True Shroud of Our Lord, but a painting or picture made in the semblance or representation of the shroud.')" (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "The answers modern technology can provide are, however, only as good as the questions that are placed before it. Take, for example, the question of whether the apparent bloodstains on the Shroud really are blood. There are prima facie perfectly sound reasons for rejecting the idea that the stains around Christ's head, hands, feet, and at his lance wound are blood. Blood does not stay in such tidy rivulets as the Shroud portrays; it mats in hair and spreads in cloth. Moreover, the stains are just too red: blood eventually turns nearly black, and could not be expected to retain for two millennia the carmine-rust hue of the Holy Shroud's bloodstains. Could these stains be paint? Much of Heller's book is devoted to his investigations purporting to show that the stains around the wounds are not paint, but blood. Not only does he claim conclusively to have demonstrated that blood is present, but one of his last tests, made on a single serum- coated fibril of Shroud linen, was positive for human blood. This, Heller thinks, invalidates the views of Walter McCrone, a Chicago forensic scientist and erstwhile STURP member who is the only other spoilsport in the book besides the Bishop d'Arcis. McCrone concluded that the relic was forged after he found copious amounts of pigments commonly used in medieval painting in the wound areas, including iron oxide (red ochre) and mercuric sulfide (vermilion). Heller in turn admits that there is pigment on the Shroud, but he says many artists painted it through the centuries, and they probable spilled some on it." (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "What, after all, hangs on the question of blood vs. paint? If the history of forgery teaches us anything at all about the wiles of forgers, it demonstrates that it is entirely plausible in a case such as this that a forger would have used blood, even human blood, to dress up the Shroud. Heller makes believe he has covered this possibility by having asked `several professors of art history at Yale and Harvard' whether fourteenth- century artists ever used real blood to paint blood. He was able, obviously, to confirm that they did not; but portraying blood in a painting and forging a burial shroud are two very different things in this regard. In the case of the shroud forgery, some caked and blackened blood, tarted up perhaps with a bit of paint, might produce the perfect effect." (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243- 255) 10/08/2007 "By making it appear as though a positive outcome for the blood tests is a matter of great significance, Heller encourages us to ignore Shroud Science's most important technical question, the one which Shroud enthusiasts are the least willing to face: How could the famous negative image have been created in the first place? And let it be said immediately that, even leaving aside its negative character, it does represent some kind of miracle if it is not an artifact. For it is not a wraparound impression, the kind of distorted, splayed image which would inevitably result if a body somehow left its mark on a covering cloth. Rather, it is an optically coherent, focused image which is projected on the cloth. It represents, in other words, how a body would look, say, projected on the flat ground glass of a camera viewfinder. If anything can be called optically impossible, it is that a body could without a lens or other collimating device produce a focused image on a cloth. (Consideration of this fact, incidentally, reveals an essential circularity at the heart of Shroud Science. The Shroud is normally promoted as evidence for the Resurrection. But since analysis of the image shows that it is itself physically impossible if it is not a product of artifice, the Resurrection has to be invoked to explain the image.) " (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "So the ultimate question for any serious study of the Shroud has to be whether there exists any imaginable mechanism for producing a negative image like the one on the cloth. It is here that discussions in pro- Shroud quarters invariably become strident in tone and sketchy in content. The game is usually to devise a couple of outlandish methods by which the image might have been produced, show how ridiculous they are, and rest content. The inexperienced reader is left with the impression that every plausible alternative has been explored after all, these are scientists, aren't they? This is exactly the tactic of Heller, who dismisses all hypotheses for manufacturing the negative, focused image as `strange ideas, such as hot statues, bas-reliefs, and so on suggested by non-scientists.' " (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "Enter Joe Nickell, perhaps the very non-scientist most on Heller's mind. His Inquest on the Shroud of Turin was written with the help of a committee of historical, scientific, forensic, and (at last) artistic experts. Here at last is a book - a kind of whole Shroud catalogue - that systematically exposes and explodes the tall tales that have surrounded this remarkable cloth. It begins with a history of the relic, showing how attempts to establish a provenance for it before the mid-1350s fail utterly. There is a lengthy discussion of Jewish burial practices, demonstrating how the Shroud is inconsistent not only with the Gospel of John, but everything else known of how Jews buried their dead. There is an account of Christian iconography as it relates to the style of the image on the Shroud (Erwin Panofsky, Nickell points out, has made some interesting remarks on the subject). And finally, there is a fascinating examination of the mountains of scientific testing and speculation about the properties of the cloth and its image." (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "One of the most striking aspects of Nickell's work is his discovery of a simple rubbing method that produces a negative image remarkably similar to the Shroud's. The technique involves rubbing a cloth that has been anchored over a bas-relief. A full relief statue will not work for this (nor will a body - living, dead, or coming to), as it will produce the splayed distortion mentioned earlier. But a partial relief swill do the trick beautifully, as Nickell's rubbings show. (I have tried this technique, using a full-face partial relief of Beethoven's visage, borrowed from a record album. The image produced by the rubbing turns amazingly - but not quite miraculously lifelike when viewed in a photographic negative.) If we are merely to believe our eyes, the negative photograph of Nickell's rubbing is the single most damning piece of evidence about the Shroud since the d'Arcis memorandum." (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "But one learns early on from Nickell's book that it is an implicit rule of Shroud Science never to accept a simple and obvious explanation when a more remote, convoluted, and intriguing one can be found. Nickell describes many examples of this ludicrous anti-Ockhamism. Take, for instance, the appearance and anatomy of the figure on the Shroud. The first reaction of many who view it is that it resembles a Gothic - perhaps vaguely Byzantine - representation of Christ. Since, as Augustine lamented, the world has no idea what Jesus looked like, the conventionally medieval appearance of the image ought to be evidence for its being an artifact. But wait: if the Shroud is authentic, might it not be that the standard Gothic representations of Jesus are in fact derived from the Shroud, rather than vice versa? And that is precisely the argumentative strategy of most of the Shroud enthusiasts. .... Clues come from Byzantine art. Before the sixth century Christ's face was painted in many ways, but then artists began to render it in a way uncannily resembling the face of the man buried in the Shroud of Turin." (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "And how shall we explain the strange anatomy of the figure on the Shroud? Again, a mere glance indicates that the limbs are of excessive length, the hands and fingers long and spidery. The right arm is longer than the left, and careful measurement shows the total arm span is considerably greater than the height of the figure. Does this show that the image is an artifact? The Shroud Scientists have at least four responses to these anatomical implausibilities. First, they can be simply ignored; this is the most common way of dealing with the problem. Some, on the other hand, claim that the problem does not exist by insisting that there are no anatomical imperfections in the figure. Meacham, for example, agrees with the investigations of Yves Delage in finding the image `anatomically flawless down to minor details.' (This, in the pages of a journal which regularly publishes work in physical anthropology.) Or there is the tack of Heller, who reasons as follows: the image represents a physically possible anatomy, though it is admittedly unlikely for an actual person. Now if the Shroud is a forgery, the forger must have been a very skillful artist - one certainly masterful enough to produce a more convincing figure than the distorted image on the Shroud. In other words, no competent artist could have been that clumsy; therefore the Shroud must not be the work of an artist. The image is bad enough to have been miraculously induced, but too bad to have been an artistic rendering. " (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "One has to admire Nickell's patience and good humor as he guides the reader through this morass, debunking one after another of the pro-authenticity arguments. And there is a small mountain of material to be discussed, such as Jewish burial customs, Christian iconography, the techniques and pathology of crucifixion, artistic conventions for rendering the crucifixion (including the celebrated question of whether the Shroud portrays Christ as nailed through the wrists rather than the palms), the so-called 3-D projection of the figure, theories of image formation, and the appearance and composition of the `blood.' Since the aim of Nickell's book is to reveal and explode the inaccuracies and irrationalities of Shroud Science, he must approach his subject with a seriousness it does not deserve. Inquest on the Shroud of Turin performs a great service, but it naturally has little to say about why thinking people ought to take an interest in Shroud Science in the first place. The attempt to give scientific legitimacy to the Holy Shroud resembles in many respects classical pseudoscience, and some of the Shroud Science publications can generally be placed alongside works proving that Atlantis lies beneath the Caribbean or that UFOs helped build the pyramids." (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "But of all the currently fashionable realms of pseudoscience, the one that it perhaps most resembles is Creation Science, and the similarity is a disturbing one. Like the Creationists, the Shroud Scientists are fond of claiming that they were skeptics before they began their investigations. Nickell's effective rebuttals to this claim are hardly necessary, since it is obvious that STURP was self-selected and that the prime motivation for its members was a religious, rather then scientific, curiosity. Strange though it may be, many STURP members probably do not even understand this about themselves, as witness Heller, who actually says a mere twenty pages from the end of his book, in describing some of his final tests, `I had been assuming all along that the Shroud was a forgery.' Given all that he has revealed up to that point, the reader can only gasp in disbelief. But he is apparently sincere." (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "One has to view less charitably the most common tactic used by Shroud scientists in dealing with the counterarguments of skeptics: the ignoring or active suppression of evidence. The literature on the Shroud contains vigorous refutations of utterly implausible hypotheses for explaining peculiar aspects of the Shroud, especially for the formation of the image. Heller's book provides a good example, when near the conclusion of his discussion he tries to imagine what would have been required for an artist to paint the image as it now appears. He manages quite effectively to make the hypothesis look virtually impossible, thus inclining the reader toward a miraculous event as the best explanation, or at least the only one left. This is the same sort of strategy used to prove that the great Siberian explosion of 1908 was a spacecraft whose `nuclear reactor' overheated or that the Bermuda Triangle is the site of UFO abductions. Among the Shroud Scientists, the most flagrant demonstration of this technique is the way in which Nickell's rubbing methods are ignored or dismissed. Information on Nickell's work has been available since 1979, but the Shroud scientists prefer to make believe it has never happened, as they continue refuting a straw opposition of their own invention." (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "Again, since there is no way rationally to argue for the miraculous, the attempt is to show only how all possible rational explanations - that is, explanations involving artifacture or natural process - are bound to fail. This too has its parallel with Creation Science, where argumentation inevitably takes the form of demonstrations to show that no natural means could produce the marvels of the biological world. In both of these pseudosciences the naive reader is led to believe that something that is eminently possible is really absurd. The absurdity for Creationism is that natural selection could achieve what we see in the biological world; for Shroud Science it is that the image on the cloth could have been made by the hand of a clever medieval artist. " (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "But finally, and most importantly, Shroud Science and Creationism both pretend to a scientific objectivity that they obviously do not possess. In fact, they are both efforts to promote religious beliefs by placing at their service the power and prestige of science. The Resurrection of Jesus is the essential event of a vast and influential religion, and it is fatuous to imagine that the Shroud investigations are merely historical, as Meacham, for example, has insisted. This is clear from the tone and course of argument of much pro- Shroud literature and it is responsible for some intense cheering on the sidelines, from people anxious to find anything that can demonstrate Christianity to be the true religion. Anyone who doubts this ought to look at the National Revieweditorial, `Secularism: Closing Time.' The Shroud proves Christianity is simply true, with `a degree of probability that would have impressed David Hume,' the editorial claims. And if so, I would add, it is not merely school prayer which follows, but, let's face it, Christian prayer. The scientific legitimization of the Shroud of Turin is, as the National Reviewwell understands, fine ammunition for the religious right's attack on the secular state. And this is why the appearance of preposterously uncritical articles on the Shroud in such respected publications as National Geographic, Harper's, and Current Anthropology must not go unchallenged. There is more at stake here than just the internal confusions and silliness of Shroud Science. " (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "But there is no need to end on such a troubled note. The French scholar and priest, Cyr Ulysse Chevalier, who conducted a thorough study of all the documents dealing with the Shroud - it was he who revealed the d'Arcis memorandum to the modern era - was emphatic in his denunciation of the relic: `The history of the Shroud constitutes a protracted violation of the two virtues so often commended by our holy books, justice and truth.' I cite this as a reminder that there are any number of people within Christianity who are more interested in knowing the truth about this remarkable cloth than they are in using it as prop to sustain faith. Perhaps they will have their way and the cloth will someday be carbon dated. That will undoubtedly put an end to the whole episode, except for a few diehards, including some who are already claiming in advance that the cloth is `too contaminated' by modern handling to be accurately carbon tested. In the meantime, there will be lots of fun to be had and money to be made by publishers such as Houghton Mifflin and the folks who bring us the National Enquirer and the National Review." (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "Postscript, 2005: In 1986, reviewing Ian Wilson's Evidence of the Shroud for the Christchurch Press, I predicted that if the cloth ever were to be carbon-dated it would come in at A.D. 1335, plus or minus 30 years. When the Shroud was finally dated and the results came back from the participating laboratories, the collated result was A.D. 1325, plus or minus 65 years. I was ten years off. ... Not that this will make any difference to the Shroud Crowd. I was also right that some of them now claim that the cloth has been so contaminated by modern handling that a proper dating could not be achieved. Walter McCrone has dealt with this decisively. Here is a quotation from McCrone's website. ... `The results fully confirmed Dr. McCrone's results and further proved the image was painted twice-once with red ochre, followed by vermilion to enhance the blood-image areas. The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambéry fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-14 dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20thcentury carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st-century date to the 14th century (see C-14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.'" (Dutton, D., "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, 1984, pp.243-255) 10/08/2007 "What is evolution? Evolution in the broadest sense explains that what we see today is different from what existed in the past. Galaxies, stars, the solar system, and Earth have changed through time, and so has life on Earth. Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on Earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, biological processes such as natural selection give rise to new species. Darwin called this process `descent with modification,' which remains a good definition of biological evolution today." ("Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences," National Academy Press: Washington DC, Second Edition, 1999, p.27. Emphasis original) 10/08/2007 "FOR MORE than half a century, scholars in the most divergent fields have been at loggerheads over the authenticity of what is commonly called the Shroud of Turin. An immense literature both pro and con has grown up over the decades. The Cloth in question is a piece of linen, 171 inches long by 43Ľ inches wide (4.36 by 1.10 m.), preserved in a chapel of the cathedral of Turin. The Cloth today is marred by numerous burn marks and water stains, sustained in 1532, during a fire in the castle chapel of Chambéry. But over and above these, it has peculiar markings of its own-the frontal and dorsal image of a full grown man. Those defending its authenticity - surprisingly enough they include scientists and medical men for the most part - are convinced that this Cloth is the actual Shroud of Jesus Christ, with the natural imprint of His sacred body. Those opposed - chiefly historians and exegetes, by no means hostile to the Church - are equally as convinced that it is the work of a mid-fourteenth century French artist." (Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, 1957, p.1. Emphasis original) 11/08/2007 "Baumgarten stated in 1903 that more than 3500 articles, books, etc., had at that time been written upon the Holy Shroud. The most important is CHEVALIER, Etude critique sur l'origine du saint suaire (Paris, 1900). Some useful details are added by MÉLY, Le saint suaire de Turin est-il authentique? (Parish, 1902). Baumgarten in Historiches Jahrbuch (Munich, 1903), 319-43, shows that the preponderance of Catholic opinion is greatly against the authenticity of the shroud. See also BRAUN in Stimmen aus Maria-Loach, LXIII (1902), 249 sqq. And 398 sqq.; THURSTON in The Month (London, Jan. and Feb., 1903) and in Revue du clergé francais (15 Nov. and 15 Dec., 1902). In favour of the shroud may be mentioned VIGNON, Le linceul du Christ (Paris, 1902) also in English translation; MACKEY in Dublin Review (Jan., 1903); DE JOHANNIS in Etudes (Paris, 1902 and Nov., 1910); LOTH, La photographie du s. suaire de Turin, documents nouveaux et concluants (Paris, 1910), the promise of `new and conclusive documents' is by no means justified; GARROLD in The Tablet, CXVII ( 1 and 8 April, London, 1911), Esplicatione del lenzuolo (Bologna, 1598 and 1599): MALLONIUS, Jesu Christi stigmata sacra sindoni impressa (Venice, 1606); CHIFFLET, De linteis sepulchralibus (Antwerp, 1624)." (Thurston, H., "The Holy Shroud (of Turin)," The Catholic Encyclopedia, Robert Appleton Co: New York, Volume XIII, 1912. New Advent, 27 March 2007) 11/08/2007 "So, having been discredited by its apparently fatal blow from carbon-14, the shroud seems to be coming back from the dead. For many, these latest developments only confirm what they have believed all along. There is a vast international Turin shroud culture and industry. It has its own ology - sindonology, the study of the shroud. Shroud.com lists 29 centres of sindonological research and information in the US alone. There are international conferences, journals and newsletters in several languages, and you can buy CDs and CD ROMs, books and videos, and framed prints up to life size. The Catholic church has prayers and liturgy for shroud-related worship, and it even has its own feast day, 4 May. Believers - not all Catholic by any means - point to many features of the mysterious linen that are hard for sceptics to explain: Why are the bloody nail prints on the wrists, when all medieval art depicted Jesus nailed to the cross by his hands? How did the 12th Century Hungarian `Pray Manuscript' come to depict Jesus being wrapped in the shroud - with authentic herringbone pattern and burn marks - 100 years before carbon-dating says the material originated? What would possess a 14th Century forger to design the fabricated face in negative - a fact that only emerged when it was first photographed in 1898? Doesn't the evidence for medieval repair of the cloth and sooty deposits from a 1532 fire challenge the carbon-dating? Shroud enthusiasts come from all walks of life, and all Christian denominations. Those who have written and lectured about its authenticity include professors of archeology, philosophy, history, chemistry, engineering, and surgery, though not sindonology. It is not surprising to find priests in their midst, but more surprising that believers included the controversial liberal Bishop of Woolwich John Robinson, of Honest To God fame. Of course there are conspiracy theorists and far-fetched mystics too, but they seem to be outnumbered by scientists. Judging by the three million who queued to see the linen when it was exhibited in 2000, it seems the average shroud fan is simply an ordinary Christian believer." (Tomkins, S., "Wrapped in the shroud," BBC, 14 April, 2004) 13/08/2007 "That high personal respect for the science upon which the dating result had been based was very much my difficulty also. Invented in the 1940s by Chicago physicist Willard F Libby, radiocarbon dating is founded on the principle that all living things, while they are alive, take in the very mildly radioactive isotope carbon 14 which `decays' at a steady rate on death, relative to the stable carbon 12. Libby's achievement was to develop a form of Geiger counter to measure this `decay' in samples of ancient organic material, whether the skin and bones of a body or the flax of linen fabric, and thereby read when the original living organism had died, rather in the manner of reading an atomic clock. Although the need for certain adjustments of this clock became evident when datings of ancient wood samples were checked against tree-ring dating, these re-calibrations have long been routine for every test conducted. Further, the last two decades have seen the invention and development of the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) version of radiocarbon dating, which can date samples hundredths of the size originally needed by the Libby method; in the case of linen cloth the size was reduced from pocket handkerchief to fingernail. This, therefore, made it the ideal choice for the Shroud. As a result of its minimally destructive properties AMS has steadily been taking over from its older counterpart, and radiocarbon dating in general has become a thoroughly well-established technology called upon whenever archaeologists around the world seek hard dates for ancient materials that they have unearthed. Indeed, such was my personal confidence in the technique that as long ago as the late 1970s, in my first book on the Shroud, I unequivocally advocated the AMS version of radiocarbon dating, which was then just emerging, for the Shroud. At around this same time I also struck up an amicable acquaintance with some of the leading scientists in the field, among them Dr Bob Otlet of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE) Harwell, who had done a great deal to refine the Libby `proportional counter' method, Prof. Harry Gove of Rochester, New York, who pioneered the small sample AMS method, Prof. Paul Damon of the Arizona AMS laboratory, Prof. Teddy Hall of the Oxford AMS laboratory and Dr Michael Tite of the British Museum's laboratory. All the last three would ultimately take part in the Shroud carbon dating. During the run-up to the sample-taking for this in April 1988, also during the nail-biting months while the result was awaited, I was in cordial touch with these men, all highly respected, world-class experts in their field. So, when I learnt of their findings, blithely to reject them out of hand because they conflicted with my long-held understanding of the Shroud's date was simply not an option." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books Limited: London, 2000, p.96) 13/08/2007 "The Shroud of Turin, the traditional burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, is made of fine linen measuring 4.35 m long by 1.1 m wide. It bears the full-length front and back images of a crucified man and many other less conspicuous images on the imaged body itself and on both sides of the linen shroud extending to its edges." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.3) 13/08/2007 "The burial cloth known today as the Shroud of Turin has been kept in the city of Turin (Torino), Italy, since 1578. In 1694, the Shroud was placed in a special chapel within the Italian cathedral of St. John the Baptist. Except for a brief period during World War II when the cloth was moved elsewhere for safety, the Shroud remained in this cathedral until the night of April 11, 1997, when a raging fire necessitated its removal. The Shroud was not damaged, and was kept elsewhere in the city until again placed in the cathedral for public display from April 18 through June 14, 1998 (Van Biema, 1998)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.3) 13/08/2007 "Modern history of the Shroud is well documented (Wilson, 1998) and dates from 1357, when Geoffrey de Charny, a French nobleman, displayed the cloth to the public in the village of Lirey, France, as the true burial shroud of Jesus. In 1453, his granddaughter Margaret de Charny transferred ownership of the Shroud to the ruling house of Italy, the Savoy family. It remained in their custody and under their protection until the death of the exiled king of Italy, Umberto II, in 1983, at which time by King Umberto's will it became the property of the Vatican." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.3) 13/08/2007 "Evidence for the early origin and history of the Shroud and its images is abundant and well documented. There are various accounts of the Shroud's very early history (Wilson, 1979, 1998), and all contribute to the overall pattern of the Shroud's movements. This historical documentation of the Shroud's location is of importance in analyzing and understanding the distribution of floral images and the pollen grain distribution found on the Shroud." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.3) 13/08/2007 "All four Gospels in the New Testament mention a burial cloth or burial cloths of Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, John 19:40). Based on the fourth Gospel account (John 20:3-8) it has been postulated that what the disciple saw were the images on the cloth now known as the Shroud of Turin (Whanger & Whanger, 1998). " (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.3) 13/08/2007 "While examining the city records of Edessa (now Urfa, Turkey), the early Church historian Eusebius (263339 AD) found evidence that an object, presumably a cloth with an image, was taken to King Abgar V by Thaddeus, one of Jesus' disciples, in the year 30 AD and that the king was concomitantly healed from an ailment, possibly leprosy (Eusebius, 1965 [translation]). The giving of the cloth to King Abgar is depicted in a 10th century icon kept in St. Catherine's Monastery, in southern Sinai, Egypt. Wilson (1979) was first to observe that this cloth, known as the Mandylion, may represent the actual burial shroud of Jesus. This cloth was folded into eight thicknesses and placed in a cloth envelope with a circular opening revealing only the facial image. This envelope containing the blood-stained linen cloth was suspended in a frame, with a decorative trellis covering all but the facial view." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, pp.3-4) 13/08/2007 "The face on the cloth presented to King Abgar rapidly became very well known and highly regarded along the main trade routes from the Mediterranean to the Far East. Edessa was one of the major cities on these well-traveled routes (Segal, 1970). Abgar had a tile copy of the facial image mounted above the city gate. The story of Abgar's healing by the presence of this image spread rapidly, and similar facial attributes were incorporated into regional deities (Whanger & Whanger, 1998). Dated statues of various gods have been found along the trade routes with heads rather accurately based on the facial image located in Edessa. One of these statues dates by inscription to 31 AD, another to 54 AD. This Mandylion face is also the basis for many of the portraits of Jesus found in the catacombs of Rome from the 3rd and 4th centuries, perhaps dating to even the 2nd century." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.4) 13/08/2007 "When King Abgar's successor began to persecute the Christians in 57 AD, the Mandylion [= Shroud] was hidden for safekeeping. The cloth then dropped from historic mention for the next four centuries, and after some years its whereabouts were no longer known. Then according to Wilson (1979) about one-third of the city of Edessa was destroyed in 525 AD by a massive flood. While repairing the city walls, a team of workmen found the Mandylion sealed in a niche above a city gate. It had been so well known that it was immediately recognized, and the largest church in the city was built to house this linen relic (Wilson, 1979)." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.4) 13/08/2007 "In 944 AD, Romanus I, Emperor of the Byzantine Empire, announced his intention to bring this well-known treasure to Constantinople to add it to his collection of Christian relics (Runciman, 1963). Because the people of Edessa were unwilling to relinquish it, Romanus sent an army of 12,000 to the city Edessa to obtain the Mandylion. Finally, after a six-month siege, it was brought in triumph to Constantinople, and there were elaborate celebrations. Icons were painted and gold coins were struck to commemorate the event (Wilson, 1986)." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.4) 13/08/2007 "Judging by artistic depictions of the time, it appears probable that during its stay in Constantinople, about the mid-11th century, the cloth was removed from its protective envelope. It was found not to be only a small cloth imaging a face but a full-length burial shroud bearing the entire images of a crucified man (Wilson, 1986) and other objects." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998)." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.4) 13/08/2007 "The Shroud remained in Constantinople until 1204, when the Fourth Crusaders carried off many of its relics, including the Shroud. Its subsequent locations between 1204 and 1357 are less well documented than during any other historic period. There is evidence suggesting that it was in the possession of the Knights Templar. It may have been carried to France, possibly residing there until King Philip IV of France attempted to destroy the Order of the Templars in 1307. At this time it may have been transferred to England, and indeed, there is a painting with high correspondence to the Shroud face found in a Templar meeting place in Templecombe, England (Morgan, 1998). It is likely that it was smuggled back into France about the mid-14th century, shortly before it went on public display there in 1357 (Morgan, 1998)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, pp.4-5) 13/08/2007 "The accuracy of the carbon-14 dating tests, which determined the origin of the linen of the Shroud to be between 1260 AD and 1390 AD (Damon et al., 1989), must be addressed. There were major changes in the original testing protocol before any sample was initially collected, which allowed operational flaws yielding results of questionable validity for the Shroud as a whole. We are not challenging the precision of the carbon-14 test results of the single peripheral sample removed at that time. However, the premise underlying the carbon dating presupposes that no additional carbon-14 has been added to the specimen at any point in time, and that the one sample is representative of the entire linen material. It should be noted that the recommended number of seven carbon testing laboratories was reduced to only three (Dinegar & Schwalbe, 1989). Further, the original plan was to take seven different samples from seven different locations of the cloth. In actuality only one linen sample was removed, and that sample was divided among only three testing laboratories (Gove, 1996)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.5) 13/08/2007 "Also noteworthy was that the physical linen sample itself was removed from one of the most soiled places on the Shroud, which also is near a burn scorch and a water stain. Standardized, pretest cleaning methods for radiocarbon dating for cloth with such massive and historic contamination as the Shroud have not been adequately tested (Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996). In addition, this solitary sample was removed from an area that had been damaged and possibly reinforced or repaired. The linen sample, which initially measured 8.1 x 1.6 cm, included a hand-stitched seam of uncertain age, but possibly even 17th century origin, which runs along one side of the Shroud. This seam was separated from the sample before the testing. However, an x- ray of the fabric (see from the x-ray photos of STURP = Shroud of Turin Research Project, 1978) region where the sample was taken reveals apparent additional novel threads extending out about 4 cm from the seam into the fabric. Frame-by-frame analysis of the videotape of the actual Shroud sample removal evinces the pulling of these extra threads (Adler et al., 1997; Whanger & Whanger, 1998)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.5) 13/08/2007 "Many of the pretest examinations of the fabric recommended in the original protocol were not conducted. These would have ascertained any masking contaminants that would perhaps skew the carbon-14 results. Later chemical analysis of several fibers from the solitary sample removed for carbon dating revealed that the chemical composition of that sample is markedly different from that of fibers from many other areas of the Shroud (Adler, 1996)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, pp.5-6) 13/08/2007 "Living fungi and bacteria have been discovered growing inside the fibers of the Shroud, representing potential carbon contaminants for the carbon-14 studies (Gove et al, 1997). To what extent the carbon-14 content of the cloth was altered by the intense heat of a 1532 fire, which caused the burn marks and the water stains on the Shroud, is not known. Research has shown that significant increase in carbon 14 may take place under the unusual circumstances that might have been present during the fire (Jackson & Propp, 1998)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.6) 13/08/2007 "The exact mechanisms by which the images on the Shroud were formed are not known, but they are speculated to be some type or types of radiation. The process may even have possibly included a neutron flux, which could have produced additional carbon 14 in the molecular structure of the flax fibers themselves, thus yielding an erroneously young age." (Trenn, 1996)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.6) 13/08/2007 "In addition to the questions regarding the carbon-14 dating (Damon et al., 1989), artistic documentation exists for the bimillenial history suggested for the Shroud." (Trenn, 1996)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.6) 13/08/2007 "The Shroud of Turin, called by some the Holy Shroud, is an ancient piece of linen fourteen feet three inches long by three feet seven inches wide which bears many images, the most noticeable of which are the front and back images of a crucified man. It has been housed in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, since 1578, and may well be the most intensively studied single object in history. Traditionally, it has been known as the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. It is kept rolled on a wooden cylinder inside an ornately decorated silver box, and in modern times has been unrolled and displayed for public viewing generally about once a generation." (Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, 1998, p.4) 13/08/2007 "The last such viewing was in 1978, when some three and one-half million people standing in long lines filed by to see it. Immediately afterward, an international team of scientists (Shroud of Turin Research Project, or STURP) was given access to the Shroud twenty-four hours a day for five days to carry out many non- destructive scientific testing procedures? These were designed mainly to try to find out how the images were made. Over one thousand different tests and thirty-two thousand photographs by about forty of the world's top scientists and researchers revealed an abundance of detailed information about the Shroud, but failed to answer the question of what formed the images on the linen. All attempts to duplicate the images have failed. There are other ancient linen burial shrouds in existence, some of which bear smudges, but none of which bear images." (Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, 1998, pp.4-5) 13/08/2007 "Clearly, the Shroud of Turin is a unique object that has yet to yield all its secrets. Where did it come from? For a detailed and carefully documented study of the history of the Shroud of Turin, I refer you to the book The Shroud of Turin by Ian Wilson. Briefly, the history is as follows. In the year A.D. 30, King Abgar V of Edessa, which is now the city of Urfa in Turkey but then was the capital of Osrhoene, a small state about four hundred miles north of Jerusalem, sent a message to the healer in Israel, Jesus of Nazareth. Abgar wanted Jesus to come to Edessa to heal him of some ailment, possibly leprosy, that his own healers had not been able to cure. Jesus reputedly replied in a letter that he himself could not come because he had to complete his work in Israel, but he would send one of his helpers later. Some Eastern Orthodox churches have copies of the reputed letter from Jesus to Abgar. Shortly after this exchange, Jesus was crucified. Eusebius (A.D. 263-339) reported in his history of the early church that an object, presumably a cloth with an image, was taken to King Abgar by one of Jesus' disciples in A.D. 30 and that King Abgar was healed. Ian Wilson speculates ... that this cloth was the shroud of Jesus folded into eight thicknesses and placed in a cloth envelope with a circular opening showing only the face so as to hide the fact that it was a bloody shroud. The envelope with the cloth was then suspended in a frame, and the whole (except for the opening) may have been covered by some kind of decorative trellis. There is an icon, dating to the tenth century, in Saint Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai depicting one of the disciples, Thaddeus (probably another name for Judas the Zealot), bringing a cloth bearing the image of a face, traditionally that of Jesus, to King Abgar V The cloth depicted in this icon was known as the Mandylion, which means `face cloth' or `handkerchief,' and the image it bore was known as one `not made with hands.' In thanksgiving and praise for his restored health, Abgar became a believer in Jesus, declared his city's allegiance to Jesus, and invited Thaddeus to stay and heal and preach. A community of believers was established." (Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, 1998, p.5) 14/08/2007 "THE three Synoptic Evangelists, Saints Matthew, Mark and Luke, tell us that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Our Lord in a Sindon (Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46; Luke xxiii. 53). The Sindon was a large white linen sheet that covered the entire body. The Evangelists carefully distinguish between it and the sudarium (napkin), which latter was in shape and size like a handkerchief, 1 and was used for the head. In addition, as we know from St. John (xix. 40), linen cloths (ta othonia) were used, with spices, according to Jewish custom. After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb. St. John tells us that Peter `saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place' (xx. 6, 7). And St. Luke tells us that `Peter rising up, ran to the sepulchre, and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths laid by themselves' (xxiv. 12)." (Beecher, P.A., "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, 1928, p.16) 14/08/2007 "What became of the Sindon? Saints Matthew and Mark are silent and make no reference to any cloths in the tomb. St. John still speaks of bandages and of the napkin. His silence about the Sindon would have no special significance, inasmuch as he did not refer to it before. But the fact that St. Luke does not now mention the Sindon, which had occupied his attention previously, but speaks of cloths (lintearnina) instead, would indicate that the Sindon was not in the tomb. And this is very significant in connection with what St. Jerome tells us, on the authority of the Gospel to the Hebrews (a work from which he often quotes), namely, that Our Lord kept His Sindon with Him when He arose from the dead. This would make it even more precious." (Beecher, P.A., "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, 1928, pp.16-17) 14/08/2007 "We next ask, what is the Holy Shroud of Turin? It is a piece of very fine, oriental material, fourteen feet in length and about three and a half in width, on which can be traced the figure of a man, very tall and dignified in appearance, with a face of surpassing majesty.-See Plate VI. It reveals a double figure, that is, the front and back of the same person. The back shows that he is completely naked, and the back shows also, from head to feet, the traces of a terrible scourging. It is claimed that that Shroud is the Sindon of Our Lord, in which Joseph of Arimathea wrapped His body, and that the figure we see on it is that of Our Lord Himself. " (Beecher, P.A., "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, 1928, p.17) 14/08/2007 "In November 1973 Cardinal Pellegrino, Archbishop of Turin, agreed that the Santa Sindone, or Shroud of Turin, should be shown for the first time on television. It was seen throughout Europe and in parts of South America; the pope spoke about it in the course of the programme, and it was shown to an international group of journalists the day before the television broadcast. On Thursday 22 November the cardinal addressed the gathering, explaining why he had chosen this modern method of showing the Shroud in preference to the more traditional expositions of the past. Television would enable millions more people to see the Shroud in detail with little or no risk to the fabric itself. ... Since that press conference in 1973 the Shroud has been examined by experts from many disciplines and many countries. The list is impressive, and includes textile specialists, haematologists, historians and genealogists, theologians, forensic scientists, physicists, photographers, criminologists, space scientists, numismatists, art historians - all of whom have contributed new information from their individual fields, but none of whom has yet been able to prove conclusively-and I stress the word `conclusively' - that the relic is a medieval forgery." (Currer-Briggs, N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, pp.30-31) 14/08/2007 "Yet the mystery surrounding the Shroud, far from being cleared up by all this effort, has, if anything, grown as deep and as fast as the case for its authenticity. For now the onus is on those who doubt its authenticity to explain how, when and why it was made; for whom it was made; who was this otherwise unknown genius who painted or created it. His knowledge of human anatomy rivals that of Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, yet he must have lived and worked in total obscurity in fourteenth-century Burgundy. Why have we never heard of him - or, I suppose, since we live in an egalitarian age - her?" (Currer-Briggs, N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, p.31) 14/08/2007 "Having said this, it is not part of my case to claim that the Shroud is authentic. That must wait for more evidence. I do, however, claim that it has existed for at least a thousand years, and that it is the same sacred object with which the Holy Grail was so intimately linked in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. ... I do not write so much for those who already believe in Christ as for those, like myself, who consider themselves agnostics. ... That there should still survive a cloth which may have been used at Christ's burial does not seem to me to be any more, or any less, miraculous than that the Dead Sea Scrolls or the treasure of Tutankhamen should have survived." (Currer-Briggs, N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, pp.31-32. Emphasis original) 14/08/2007 "Indeed, the survival of relics of famous men is an interesting subject in its own right. Keeping relics is a natural, human impulse. In the immediate aftermath of the Crucifixion when the cloth with its strange markings, which even modern science has so far failed to explain, was found, it would have been extremely odd if it had not been carefully preserved. Indeed, the very fact that the burial cloths bore these inexplicable markings could well have cancelled out their ritual uncleanliness. ... In the case of the Shroud and this present study, only scientific dating can `prove' how old it is. All the textile experts and numismatists, all the botanists and forensic scientists in the world can only draw our attention to certain of its features and provide us with a little more circumstantial evidence in support of its authenticity. They have shown (to my satisfaction, at least) that the cloth we see today was certainly in existence at the time the Grail legends first appeared in Western literature, and that it had been in existence for at least three hundred years before that." (Currer-Briggs, N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, p.32) 14/08/2007 "The exposition of the Shroud in November 1973 took place in the Hall of the Swiss in the former royal palace of the Dukes of Savoy and Kings of Italy in Turin. It was suspended in a plain, wooden frame fastened at the top by a batten. Its full length hung down, in contrast to previous expositions which had always displayed it horizontally. The linen, although sear with age, looked surprisingly clean and where it had not been damaged by fire and water, and where it had not been patched, the herringbone weave of the cloth was in remarkably good condition, resembling a coarse twill bed sheet. It measures 14 feet 3 inches in length and 3 feet 7 inches wide. It is made in a single piece, apart from a strip about 3˝ inches wide running the length of the left-hand side and joined by a single seam." (Currer-Briggs, N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, p.32) 14/08/2007 "What makes this linen cloth so extraordinary is the frontal and dorsal image of a man just under six feet tall with a powerful and well-proportioned physique, the limbs well formed and without any obvious signs of a life given to undue physical labour. The only exception to this is that the right shoulder appears a little lower than the left, a feature more pronounced in the dorsal image than in the frontal. Perhaps one arm was dislocated during the process of crucifixion? The face is bearded and the man wears his hair long. The hands are folded over the lower abdomen or pelvic region, as in death, the left over the right." (Currer-Briggs N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, pp.32-33) 14/08/2007 "The figure appears like a shadow on the cloth, and is of a colour not unlike that made by a domestic iron which has scorched the cloth of the ironing board. To those who have never seen a photograph of it, the two figures (front and dorsal) appear head to head, suggesting that the body was laid on one end of the cloth while the remainder was drawn over the head and down to the feet. The face on the frontal image has a mask-like quality and in some degree seems to be detached from the rest of the body: the crossed arms are likewise particularly well defined, and so are the thighs and upper part of the shins. The rest of the body is somewhat blurred." (Currer-Briggs, N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, p.33) 14/08/2007 "There is absolutely no trace of any paint or colouring matter, a fact which has baffled sceptics even more than believers. Another curious feature of the image is a total lack of outline: the legs on the frontal image and the greater part of the dorsal image are indefinite and fade away in a blur, quite unlike any painting one has ever seen. This same blurred effect applies also to the apparent blood and sweat stains." (Currer-Briggs N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, p.33) 14/08/2007 "On the upper forehead there are flows from wounds just below the hairline, and on the dorsal image at the back of the head. There are more blood flows from the wrists and feet. The side has been wounded and a massive quantity of blood has flowed from it. More traces of blood can be seen on the dorsal image across the small of the back, possibly from this same wound. These stains in ordinary light appear very much the same colour as the body stains, but under bright television lights they appeared a quite different colour, almost a clear, pale carmine, with a hint of mauve. Even when looked at through a magnifying glass, the wounds carry no trace of matter such as might be expected if the cloth had been in touch with a major injury. In other words, these are not the remains of blood clots. Equally strange, they appear to bear no visible trace of pigments either. Nevertheless, a chemical analysis of fibres taken from these parts of the cloth does reveal the existence of iron oxide, present always in blood." (Currer-Briggs, N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, p.33) 14/08/2007 "Numerous paintings of the Shroud exist, some of them dating from as early as the fourteenth century, but none of them adequately reproduces the original: they appear, without exception, crude and sharply defined. These copies are useful for the record they provide of various incidents in the Shroud's history. All copies painted since about 1540 show the figure framed by the ugly, arrow-shaped patches, which were added after the Shroud had narrowly escaped destruction in a fire which destroyed the chapel in Chambéry, where it was then kept, in December 1532." (Currer-Briggs, N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, pp.33-34) 14/08/2007 "This fire was not the only one in which the Shroud suffered damage. There was another, unquestionably earlier, but exactly when is not certain. Its occurrence is apparent from four sets of triple holes in the linen, which can be identified in a painting made in 1516 and kept at Lierre in Belgium. The charring at the edges of the holes is blacker than what one can see of the 1532 damage. They seem to have been made by something like a red-hot poker. If the Shroud is folded once lengthwise and once widthwise the holes match up exactly and appear to be in the exact centre of this folding arrangement, which leaves one with the impression that the burning was done deliberately. Ian Wilson suggests that at some time the Shroud may have been subjected to an `ordeal by fire'. When this may have been is uncertain, but Dr W. K. Müller thinks that it took place in the Holy Land in about 1225 or thereabouts. Whenever it occurred, it was certainly before the sixteenth century." (Currer-Briggs, N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, p.34) 14/08/2007 "So much for the physical appearance of the Shroud of Turin: what of its history? There is no dispute about this as far back as 1453, for in that year it came into the possession of Duke Louis of Savoy and his wife, Anne of Lusignan, after somewhat obscure negotiations with its former owner, an elderly French noblewoman called Marguerite de Charny, Comtesse de Villersexel. There is a good deal of evidence of its history during the previous one hundred years from 1353, when it was the property of Marguerite's father and grandfather. Before that there is a gap of a century and a half, during which time its history can be traced circumstantially, but with no absolute certainty. Before 1204, in which year it vanished from Constantinople in circumstances which will be described in due course, its history can be traced once more to 944, though there is an alternative history which takes it back to the fifth century. " (Currer-Briggs, N., "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, 1987, p.34) 14/08/2007 "The last [in 1995] public exhibition of the Shroud took place in November 1973 in the Hall of the Swiss in the former royal palace of the Dukes of Savoy and Kings of Italy in Turin. ... The linen, although sear with age, looked surprisingly clean and where it had not been damaged by fire and water, and where it had not been patched, the herringbone weave of the cloth was in remarkably good condition, resembling a coarse twill bed-sheet. The cloth is a three-to-one herringbone twill technically known as samite from the Latin examitum, a six-thread weave in wool, silk or linen. Most known Palestinian, Roman and Egyptian linens from around the time of Christ tend to be woven in a simple one-over-one-under style. This more complex three-to-one twill is certainly not unknown from this period, but it is usually found in silks rather than in linen. Indeed, the lack of contemporary linen samples does not by itself invalidate the authenticity of the Shroud, though it does suggest that it was of a somewhat more costly manufacture than was usual for a burial cloth." (Currer-Briggs, N., "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, 1995, pp.10-11) 14/08/2007 "When small samples of the cloth were microscopically examined by Professor Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology traces of cotton were found, which convinced him and other experts that wherever the cloth had been woven, it was done on a loom that had also been used to weave cotton. These traces corresponded to the species Gossypium herbaceum. That cotton was found at all is significant, for its presence proves conclusively that the fabric did not come from France or northern Europe where cotton does not grow, and where it was not woven until the coming of the industrial age." (Currer-Briggs, N., "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, 1995, p.11) 14/08/2007 "In his 1976 report, Professor Raes established that the side strip and main body of the Shroud, although of the same type of weave, were probably of different manufacture. The side strip is essential to make the image central on the cloth as a whole, and it has been suggested, with some justification, that it was put there to replace a strip cut off at some time so that samples of the Shroud could be distributed as relics to churches and individuals. This certainly seems a logical explanation and, if correct, whoever replaced the strip did so very close to the time of the original manufacture in order to obtain such a closely compatible piece of linen. In addition, whoever replaced the strip does not seem to have been concerned that it was not quite as long as the Shroud itself, there being a short piece missing at either end which, as far as one can tell, was not merely cut off but was never there in the first place." (Currer-Briggs, N., "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, 1995, p.11) 14/08/2007 "As it exists today, the Shroud measures 14 feet 3 inches in length and 3 feet 7 inches wide (4.34m x 1.09m). ... It is made in a single piece (apart from the strip I have just mentioned), but what makes the cloth so extraordinary is the frontal and dorsal image of a man just under six feet tall, with a powerful well- proportioned physique, the limbs well formed and without any obvious signs of a life given to undue physical stress." (Currer-Briggs, N., "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, 1995, p.11) 14/08/2007 "Shooting the Fox There are two main ways of dealing with foxes. Ladies and gentlemen dress up smartly, mount fine horses, and have a splendid time chasing them all over the countryside before finally watching them being torn to bits by hounds. Farmers shoot them. It is considered unsporting but is quick and effective. For our present purposes to shoot a fox is to bring an argument to a sudden conclusion by cutting through the peripherals and getting to the heart of the matter in one stroke. Often people get to love an argument for its own sake. Indeed they can get so wrapped up in it that they lose sight of its original purpose. If you have the wit and presence of mind to grasp what is essential you can score a speedy and decisive victory. Take as an example the controversy surrounding the Shroud of Turin. This holy relic was traditionally supposed to be the shroud that had covered the body of Christ. In some miraculous way the image of Jesus' body had become printed on the cloth and could, using a photographic negative, be clearly seen. But was it genuine? It was a truly fascinating argument with endless ramifications. For example, the image was only clearly visible, as mentioned before, if you first photographed the cloth and then viewed the photographic negative. Yet, even if the shroud was, as some suspected, a fake, it certainly predated the invention of photography by many years. How could anyone produce a fake that was only visible using a process that had not yet been invented? The complications were endless. The nail holes in the body were in the correct place. Traditionally painters and sculptors had shown Christ's wounds to be in his hands. Anatomically and historically this was nonsense because the hands would not have borne such a weight. The actual method of crucifixion was to drive the nails through the wrist bones. The shroud showed this quite accurately. On the other hand the image on the shroud showed the hands modestly covering the genitals, but if a body has been `laid out' the hands would not normally reach so far. Also the image showed that blood had run from the wounds. Biblical evidence tells us that the body was washed before burial and, of course, dead bodies do not bleed. This argument looked set to go on for ever. It got extremely heated and some of the scholars involved got so emotionally and intellectually bound up in the struggle that religious conversions were reported to have taken place among them. Then, at long last, permission was given to take a small portion of the shroud and subject it to carbon dating. The results were conclusive. The cloth was of such late manufacture that the image could not be genuine. The fox had been shot. In a way it was a pity that such an entertaining argument should come to such an abrupt end. Many of the issues that had been raised were interesting and worthy of serious consideration but, once the fox was dead, they were quickly disregarded by all but a dedicated few." (Allen, R., "How To Win Arguments: The Complete Guide To Coming Out On Top," Thorsons: London, 1996, pp.71-72. Emphasis original) 14/08/2007 "Because the Shroud of Turin has been the object of devout attention for so many centuries, a special term was devised to refer to those people who have dedicated themselves to its study. They are called `Sindonologists', which comes from the Greek term sindon, which means `garment' or `sheet'. These Shroudies, as they are sometimes called, are always eager for fresh information that may shed light on the mysteries of the Shroud. I think, perhaps, they hope that each bit of information will help to prove the Shroud's authenticity. Since I did not have such a personal stake in the Shroud, I was spared the shock that many enthusiasts had on October 13, 1988, when it was announced, in Turin and in London, that the Shroud had been found to date from between 1260 and 1390 and must therefore be a medieval fake. Although this was treated as important news, printed on front pages around the world, the announcement did not come as a surprise to me. I knew that doubts about the Shroud's authenticity had been expressed over the centuries. In 1389, in fact, a French clergyman, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, wrote, of the Shroud, then being exhibited in the small French village of Lirey, that he had learned it was `a work of human skill, and not divinely wrought or bestowed'. Similar doubts were voiced over the years, but in May 1898 they were largely dispelled when an Italian councillor, Secondo Pia, took the first official photograph of the cloth. To everyone's surprise, the negative plate revealed a startlingly lifelike `photograph', which had been invisible to the human eye until then." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, p.5) 14/08/2007 "As photography advanced, a picture taken in the 1930s confirmed that the image on the negative plate was neither an accident nor a sham. And with the aid of these better photographs, physicians around the world- Dr Pierre Barbet in France, Dr David Willis in England, Dr Hermann Moedder in Germany, Dr Judica- Cordiglia in Italy, Dr Robert Bucklin in the United States, and others-began a close study of the physiognomy of the person pictured on the Shroud. They became convinced that the image was that of someone who had been crucified in the same manner as Jesus of Nazareth. Anatomically and physiologically, the image was too convincing to be the handiwork of a medieval artist." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.5-6) 14/08/2007 "On this point it is helpful to remember that the idea of a 'realistic' looking image is different today from what it was in the Middle Ages. Not until Leonardo da Vinci, in the fifteenth century, did post-Classical artists begin to pay attention to the details of human anatomy. I recalled, too, that the trees in the paintings of Giotto, the Florentine painter of the thirteenth century, the same period in which carbon dating placed the Shroud, were praised by his contemporaries for their realism. Yet when we look at these pictures today, they are more likely to remind us of pieces of broccoli than of trees. Our contemporary idea of a lifelike image has been significantly changed by photographic and electronic imaging. So it is surely impressive that we- especially physicians-can see on the Shroud an impeccably realistic image of a human figure." (Garza- Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, p.6) 14/08/2007 "More support for the Shroud's authenticity appeared during the 1970s when the Swiss criminologist Dr Max Frei discovered and identified pollen grains in the dust on the Shroud. The pollen was from plants unique to the Holy Land and to Turkey, proving that the Shroud had at some time been exposed to the air in these places. Reinforcement came in 1978, when the American STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project), comprising about thirty scientists from the Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratory the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and other American scientific institutions, carried out a five-day close examination of the Shroud of Turin. Their tests included microscopy, infrared spectroscopy, X-radiography, and the examination of over thirty samples, from both image and blank areas, collected on small strips of specially formulated sticky tape. (Little did I know that years later I would be allowed to study one of the tape samples of a suspected bloodstain.) In their subsequent published reports, the STURP scientists concluded that the Shroud's image was not paint but some kind of degradation of the cellulose (oxidative dehydration), a chemical reaction caused by the release of energy at the time of the Resurrection. ... They further confirmed that the marks the faithful had for many years identified as bloodstains-though detractors said they were merely some sort of pigment-had indeed been made by blood." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.6-7) 14/08/2007 "Also in 1978 the English writer Ian Wilson identified the Shroud as a historically known cloth that had been kept, between 944 until its disappearance in 1204, in the Turkish city of Edessa (modern-day Urfa) and then in Constantinople.. This seemed consistent with the pollen findings, and partly explained where the Shroud had been before Bishop d'Arcis noted its appearance in the village of Lirey in the late fourteenth century." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.6-7) 14/08/2007 "These findings seemed to support the idea that the Shroud truly was a sort of portrait of Jesus' Resurrection-a divine gift to the materialism of the times in which we live. There was, however, one further scientific test-that had not yet been carried out, one that could show more accurately whether the Shroud does or does not date from the time of Jesus. This was radiocarbon dating, the `atomic clock' method of placing in time ancient objects of organic origin, such as wood, linen, and bone, by determining the extent to which they have lost their radioactive carbon-14, the carbon atom that every living thing takes in during its life span. When an organism dies, its carbon 14 begins to decay at a predictable rate. It is difficult to be completely accurate in dating objects of recent origin, since there can be wide variations in the presence of carbon 14 soon after death. But when you go back beyond a thousand years, the presence is more stable and the dating, therefore, more reliable." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.7-8) 14/08/2007 "Archaeologists and anthropologists have greatly benefited from this scientific technique, which has expanded and deepened our understanding of unrecorded history. Some objects are more easy to date than others. For example, pieces of charcoal, perhaps from an ancient fireplace, provide consistent dating results; pieces of bone, however, have proved less certain. Generally, plant material is more reliable, and this would surely be true of the flax plant, the source of the fibres for linen. Ever since the availability of the carbon- dating process, people have hoped to apply it to the Shroud, but permission was refused, because it would have required a piece of linen as big as a pocket handkerchief to be cut from the cloth. What's more, for an object to be carbon-dated, it must be incinerated, so there is no way to preserve the piece after it has been cut away. King Umberto of Italy, who owned the Shroud in the 1970s, when the STURP research was done, was advised that this was too great a sacrifice. Then, in the late 1970s, Professor Harry Gove, director of the Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory at the University of Rochester, in New York State, together with colleagues, developed a new method of carbon dating called accelerator mass spectroscopy, or AMS. Instead of requiring a large piece of fabric, this method could use a sample no bigger than a postage stamp. If such a fragment of material was considered an acceptable sacrifice by those who guarded the Shroud, there was the possibility of determining the date of its creation, within seventy to a hundred years." (Garza- Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, p.8) 14/08/2007 "But in 1983, before King Umberto could reach a decision, he died. He had bequeathed the Shroud to the Pope and his successors in perpetuity, with the understanding that it would stay in Turin. Not long after, the Vatican agreed to have Gove's AMS carbon dating method applied to the Shroud. Archbishop Cardinal Ballestrero of Turin, the Shroud's custodian on behalf of the Pope, appointed three radiocarbon-dating laboratories to take part: one at the University of Oxford, England, one at the University of Zürich, Switzerland, and one at the University of Arizona at Tucson. Representatives of each institution were invited to Turin. On April 21, 1988, the Shroud was brought out and, in their presence, had a portion cut off and divided among the scientists who took the pieces back to their laboratories. Extra pieces were set aside in case there was later need for further samples. Six months later came an announcement that upset the Shroudies. On October 13, 1988, at nearly simultaneous conferences in Turin and London, the results of the three laboratories were released. In London the press conference, held at the British Museum, was headed by the museum's Dr Michael Tite, who had been the overall supervisor of all three research teams. He was joined by Oxford's Professor Edward Hall and by Dr Robert Hedges, the chief Oxford technician. Behind them on a blackboard someone had triumphantly chalked, in very large letters, 1260-1390! As the three men explained, the datings independently arrived at by all three laboratories were so similar as to indicate, with a certainty close to 95 per cent, that the Shroud's flax had been cut down to be made into linen sometime between these dates. As might have been expected, some devotees tried to suggest that there had been a switching of samples, inadvertent or otherwise. Several books have been written to explore this idea. However, I believe that the scientists who worked on the carbon dating were honest men and good scientists who carried out their procedures as thoroughly as could be done at the time." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.8-9) 14/08/2007 "Then in London, on February 14, 1989, Professor Edward Hall gave a public lecture, sponsored by the British Museum Society, which he entitled `The Turin Shroud-A Lesson in Self-Persuasion'. His purpose was to counter the doubts of anyone who questioned the carbon-dating findings. He explained that his laboratory carried out a thousand carbon datings a year, and no one had found fault with their conclusions. With regard to the possibility of some contamination having affected the result of the Shroud's tests, he said that both his laboratory and the two others had used special solvents to preclude any such error. Twenty per cent of the sample had been dissolved by this process. There would have had to be a `ridiculous' 60 per cent level of modern contamination for a first-century shroud to be dated as belonging to the Middle Ages. Overall, he said, he would have been amazed if even a 1 per cent level of contamination had been left. I would never have guessed that I, a paediatrician who grew up in Monterrey Mexico, would be called on to prove that this distinguished scientist was wrong. I had no idea that the inquiries I was about to make, in a completely different area of interest, would cast different light on the mystery of the Shroud." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.9-10) 14/08/2007 "Shroud aficionados entering the Cathedral of John the Baptist in Turin are confronted, outside the Royal Chapel, with a full-size, colour photograph of the Turin Shroud. That will have to satisfy their curiosity. The shroud itself is stored, elaborately coffined, on an altar behind a triply locked iron grill in the cathedral's chapel. It is only displayed to the public on special occasions every forty years or so. The photograph shows an altogether impressive and beautiful stained linen cloth the colour of old ivory, 14' 3" long and 3' 7" wide. It bears the faint front and back imprint of a naked crucified man with hands folded modestly over his genitals. The image depicts all the stigmata of the crucifixion described in the Bible including a large blood stain from the spear wound in the side. The linen weave is a three to one herringbone twill. A seam or tuck divides the main body of the shroud from a 6" side strip of the same weave which runs almost the entire length of the cloth. A backing cloth of basket weave covering the entire back area of the shroud is exposed at both ends of this side strip where pieces of the side strip have either been removed or never existed." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.1) 14/08/2007 "The most notable feature of the shroud is the sixteen patches that were applied symmetrically in pairs to the front of the shroud in 1534, two years after it was damaged in a fire that occurred in the chapel in Chambéry, France, where the shroud was stored in a silver chest. Gouts of molten silver burned through the shroud, fortunately outside the image, in a symmetric fashion due to the way in which it was folded in the chest. The shroud was doused with water before the fire damage could spread to the image. This near catastrophe, however, did yield some interesting scientific information. Silver melts at a temperature close to 1800°F. Because the shroud was folded inside the chest, there had to be a considerable variation of temperature at various points on the image ranging from something near this high temperature to ones approaching normal room values. Yet there was essentially no change in the appearance of the image from one region to another. Since many art pigments volatilize at temperatures well below the melting point of silver, those that could have been used, if it is a painting, are rather limited.' (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.1,3) 14/08/2007 "The problem of building planets is fundamental to the entire question of the origin of the solar system. Historically, this latter question has frequently been considered to have been answered, but the wide variety of explanations and solutions that have been offered, from the creation myths of primitive societies, to the more recent, but numerous scientific attempts, has generally collapsed when faced with new information about the system. There are two principal difficulties. The first dilemma is that the planetary scientist, like the historian, has only one example, the present scene, together with whatever relics have survived from previous epochs, to tell the tale of former events. One must of course be skeptical about relics. There is a long history of fraudulent relics of which two recent examples are Piltdown Man and The Shroud of Turin." (Taylor, S.R., "Destiny or Chance: Our Solar System and its Place in the Cosmos," , Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Reprinted, 2000, p.50) 15/08/2007 "Many other points along the way may be appreciated more, I think, if I tell you now that: 1.) My microchemical analyses led me to publish in 1980 my conclusion that the Shroud is a beautiful medieval painting; 2.) The Shroud was carbon-dated in 1988 and found to date from 1325 ±65 years. The Shroud was most likely painted by an artist about 1355 probably as a decoration, perhaps as a relic, for a newly built church in Lirey, France. It was first exhibited there in 1356 and immediately accepted by devout pilgrims as the true Shroud. Only Henri, Bishop of Troyes, tried to stem the tide by claiming that `he knew the artist who had painted it.' 3.) All of the image substance on the Shroud proves the Bishop was right. The image is due to two paint pigments in two very dilute collagen tempera paints; there is no blood in the Shroud image. The Shroud was first painted with a dilute red ochre paint. Then, the blood stains were added with a second dilute vermilion paint." (McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.1) 15/08/2007 "I began my tests expecting the `Shroud' would be authentic, in spite of Bishop Henri claiming it to be a forgery. ` ..... Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. ` These words, written in 1389 by the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (d'Arcis, 1389), described the efforts of his predecessor Bishop Henri de Poitiers in 1356 to halt the exhibition of the Shroud in a new church in Lirey, not far from Paris. As had his predecessor, Bishop D'Arcis was writing to the Pope to enlist aid in preventing further exploitation of the Shroud for personal gain: `...now again the present Dean of the said church with fraudulent intent and for the purpose of gain suggested ...to have the said cloth replaced in the said church, that by renewal of the pilgrimage the church might be enriched with the offerings made by the faithful.' Both Bishops failed in their earnest efforts to prevent exhibitions of the Shroud. The exhibitions have continued for more than 600 years. The most recent in 1978 saw nearly three and one-half million people file past the Shroud where it was shown over an altar in St. John's Cathedral in Turin." (McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.1-2) 15/08/2007 "In the Middle Ages, animal collagen was probably the most popular paint medium although egg tempera was also used. Both had, in fact, been used for hundreds of years as paint media for everything from wall paintings to illuminated manuscripts. Tempera was the most likely paint medium during the early Middle Ages. The application of this pigmented tempera to produce the observed `Shroud' image must have been at least 600 years ago. There are artist's copies of the image, apparently as it appears today, executed as early as 1357. In particular, a pilgrim's medallion found in the river Seine commemorating the first exhibition of the cloth in Lirey, France about 1357 shows the same double full-length image. The image, we now know to be an iron earth red ochre tempera paint, was therefore almost undoubtedly known in 1357. Significantly, there is no reference to the "Shroud" during the previous 1300 years." (McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.117) 15/08/2007 "The beginning of the known history of this cloth also coincides with the Lirey exhibition by the owner, Geoffrey I de Charny. The cloth simply suddenly appeared, coincidentally(?), just as a newly built church in Lirey needed a relic. Shortly after 1356, the year Geoffrey I de Charny was killed at the battle of Poitiers, the Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, declared that it was a fraud `cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it.' This quote is from a lengthy memorandum written by the then Bishop D'Arcis of Troyes, at the time of the second exhibition of the Shroud in 1389. Bishop D'Arcis reinvestigated the matter at that time. The local church authorities obviously believed the `Shroud' to be a fake. The general populace encouraged by the de Charny family, preferred to believe the contrary." (McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.117-118) 15/08/2007 "THE Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth of ivory color measuring fourteen feet three inches long by three feet seven inches wide or eight cubits long by two cubits wide, according to first-century Jewish measurements. (A cubit is equivalent to 21.7 inches.) The cloth is made of a three-to-one herringbone weave with a `Z' twist. Parallel to one side of the cloth is sewn a six-inch-wide strip of the same weave pattern. It is generally believed that this piece was added to the Shroud in order to insert a rod to facilitate its exposition. The Shroud bears the frontal and dorsal image of a naked, crucified, bearded man, approximately five feet eleven inches tall, between the ages of 30-35, weighing about 175 pounds. Many people believe that this Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ." (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, p.1) 15/08/2007 "The history of the Shroud can be traced with assurance to the mid-fourteenth century. Prior to that period, little is known with absolute certainty concerning its whereabouts. A third century Syrian text mentions a cloth that is associated with the miraculous cure of King Abgar V, ruler of Edessa (13-59 A.D.), now called Urfa, in southeastern Turkey. This story was translated almost verbatim by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History in 325 A.D. According to the story, Abgar suffered from an ailment, perhaps leprosy. Having heard about the healing powers of Jesus, he sent a certain Ananias around the year 31-32 A.D. with a letter to Jesus requesting that He come and heal him. Jesus replied that He was unable to go, but promised to send one of His disciples. It was not until after His death and Resurrection that one of the seventy-two disciples, Thaddeus, brought a cloth to Abgar bearing an image of the face of Jesus. Upon seeing this cloth, Abgar was cured, and the Christian Faith was established in the city. (Actually, the first Christian king of Edessa was Abgar VIII, who ruled from 177-212.) Although the Syrian text mentions a cloth, for reasons unknown, Eusebius makes no reference to it; rather, he states that Abgar saw a vision when he looked at Thaddeus. `Immediately on his entrance there appeared to Abgar a great vision on the face of the Apostle Thaddeus. When Abgar saw this, he did reverence to Thaddeus, and wonder seized all who stood about, for they themselves did not see the vision, which appeared to Abgar alone.'" (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, pp.1-2) 15/08/2007 "While the Syrian account refers to Thaddeus as one of the seventy-two disciples of the Lord (cf. Luke 10:1), he soon came to be associated with Jude Thaddeus, the apostle who was a cousin of Jesus (cf. Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3). One of the earliest Byzantine icons to depict Thaddeus holding the Image of Edessa, as the cloth was referred to there, was painted in 550 A.D. and is located at St. Catherine Monastery on Mount Sinai. In the Western tradition, St. Jude is often represented holding an image of the face of Jesus over his heart. It has been suggested by the British historian Ian Wilson that the Image of Edessa was actually the Shroud folded in such a way that only the face was visible. Early replicas of the Image were portrayed as an elongated trellis frame with a circle in the middle that depicted the face. A sixth-century text called The Acts of Thaddeus refers to such an image as a tetradiplon, a Greek word which literally means `doubled in four' or, put another way, folded in eight layers. [Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin," Image Books: New York, 1979; p.120] Interestingly, this Greek word is not used for any other object. Dr. John Jackson, an Air Force physicist who was part of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project, `found that doubling the cloth in four did indeed expose the face area. Furthermore, Jackson found an eight-fold pattern of folds... ." [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.24]' (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, p.2) 15/08/2007 "THE SHROUD OF TURIN is a linen cloth, fourteen feet long and three and a half feet wide. The threads were handspun and the fabric hand-woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill. On the long fabric are two faint, straw-colored images, one of the front and the other of the back of a nude man who was apparently scourged and crucified, with the hands crossed over the pelvis. The images appear head to head, as though a body had been laid on its back at one end of the fabric, which was then drawn over to cover the front of the body. The cloth has many burn holes and scorches; the holes have been patched. There are also large water stains. Although the cloth appeared in France 630 years ago, its history is obscure." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.vii. Emphasis original) 16/08/2007 "Summer 1988. The Turin Shroud, the linen cloth kept in Turin Cathedral, which millions have revered for centuries as the shroud that wrapped Jesus' dead body, was being radiocarbon-dated at last. ... The cloth would either be confirmed as first-century or shown to be a medieval fraud, but there was also a chance of a date between the two, which would settle nothing. ... Two years before, in October 1986, the Pope had agreed that this final scientific testing of the Shroud could take place. Seven laboratories had been chosen for the tests, using both methods of carbon-dating. The tests were to be conducted under the auspices of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Since then many committees had deliberated, personalities had quarrelled, and scientific institutions had jostled and campaigned for the honour of testing the cloth. Eventually the laboratories chosen were cut to three--one each in Zurich, Switzerland, Tucson, Arizona, and Oxford. All of them used the AMS method of testing-accelerator mass spectroscopy. Their results were to be correlated by Dr Michael Tite of the British Museum Research Laboratory. The technology had to be astonishingly accurate. Professor Hall of the Oxford Laboratory said that their task was the equivalent of finding a slightly different grain in a path of otherwise uniform sand 130 yards wide and stretching from the Earth to the Moon. Yet they expected to achieve that degree of accuracy. Although the AMS method of carbon-dating selected was comparatively new and had not often been applied to linen, the experts sounded completely confident." (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," , Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.9-10) 16/08/2007 "Even the cutting of the piece to be tested had had to be delayed at the last moment ... At 7 a.m. on 21 April, representatives of the three laboratories, accompanied by Dr Tite, assembled in a side chapel of Turin Cathedral. They found the Shroud already laid out on a table; Professor Gonella and Turin representatives had been there since 4 a.m. extracting the Shroud from its reliquary and preparing it. The Cardinal was there and television crews. The event had been so badly planned that it then took a full hour for them to decide where the sample from the cloth should be cut. [Damon, P.E. et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February 1989, p.612] Under the television lights, a thin piece was cut with scissors from the end of the cloth. The strip was taken to a side room by Dr Tite, the Cardinal and Professor Gonella, where it was cut in three pieces which were weighed and put in steel tubes. The same was done with two control pieces provided by the British Museum-one from Egypt, approximately 2,000 yea2,000 years old, the other from Nubia, which archaeologists were sure was 11th-12th century AD. They were selected to be as near as possible to the proposed genuine and forgery years." (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," , Souvenir Press: London, 1995, p.10. Emphasis original) 16/08/2007 "The scientists were able to watch the entire proceedings, except for the half-hour when the strip was taken to the side room for preparing and packing into containers. Not even the videocameras were present then [Sox, H.D., "The Shroud Unmasked," Lamp Press, 1988, pp.136-137]. This was very unfortunate, for some have claimed that there was substitution of different cloth at that stage. Two Germans obtained measured photographs of the three pieces sent out: they did not apparently fit into the piece cut off the Shroud. Nor did they have paired cutting edges [Kersten, H. & Gruber, E., "The Jesus Conspiracy," Barnes & Noble, 1995]. They must have come from another piece of cloth. When I wrote about these allegations to Professor Tite, as he is now, he replied that he could no longer remember the exact shapes cut off for the testing laboratories, but he was absolutely certain that they came from the piece cut from the Shroud. (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," , Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.10-11. Emphasis original) 16/08/2007 "The representatives from the three laboratories left with their nine steel cylinders and a letter. The one to Zurich, for instance, read: `The containers labelled Z1, Z2, and Z3 to be delivered to representatives of ETH contain one sample of cloth taken in our presence from the Shroud of Turin at 9.45am, 21 April 1988, and two control samples from one or both of the following cloths supplied by the British Museum: First-century cloth; eleventh century. The identity of the samples put in the individual containers has been recorded by a special notebook that will be kept confidential until the measurements have been made. ' [Sox, H.D., "The Shroud Unmasked," Lamp Press, 1988, pp.136-137]. ETH is short for the Federal Institute of Technology. The Oxford samples were labelled O1, O2 and O3 and the Arizona samples T1, T2 and T3. The letter was signed by the Archbishop and Michael Tite. To have revealed the details and dates for the control pieces was most unscientific. Control samples should be given blind so that if the experiment then obtains the correct answer, the value obtained for the unknown sample is correct. If an answer is known a temptation exists to skew the results so that the known one is correct. By the look of the weave the scientists would know straight away which cloth was which, so they knew the answers to the dates of two of the three pieces before even beginning the experiment! As a further control sample they were also given threads from the cope of St Louis d'Anjou which is held in the chapel in the Basilica of Saint-Maximin in France." (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," , Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.11-12) 16/08/2007 "The British Museum had received the results from Tucson by 23 June. In early July it was rumoured in the United States that Oxford had proved the cloth to be medieval, and on 3 July the Sunday Telegraph also reported that rumour. In fact Oxford had not even started by then. On 22 July the results came from Zurich. Professor Hall in Oxford refused to hurry. He was determined the Shroud should take its place in the queue of work. At last, in September, Dr Tite had all the results. Having correlated them he sent them to Italy. ... So it was not until Thursday, 13 October 1988, that the results were announced in London. The panel facing the press were. Professor Hall and Dr Robert Hedges from Oxford, and Dr Michael Tite. On the blackboard behind them was written in chalk 1260-1330!, and the exclamation mark was later criticised as unscientific. The three testing laboratories had all agreed with that result and the degree of certainty was 95 per cent. Their results for the control samples also matched well. The full results were later published in Nature. [Damon, P.E. et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February 1989, pp.611-615]" (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," , Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.12-13. Emphasis original) 16/08/2007 "There were questions, but the scientists were certain. Professor Edward Hall, who is very direct, said it was definitely a fake, although he supposed some people might continue to believe it is genuine, `just as there are flat-earthers'. He is reported to have said, `Someone faked it and flogged it!' but when he was asked how it could possibly have been faked in the Middle Ages, that did not concern him. It was a waste of time worrying about that when we know exactly when it was made. It had to be a forgery. Sadly, no one shouted `nonsense'. Many scientists, artists, historians and others who had done research on the Shroud for years were convinced that the carbon-dating had given the wrong result. However, circumstantial evidence was no match for the answer obtained by the one experiment regarded as foolproof by the public in general. Now, six years later, the time has come to raise the matter again. As a matter of curiosity it is worth investigating the ways in which the stains on the Shroud could have been formed; at the same time, what was the evidence that made the majority of investigators before the carbon-dating think that the Shroud was much earlier and might have been the actual cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus?" (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," , Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.12-13) 16/08/2007 "The Shroud kept in Turin for 400 years is also a relic - but of a quite different order. Member of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), John Heller, is probably not exaggerating when he describes it as `the most intensely studied artefact in human history.' [Heller, J., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Miller: Boston, 1983, p.219] The image on the Shroud of a naked crucified male has made the strip of linen, 14.25 feet long and 3.58 wide, an article of serious scientific study. Today the faint body images are a straw yellow, the blood markings red. Under photography - for the first time in 1898 - the images become surprisingly defined and vivid, extraordinarily accurate in anatomical detail." (Sox, H.D., "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, 1988, pp.10-11) 16/08/2007 "According to most calculations, the Shroud image portrays a man 5' 10˝" high and weighing 175lbs. He was bearded and his long hair accorded with popular artistic portrayals of Christ. He appeared to be in the position of death with hands crossed over the pelvic region. A number of details seemed to confirm the Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion: dumbbell markings suggest the scourging with the Roman flagrum, a whip weighted with thongs of leather or bone; rivulets of blood encircle the head as with the `crown of thorns'; a wound in the side between the fifth and sixth ribs coincides with the centurion's certification of death; a single nail pierces the feet as in much of Christian art; and particularly interesting - the wrists are marked with nails rather than the palms of the hands. Anatomically this made more sense. Nails through the palms would not support a man's body in crucifixion. Also noteworthy was the seeming absence of thumbs on the image of the hands. Such piercing might have stimulated the median nerve and caused an involuntary contraction of the thumbs. The image was convincing and some observers saw more: bruise marks on the face; bruises on the shoulder and knees - all of which fitted the sufferings of Christ portrayed in the Gospels. " (Sox, H.D., "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, 1988, p.11) 16/08/2007 "1898 was the beginning of a ninety-year period of serious study of the Turin relic. Other relics would fall by the wayside. The far more popular Shroud kept at Cadouin in France was studied in 1934 and discovered to have been woven in the tenth century, its embroidered bands with kufic inscriptions bearing the blessings of Allah. Peter's chair kept in Bernini's spectacular reliquary behind the papal altar at St. Peter's was carbon dated in 1968 and the most ancient wood of the chair was from between the fourth and the sixth centuries. Quietly the Church removed a number of other relics to the oblivion of the sacristy or cathedral museum while the Turin relic became `one of the world's great mysteries' and, in more vulgar eyes, `the world's first photograph'." (Sox, H.D., "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, 1988, p.11) 16/08/2007 "What is the Shroud of Turin? ... The Shroud, often called the `Holy Shroud,' is most commonly referred to as the Shroud of Turin because it has been physically located in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy for over 400 years. This precious cloth is considered by millions of Christians throughout the world to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ - a direct witness to His passion, death and resurrection 2,000 years ago. The Shroud is the holiest relic in Christianity. Physically, the Shroud is a remarkably well-preserved oblong piece of linen cloth 14'3" long (4.36 meters) and 3'7" wide (1.1 meters), weighing approximately 5 1/2 lbs. (2.45 kgs.) . The linen fibers are woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill with a Z-twist and consist of a fairly heavy yarn (34/100 of a millimeter thick) of Near Eastern or Mediterranean basin flax. Down the left side of the Shroud is a border approximately 3 1/2 inches wide (8 centimeters from the edge) running the full length of the linen cloth. Once thought to be a side-strip sewn onto the main cloth, it has now been determined to be a selvedge, that is, a piece of cloth woven into the main cloth so that it will not unravel. It is done in such a manner as to require no hem. The reason for adding the selvedge is not known for certain. However, historian and renowned English sindonologist Ian Wilson speculates that the selvedge may have been added at a later date perhaps to center the image on the cloth for viewing. He considers this the most logical explanation and points out that the selvedge was added at the same time as the fringe and gold covering, the overall purpose being to transform the cloth from a shroud to what seems to have been some sort of `portrait.'" (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, pp.1-2. Emphasis original) 16/08/2007 "... the Turin Shroud ... This length of ivory-coloured cloth measures 14 feet 3 inches by 3 feet 7 inches, or 4.36 metres by 1.10 metre. Its exact age has not yet been determined, but it is at least six hundred years old, and there is nothing in its fabric or weave to invalidate the claim that its manufacture is of the first century AD. From the purely textile angle it can be described as a three-to-one herring-bone twill, the material being linen with a small admixture of cotton (as the Belgian Professor Gilbert Raes reported in 1976 after his microscopic examination of carefully selected and extracted threads of it in his textile laboratory at Ghent University). The presence of cotton fibres in the weave is considered by experts to be conclusive in ruling out a European provenance for the fabric of the Shroud, since cotton was not grown or used in Europe in any possible epoch of the manufacture of this cloth. But it is entirely consonant with a Palestinian provenance, as the fibres are of the Gossypium Herbaceum variety which is cultivated in the Middle East. The total absence of wool in the Shroud's composition is instructive to anyone versed in the Mosaic Law with its prohibition of textile mixture, for Leviticus 19:19 commands: `Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.' The presence of even one wool fibre would have excluded this cloth from ever having been a Jewish burial shroud." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.21-22). 16/08/2007 "There are marks on the Turin Shroud. Some (the most obvious) are accidental and easily explained. Other are remedial and present no problem. But the central markings seem to be intentional and baffle all natural explanation. The accidental marks are burns and singes caused by molten silver in a fire which broke out in the Sainte-Chapelle at Chambéry on the night of 3-4, December 1532. The remedial marks are triangular linen patches applied to the worst of these burns by the Poor Clares of Sainte-Claire-en-Ville in April 1534. But the marks down the centre of the Shroud's length are mysterious in the extreme. Quite what they are, or how they were caused, no one can honestly say, least of all the scientists who have examined therm. They are not marks caused by paint or any pigment. They have not penetrated the linen fibres, as paint would have done, nor have they insinuated themselves between the fibres, nor do they appear on the back of the cloth. These marks have shape and figure. At first sight they might suggest two ghostly brass-rubbings of some medieval knight bereft of armour. On closer inspection they are seen faintly but perceptibly to represent the naked body - both back and front - of a mature bearded male with long hair who would have stood about 5 feet 11 inches [178 cms] tall and weighed in the region of 12˝ stone, or 175 pounds [79.5 kgs]. It appears that he has been laid supine on one half of the cloth, while the other half has been doubled back to cover him from face to feet, so that the two life-size images lie head to head down the centre of the Shroud." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.22-23) 16/08/2007 "This Shroud-Man has seemingly suffered several sorts of physical violence. Apart from the abrasions, bruises and swellings which minute investigation reveals, there are apparent traces of various and distinct blood-flows: from the head, wrist, feet, and (most marked) from the side - from what is evidently an incision between the fifth and sixth rib. His back, from the shoulders down to the ankles, is liberally spattered with more than a hundred dumbbell shaped scores where the skin has apparently been broken by flagellation, consonant with the application of a leaded whip, such as the Roman flagrum." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew- McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.22-23) 16/08/2007 "Painstaking scientific examination by a team of Italian haematologists in the last ten years [as at 1978] has detected no trace of actual blood-substance on the cloth; but, by the same token, forensic experts have detected no trace of any natural or artificial matter which might have been used to simulate blood, such as Hollywood employs in filming a Western. Art has not improved on Nature. Here again there is no pigment, no seepage, no penetration of the linen fibres, and this established fact is one of the most baffling features of the Shroud. Yet the representation of the various bloodflows on the cloth is, from the forensic and physiological points of view, of a quite unusual degree of verisimilitude." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew- McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.22-23) 16/08/2007 "Now it seems to me otiose, if not ridiculous, to spend time arguing (as some leading sindonologists, such as Giulio Ricci or Jose-Luis Carreno Etxeandia, argue) about the identity of the man represented on the Turin Shroud. Whether it is genuine or a fake, the representation is obviously of Jesus Christ. If the figure is a fake, then the craftsman who faked it has represented the body of a man who has been mocked, scourged, executed and pierced in the manner described in the four Gospels - with one significant variant, which we shall discuss later. He has manifestly intended to portray the Jesus of Nazareth who `suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried', and has made an extraordinarily accurate job of it down to the least detail. If, on the other hand, the figure is authentic, it can only be Jesus for three good reasons: first, because it is most unlikely that the shrouds of any other crucified men - mainly slaves, peasants and crooks - would either have been of this quality or have been considered worth preserving; secondly, because of the thousands of victims of crucifixion which history records, only one is known to have suffered both wounds to the head (consonant with a spiky cap being pressed down upon the cranium) and the side (compatible with a deep jab from a Roman lance) as we see represented on the Shroud; and thirdly, because this man - although demonstrably crucified - has not suffered the crurifragium, or breaking of the leg-bones with a heavy mallet, which was an almost invariable concomitant of crucifixion. The Shroud-Man is Jesus Christ or nobody." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.23-24) 19/08/2007 "The Jewish propaganda which was so successful in those parts around the middle of the first century may well have paved the way for the Christian mission which followed later in the century. Certainly the Christian mission enjoyed astonishing success in Upper Mesopotamia and the adjoining regions. About the middle of the second century the city of Edessa (modern Urfa), east of the upper Euphrates, emerges as the chief centre of Christianity in that area. Edessa was sacked by the Romans during Trajan's Parthian campaign in 116, and Christianity had probably been planted in the city before that, although not at such an early date as local tradition pretended. For it is to this local tradition that we must assign the apocryphal correspondence between Jesus and Abgar V, king of Edessa from A.D. 13 to 50, which attempts to date the Edessene mission as early as the lifetime of Jesus Himself. This curiosity of apocryphal literature has been preserved by Eusebius in the first book of his Ecclesiastical History, where he reports how Abgar, suffering from an apparently incurable disease, heard of the healing ministry of Jesus and sent Him a letter asking Him to come and cure him. Jesus replied in a letter to the effect that He could not come just then, but that he would shortly send one of His disciples to heal his disease and bring life and salvation to himself and his people. [Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. I, 13] Then Eusebius, continuing to translate from the Syriac narrative which recorded this friendly correspondence, goes on to tell how one of the apostles, "Judas Thomas" (that is, Judas the twin), sent Thaddaeus, one of the seventy disciples of Luke 10, to Edessa after the ascension of Jesus, and how Thaddaeus healed Abgar and other Edessenes who were in trouble, and evangelized the land. This legend is a later and garbled antedating of a Christian forward movement in Edessa in the reign of a later Abgar-Abgar IX (179-216). This Abgar was actually converted to Christianity, so that the kingdom of Edessa was the first to have a Christian dynasty; but he was overthrown by the Roman Emperor Caracalla, who embarked upon an aggressive policy in the east and penetrated as far as Media. The name Thaddaeus (Syriac Thaddai) in the legend is an error for Addai, who is listed as the first bishop of Edessa. After the death of Addai's successor Aggai, there seems to be a break in the episcopal succession; the next bishop, Palut, is said to have been ordained by Serapion, bishop of Antioch from 190 to 203." (Bruce, F.F., "The Spreading Flame: The Rise and Progress of Christianity From its First Beginings to the Conversion of the English," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1966, pp.284-285) 19/08/2007 "During the second century a Christian community was established in Edessa. Its most prominent member, Bardesanes, was intimate with King Abgar IX the Great who was also converted to Christianity. Bardesanes was a cultivated man whose poetry was of such quality as to achieve almost classical status in Syriac literature. Before conversion he had been expert in astrology. A pupil summarized his teaching in a much plagiarized book, based on extensive comparative researches, to prove that the divergent religious customs of the different races invalidate astrological belief but do not, as pagans (like Celsus) were arguing, establish the truth of polytheism against Biblical monotheism. He recognized, however, that not all diversity in worship and not all evils can be attributed simply to free will. Those facts in the world which are not attributable to either nature or human freedom he ascribed to the conflict between angels and demons and to destiny which, he conceded, had some relative power, though not as much as the astrologers thought. At this point a number of Gnostic themes and images began to enter his poetic vision of the world and, though he vigorously opposed the Marcionites in Edessa, his own orthodoxy was not trusted at Antioch. Later Syrian Christians like Ephraem (306-73) regarded him as a dangerous genius. To combat his influence an Edessene Christian named Palut was consecrated to be bishop of Edessa by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, about 200. At first Palut ministered only to a small minority group; but after Edessa became part of the empire, the Palutians were able to show that they enjoyed catholic communion with Antioch and Rome as the followers of Bardesanes did not. The third century church at Edessa claimed as its founder one of the 72 disciples of Jesus named Addai, sent in answer to a letter written to Jesus by King Abgar the Black (c. A.D. 9-46). They could produce Jesus' reply promising Edessa freedom from conquest." (Chadwick, H., "Penguin History of the Early Church," , Penguin: London, Revised edition, 1993, p.61) 20/08/2007 "In addition to Riggi's shenanigans, the labs were told the age of the historical known-age control pieces, a fact that rather diminished their value as controls. Paradoxically, the pretense of `blind testing' was maintained for the whole dating exercise, despite the fact that everyone knew that the Shroud weave was easily recognizable. Even if the samples were shredded the Shroud fiber could probably be identified by the labs, since there was so much technical data published by STURP. What happened next simply beggars belief: to maintain the pretense, Ballestrero and Tite took the samples into a private area, out of view of all the people in attendance and of the camera, and put them into vials labeled with numbers. These vials were then brought out and presented to the representatives of the three labs. This secrecy gave rise to the allegation, quite absurd on the face of it, that Tite had conducted some sleight of hand and switched the real Shroud samples with others of medieval age. There are still quite a few Europeans who believe to this day that the samples were substituted and the C-14 date that was later obtained is not from a piece of the Shroud. Loading the vials in private was a totally unnecessary and ridiculous procedure, another major error on Gonella's part." (Meacham, W., "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, 2005, p.91) 20/08/2007 "Arizona was the first lab to run Shroud samples, on May 6, 1988. Donahue and Damon invited Gove to witness the event, "out of respect for his efforts" and probably feeling a little guilty at having let the side down by accepting Turin's conditions eliminating the other labs. In perhaps the most revealing incident in his entire book, Gove recounts that, arriving at the lab, he was asked to sign the following statement: `We the undersigned understand that the 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 that results are generally available to the public.' This prohibition is normal in C-14 labs in any event, as the client owns the date and the lab does not have the right to release it except with the client's permission. Everyone connected with the Arizona facility signed. Gove signed. He goes on to recount: `... despite the agreement I had signed, I told Shirley [Brignall, his companion] the result that had been obtained that day.' In sum, he gave his word to his colleagues, as a scientist and a gentleman, and he broke it the very same day. As we say in the South: `Nuff said!'" (Meacham, W., "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, 2005, pp.91-92) 20/08/2007 "In July a newspaper in England reported that the Shroud's C-14 date was medieval, proving it to be a fake. This was roundly denied by all parties, but it was clear with so many people involved, even though they were sworn to secrecy, some whether at the top or the bottom could not be trusted to keep their word, and the results were going to leak out. By September it was confirmed that all three labs had completed their C-14 measurements and had sent the results to the British Museum. By this stage there was a constant stream of `leaks' all pointing towards a date in the 13th to 15th centuries. I called Fr. Rinaldi to ask him if he knew anything, but he had only seen the same reports in the press as I had. He said that Gonella and Ballestrero were convinced that one of the labs had let the results be known, and that Turin would issue a statement in the next few days." (Meacham, W., "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, 2005, p.93) 21/08/2007 "The dendrochronological correction had an interesting effect on the Shroud dating. The youngest raw date came from the Arizona lab. Figuring in the plus-or-minus error factor, the date comes out at 1390 A.D. The oldest raw date comes from Oxford. Adding in the error factor, the corresponding date was 1090 A.D. The range here is 300 years, with a mean date of 1240 A.D. But after `calibration' (correction by the tree-ring scale), the calendar dates range from 1210 to 1410, a later span with a smaller range. In the actual report published in the British science journal Nature (16. February 1989), a good deal of statistical manipulation was performed. This averaging arrived at a final range of 1260 to 1390 A.D., with the higher probability towards the earlier date. The actual mean figure for the three labs (at a 68% confidence level) is 1281 A.D. We can see, however, that the raw results, involving direct counting of C14 decay, had a pretty wide range. These results may show a variation of the C12\C14 ratio within the samples themselves, and thus some probable contamination." (Case, T.W., "The Shroud of Turin and the C- 14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, 1996, p.31) 21/08/2007 "The widely reported `95% chance that the Shroud was made between 1260 and 1390 A.D.' sounds impressive, but it is the result of statistical sleight-of-hand. A reported 68% chance that the true date lies within a given range represents one `standard deviation.' It is based on a standard statistical formula applied to the number of, and scattered results of, `runs' in a dating procedure. Plus and minus years are plugged in to signify the possible deviation from the true date. The plus and minus years are then widened to arrive at two `standard deviations,' establishing (it is said) a 95% chance that the true date lies within this widened range. It all amounts to internal massaging of numbers which hides certain warning signals. In fact the wide range of dates among the three labs obtained in the Shroud sample as compared to the much narrower range in the three control samples indicates that the Shroud test gave an anomalous result. The report in Nature hints at the problem when it notes ... that there is only a 5% probability of attaining by chance `a scatter among the three dates as high as that observed, under the assumption that the quoted errors reflect all sources of random variation.' In plain English this means that all the statistical manipulation in the world can't get rid of the -fact that the range of dates is much too large to be accounted for by the expected errors built into radiocarbon dating. To put it another way: there is a 95 out of 100% chance that the discrepancy in the raw dates means that there were variable ratios of C12 and C14 in the samples themselves. And since the samples were taken from the same tiny area, the range of dates most probably means that all you have to do is go one or two millimeters up the sample, closer to a scorch mark, or perhaps within an area containing a restoration thread or two, to throw off your results a couple of hundred years or more-perhaps much more." (Case, T.W., "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, 1996, pp.32-33) 21/08/2007 "What brings much greater doubt into the picture is a radiocarbon test performed at the University of California in 1982. Dr. Heller sent a sample from the Shroud to the nuclear accelerator lab there. It was a single thread. One end tested to 200 A.D., the other to 1000 A.D., or, according to Dr. Adler, 1200 A.D. The early date, that of 200 A.D., with an added `error,' has been grabbed onto by partisans to claim it means the Shroud is truly of Jesus's time. Unfortunately no such claim can be made. The test was run by a scientist with no great experience in the field. The thread had starch on one end, and we do not even know if it was the starched end that tested earlier. The thread was not treated to rid it of surface contaminants. The dates were not dendrochronologically corrected and no statistical analysis was performed. All things considered, two dates from a single thread 800 or 1000 years apart mean not that you can choose one date and go away happy, but that the test itself is flawed beyond any and all validity. The results of that test mean you must throw out the test." (Case, T.W., "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, 1996, p.33) 21/08/2007 "The exercise was badly flawed and the result inexcusably misevaluated in several respects: 1) The AMS method of radiocarbon dating had been operational for a period of five years or less, so that experience in its use was very meager. And, most important, it requires a pure sample; thus, in order to date a sample from a subject such as the Shroud of Turin, which is known to be extensively contaminated from foreign matter, it is necessary for the sample first to be chemically purified by a procedure called `pretreatment.' In the years 1987-88 the technique of pretreatment was still a chancy matter, as indicated by the Zurich laboratory's thousand-year error during the `dry run' as noted above; in other words, no one really could say (in 1988) whether samples of contaminated cloth could be successfully `purified' chemically by AMS pretreatment without jeopardizing the integrity of the process and without risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," , Paragon House: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, p.170. Emphasis original) 21/08/2007 "2) To have included all seven laboratories, as the scientific protocol of Trondheim/Turin specified, would have necessitated sample cloth aggregating four by seven centimeters-no more than the area of three large postage stamps; on April 21, 1988, the sample cut from the Shroud was one by seven centimeters in size, less than two small postage stamps in area. By using the other four laboratories, the exercise would have been enhanced by the forty-five years of experience in the improved Libby method ('proportional counting'), plus the advantage that that technique does not need an uncontaminated sample." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," , Paragon House: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, p.170) 21/08/2007 "3) Recorded history of the Shroud of Turin establishes clearly the repeated contamination of this cloth by oil, wax, candle smoke, fungi, insect debris, pollen, dust, soap, paint, molten silver, ointments, open wounds, saliva, sweat, hot water, rain, and direct sunshine." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," , Paragon House: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, p.170) 21/08/2007 "4) Neither in the sample-taking nor in the drafting of the October 13, 1988, announcement were members of the two scientific groups (STURP and ASSIST) permitted to be present, nor were they consulted. On the contrary, although the exercise was publicized as `blind testing,' in fact, such was not the case; representatives of the three laboratories were present at the sample-taking, and were given certificates specifying the identity and known age of the so-called `control' samples." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," , Paragon House: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, p.171) 21/08/2007 "5) The scientific protocol furnished the Turin authorities specified that samples be taken from five different sites on the Shroud, or at the very least, from three sites. Instead, a single sample was taken from just one site. No explanation has been forthcoming as to why the scientific protocol and recommendations were ignored in this and all other respects; it is known that because of advanced age and poor health Cardinal Ballestrero left all handling of the exercise to his adviser, Luigi Gonella; although there is no basis for questioning the honesty and good intentions of the Turin authorities, the reasons behind the exercise of such poor judgment is a legitimate area of concern." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," , Paragon House: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, p.171) 21/08/2007 "6) The site on the Shroud from which the sample was taken could hardly have been more controversial and undesirable: The site is on an extreme edge that is so badly contaminated that it is noticeably darker than the balance of the cloth; this area involves a side panel or `filler strip' of cloth some five inches wide that has been discussed for several years by experts, many of whom suspect that the laboratories may have been testing mostly threads used in reweaving to repair the damage." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," , Paragon House: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, p.171) 21/08/2007 "7) The sample was cut very close to a burn area, and the threads given the laboratories may have been scorched. One sindonologist queried forty laboratories worldwide and learned that none had ever tested a piece of scorched cloth. The question must be raised of what effect scorching might have to alter the cloth's carbon 14 isotopes (by molten silver at 850-plus degrees centigrade heat, from the 1532 fire). Textile technology specialist John Tyrer, writing in the December 1988 newsletter of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, observes that the Shroud, inside of its silver casket during the Chambéry fire of 1532, could have been subjected to "pressure cooker" conditions, causing surface contaminants to be dissolved and transported "into the linen or into the internal molecular structure" of the linen fibers." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," , Paragon House: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, pp.171-172. Emphasis original) 21/08/2007 "8) And finally, evaluation of this carbon-dating exercise must inquire-if this was Jesus' shroud, what effect might the power of the Resurrection event have had to alter the ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes in the cloth? STURP scientists coined the term `flash photolysis' to describe the image-making event for this Shroud's images. Could the Christ presence in action have provided such a flash of light or spiritual power in the moment of the Resurrection? Several scientists have raised the question. One suggested that the Resurrection arguably could have irradiated the cloth; another proposed that it could have altered the proportion of C-14 to C-12. Then in the British New Scientist of September 22, 1988, it was noted that in radiocarbon work `there is a fundamental assumption that the Carbon-14 got there by natural processes... [but] if there was any extra Carbon-14 present due to the Resurrection energy release, this would give the appearance that the Shroud was younger than it really is.... if energy release in the Resurrection process activated an extra eighteen percent of Carbon-14 compared to that present naturally in the cloth, the Shroud, although being 2000 years old, would appear [by C-14 measurement] to be only 650 years old [A.D. 1338]; and it is certainly possible to produce that amount of C-14 via a short burst of high energy.' Radiocarbon laboratories admit that this explanation is theoretically possible. If carbon- dating is to be one tool among many, what else can we look to? The many factors that historians and researchers have been pointing to for ten years or more: Some of these point specifically to Jesus; some to the first century and the area of the Holy Lands; some point to an early period in the Near East; some show the impossibility of a human artist, a natural causation, a West European creation, or a fourteenth- century creation. Throughout this volume, some two dozen of these factors have been identified. Since late 1988 the combined logical weight of these many factors has been referred to as the "preponderance of evidence" that demonstrates beyond question that the Shroud of Turin must be much older than the reported carbon-date." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," , Paragon House: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, pp.172-173. Emphasis original) 21/08/2007 "Do those carbon-dating results of 1988 have any value or significance for us? Yes, they may be speaking to an event or events in the life of the Shroud rather than its origin. The three laboratories may have come up with an `accurate' date, but of what? Most of the sindonologists and scientists involved with Shroud research began 1989 with pleas to Turin and the Vatican to authorize proper retesting of the cloth to determine meaningful data. And if such further research is not authorized, then what? Slow and laborious research along other lines will be continued until attitudes change; several decades may be lost to the research progress, much as was true earlier in the twentieth century when Chevalier and Thurston, with flawed data, convinced the world by force of their prestige alone that the Shroud was a fake. Whether sindonology's recovery this time is rapid or slow, there can be no doubt that the Shroud-dating fiasco of 1988 has been cruelly hurtful to sincere religionists of all faiths and grossly misleading to the general public." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," , Paragon House: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, p.173) 21/08/2007 "First, I will mention two obstacles in carbon-dating the cloth-one is probable and the other certain: 1) In the 1970s, two researchers separately suggested that the 1532 fire at Chambéry, France, which caused the silver reliquary to drip molten silver onto the cloth, also may have created a `pressure cooker effect' of driving known contaminants on the cloth into the molecules of the cloth, so that the carbon content was skewed." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," , Paragon House: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, p.173. Emphasis original) 23/08/2007 "This led to a fruitful research programme in microbiology and DNA studies conducted on the white blood cell remnants present in the blood globules from the occipital region. I explained my problems with the blood to Dr Victor Tryon, Director of the Center for Advanced DNA Technology at UTHSC at San Antonio, where a technique known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is regularly used for establishing the DNA make-up of samples. Dr Tryon knew that the sample we were using came from the Shroud of Turin. One cannot hide the purpose of research when depending on the advice of an expert in the field. But Nancy, Dr Tryon's wife, who actually ran the samples through the PCR equipment, was not aware of the origin of the sample. ... Tryon advised that we try cloning the easiest of the genes that could be obtained from ancient blood, the betaglobin gene. What we were not sure of was whether the blood ... would be too degraded for cloning. Fortunately, our fears were unfounded, and Nancy was able to clone the blood sample and amplify it. A blood globule from the five tiny collections on the Scotch tape was used, and the betaglobin gene segment from chromosome 11 was cloned. This proved conclusively that there was ancient blood on the Shroud. We could not, of course, tell from whom it had come, nor whether that person had Semitic blood. (For this type of investigation you need to clone the short DNA segments generally known as minisatellites.) Nor could we ascertain how old the blood was. Obviously there was the possibility of contamination and the possibility that blood from someone other than the crucified victim happened to fall on the part of the Shroud from which the sample was taken. But it is certainly more likely that the blood came from the Man on the Shroud, rather than a bystander, in view of the fact that the sample was taken from the back of the head, from the area where the crown of thorns would have damaged the head of the victim." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.40-41) 23/08/2007 "G. Riggi was happy with the news I imparted by telephone, as was everyone in Dr Tryon's laboratory. But at this stage, all we could say about the blood was that it was ancient, because of the degree of degradation of the small amount of blood we found on our sample, and that it had come from a human being or high primate. Nothing more. The next stage of the research was to uncover evidence that could have been regarded as controversial, and that was to be followed by another stage with even more potential for sensationalism. ... In order to establish the sex of the individual, one can look for the testes-descending gene, which is positive only in the male. If you don't find it, however, you cannot conclude that your sample is from a female: it may be that something went wrong during the testing procedure. Another way to determine the sex is to clone the genes amelogenin-X and amelogenin-Y, and that is what Dr Tryon advised. Again he was right; the PCR technique enabled us to isolate the amelogenin-X gene from chromosome X and the amelogenin-Y gene from chromosome Y. I telephoned Riggi ... that we had proved that the blood on the Shroud had belonged to a human male." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.41-42) 23/08/2007 "But this finding in itself was to prove intriguing. Did we have evidence to disprove the Mystery of the Virgin Birth? In the case of the Man on the Shroud, did the presence of the Y gene indicate that he had been conceived as a result of normal sexual intercourse? Our analysis showed the blood to have come from a male. I could not prove that the blood had come from Jesus of Nazareth, `but until I find a scientific reason to show that this was not from Jesus Christ, I will maintain my belief that it belonged to Jesus of Nazareth.' So if we believed that this sample came from Jesus, who, the Gospels tell us, was conceived of a virgin, where did the Y chromosome come from? Did we have proof that the virgin birth was a great myth? I believe in the Mystery of the Incarnate Word, even if medicine is able to explain some strange cases of parthenogenetic pregnancies." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.42-43) 23/08/2007 "The human species has 46 chromosomes (44 autosomes or nonsex chromosomes in addition to sexual chromosomes). The normal male has 44 autosomes plus XY and the normal female has 44 autosomes plus XX. A male sperm contains half the number of chromosomes-that is, either 22 plus the X chromosome or 22 plus the Y chromosome-and the female ovum contains 22 plus X. At conception, the resulting embryo receives the full complement of autosomes, plus a pair of sex chromosomes. The sex of the new individual depends on which of the sex chromosomes is supplied by the male. If it is the X chromosome, it combines with the X chromosome from the mother and produces a female (XX). If it is the Y chromosome, it combines with the X chromosome from the mother and produces a male (XY). ... the chromosomal make-up of the Man on the Shroud were not evidence of sexual activity on the part of the Virgin Mary, as might have been indicated at first sight. ... the finding of blood with X and Y chromosomes does not prove that the Man on the Shroud was not Jesus of Nazareth. If each year on January 1 we celebrate the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, the genetic formula of Jesus of Nazareth has to be 46 chromosomes (44 autosomes and XY)." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.43-44) 23/08/2007 "But our doing research into the DNA of the Man on the Shroud has now become controversial. Since the recent cloning of a sheep, Dolly, the idea of cloning from DNA has been greeted with horror by many people who view it as interfering with the usual biological methods of reproduction. `Sensationalist' reporting of the DNA work that we conducted on the Shroud has added to the unease many `Shroudies' felt when they heard about my research. Indeed, that may well explain the evident distress in a letter I received from Cardinal Saldarini on July 31, 1996, accusing me of having no respect for the religious beliefs of millions. I have no problem with the research I conducted. ... In order to clone a person, we need most of that person's DNA. In the case of the Shroud, the amount of blood we have is very little because 95 per cent of it has, over time, been replaced by bacteria and fungi. The blood that is left is so degraded that the few short segments still present are not sufficient to allow the cloning of a person. In our research we have cloned only three short segments of three genes. From the betaglobin gene from chromosome 11 we have a segment of only 270 base pairs. From the amelogenin-X gene, which produces the enamel on teeth, we have only about 250 base pairs, and the same number from amelogenin-Y. The difference between amelogenin-X and amelogenin-Y is in the size of the two genes, but we have only short segments of each. As I mentioned earlier, the number of base pairs making up a human genome or complete pattern is three billion. We have only between 700 and 750 base pairs, so we are far short of having a complete genome. Nor do I think that we would ever be able to have the complete genome of the Man on the Shroud." (Garza- Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.44-45) 23/08/2007 "Do I think that we have the DNA of God? If, as was established by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431, the Virgin Mary was the mother of God, and if the Man on the Shroud was her son, Jesus of Nazareth, which up to now I have no reason to doubt, then, yes, we have the DNA of God." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.45-46) 24/08/2007 "One development of far-reaching importance in the history of the images of faith was the emergence for the first time of a so-called acheiropoietos, an image that has not been made by human hands and portrays the very face of Christ. Two of these images appeared in the East at about the same time in the middle of the sixth century. The first of these was the so-called camulianium, the imprint of the image of Christ on a woman's gown. The second was the mandylion, as it was called later, which was brought from Edessa in Syria to Constantinople and is thought by many scholars today to be identical with the Shroud of Turin. In each case, as with the Turin Shroud, it must have been a question of a truly mysterious image, which no human artistry was capable of producing. In some inexplicable way, it appeared imprinted upon cloth and claimed to show the true face of Christ, the crucified and risen Lord. The first appearance of this image must have provoked immense fascination. Now at last could the true face of the Lord, hitherto hidden, be seen and thus the promise be fulfilled: `He who has seen me has seen the Father' (Jn 14:9). The sight of the God-Man and, through Him, of God Himself seemed to have been opened up; the Greek longing for the vision of the Eternal seemed to be fulfilled. Thus the icon inevitably assumed in its form the status of a sacrament. It was regarded as bestowing a communion no less than that of the Eucharist. People began to think that there was virtually a kind of real presence of the Person imaged in the image. The image in this case, the image not made by human hands, was an image in the full sense, a participation in the reality concerned, the refulgence and thus the presence of the One who gives Himself in the image. It is not hard to see why the images modeled on the acheiropoietos became the center of the whole canon of iconography, which meanwhile had made progress and was understood better in its wider implications." (Ratzinger, J., Cardinal, "Art and Liturgy - The Question of Images," from his "The Spirit of the Liturgy," Ignatius Press, 2000, Adoremus Bulletin, Vol. VII, No. 10: February 2002) 24/08/2007 "Also the new pope, Benedict XVI, has expressed many times his interest in the Holy Shroud. Everybody remembers his pilgrimage to Turin on 12 June 1998. Meetings and delays prevented him from visiting the Museum where his colleagues, guided by Mons. Tarciso Bertone who is now the Archbishop of Genoa, were waiting for him. We remember him joining his colleagues in piazza Castello, to set off for the `prereading' of the Shroud accompanied by Don Giuseppe Ghiberti. The evening of that day, Cardinal Ratzinger gave Turin profound proof of his doctrine, of his faith and of his love for the Church in the unforgettable lecture to the public crowding into the Teatro Regio of Turin entitled: `Fede tra ragione e sentimento' (Faith between reason and feeling). The text, enriched with notes, was afterwards published in the journal `Archivio teologico torinese' 1999/1 (Theological archives of Turin). We recommend that everyone should re-read it so as to better understand a fundamental aspect of the mind of the person who will guide our Church in the years to come. The image of the Holy Shroud is definitely impressed in his heart and it comes out in his speeches. We wish in particular to recall his mentioning of the Shroud during the celebration of the Via Crucis at the Colosseum this year, when commenting on the eleventh station (Jesus is nailed to the cross) he said `Jesus is nailed to the cross. The Shroud of Turin allows us to have an idea of the incredible cruelty of this procedure. Jesus does not drink the anaesthetizing drink offered to Him: He consciously takes on Himself all the pain of the crucifixion. All His Body is tortured; the words of the Psalm have come true: `But I am a worm, not a man, scorned and despised by my own people and by all mankind' (Psalm 22, 7). `Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows...' (Is 53, 3s). Let us dwell on this image of pain, in the presence of the Son of God suffering. Let us turn our eyes to Him in moments of conceit and enjoyment, so that we can learn to observe the limits and see the superficiality of mere material goods. Even more extraordinary in its depth of meaning is the passage on his remark at the Rimini meeting which is significantly entitled `Jesus between beauty and pain': The One Who is `Beauty in Himself' allows Himself to be hit on the face, spat upon, crowned with thorns: the Holy Shroud of Turin tells us all about it in a touching way. But really it is in that disfigured face that the true extreme Beauty of Love appears which loves `until the end', showing that it is stronger than any lie and violence. Only those who can understand this beauty realize that it is really the truth and not the lie that is the extreme `affirmation' of the world. The fact of being a sort of `absolute truth' is just a cunning trick of duplicity, rather as though outside and beyond it there is no other truth. Only the icon of the Crucifix can free us from this deception, which is today so overbearing. But there is one condition: we must be prepared to be hurt, with Him, we must trust in that Love from which all exterior beauty has been removed, to announce in this way the Truth of Beauty.' A profound contribution in only a few words grasps the important message of that mysterious image on the Shroud." ("The Popes and the Holy Shroud," Sindone News, Diocesan Commission for the Holy Shroud, Turin, Year IV, N. 24, March-April 2005) 24/08/2007 "On Tuesday, April 19 Card. Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope and chose Benedict XVI as his name. The new Pope has always shown his attention for the Holy Shroud, which he also mentioned during the recent Way of the Cross on Good Friday, March 25, in his meditation for the eleventh station, Jesus is nailed to the Cross: `The Shroud of Turin gives us an idea of the unbelievable cruelty of this procedure'. ["Stations of the Cross," Good Friday, 2005] In Avvenire of April 20, on page 8, we can find the text of a theological reflection written by Card. Ratzinger in 2002 for the Meeting in Rimini; there you can also read: `He Who is the Beauty Itself has let His Face be hit, has let Himself be spat on and crowned of thorns. The Holy Shroud of Turin can let us imagine all that in a touching way. But just in such a disfigured Face the authentic, extreme Beauty appears: the beauty of the love which lasts "unto the end' and which, just in this, reveals itself as stronger than falsehood and violence'." (Marinelli, E. & M., "News," Collegamento pro Sindone, April 20, 2005) 24/08/2007 "Jesus is nailed to the Cross. The shroud of Turin gives us an idea of the unbelievable cruelty of this procedure. Jesus does not drink the numbing gall offered to him: he deliberately takes upon himself all the pain of the Crucifixion. His whole body is racked; the words of the Psalm have come to pass: "But I am a worm and no man, scorned by men, rejected by the people" (Ps 22:7). `As one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised... surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows' (Is 53:3f.). Let us halt before this image of pain, before the suffering Son of God. Let us look upon him at times of presumptuousness and pleasure, in order to learn to respect limits and to see the superficiality of all merely material goods. Let us look upon him at times of trial and tribulation, and realize that it is then that we are closest to God. Let us try to see his face in the people we might look down upon. As we stand before the condemned Lord, who did not use his power to come down from the Cross, but endured its suffering to the end, another thought comes to mind. Ignatius of Antioch, a prisoner in chains for his faith in the Lord, praised the Christians of Smyrna for their invincible faith: he says that they were, so to speak, nailed with flesh and blood to the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ (1:1). Let us nail ourselves to him, resisting the temptation to stand apart, or to join others in mocking him." (Ratzinger, J., Cardinal, "Stations of the Cross," Good Friday, March 24, 2005. Adoremus, 22 February 2007. Emphasis original) 24/08/2007 "The incumbent, Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, prior to his elevation to the Papacy, spoke of the impression on his heart made by the Holy Shroud during his visit to Turin. `Let us dwell on this image of pain, in the presence of the Son of God suffering. Let us turn our eyes to Him in moments of conceit and enjoyment, so that we can learn to observe the limits and see the superficiality of mere material goods.' ["Stations of the Cross," Good Friday, 2005]" (Whiting, B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, 2006, pp.364-365. Emphasis original) 24/08/2007 "The great diversity of parties from around the world with interest in the Shroud has tested relationships in the past, especially when differences of opinion arose over proposals made to the papal custodian of the Shroud to allow new scientific tests on the cloth or on fibre samples taken from it. However, any residual differences of opinions were substantially resolved during the international conference held in Dallas, Texas, 8-11 September 2005. Jointly sponsored by AMSTAR and the Holy Shroud Guild, in collaboration with Italy's Centro Internazionale de Sindonologia, the conference provided an important forum for various experts to express their views about what new tests should be undertaken in the future, having due regard for the safe preservation of the cloth. Speakers included Monsignor Ghiberti, special advisor to Cardinal Severino Poletto, Papal Custodian for the Holy Shroud ... Monsignor Ghiberti responded to the call by affirming on behalf of the papal custodian the Church's willingness to allow more study of the Shroud when the scientific community determines what new tests need to be carried out, bearing in mind that conservation of the cloth and image is the most important requirement. These sentiments echoed those of Pope Benedict XVI, which were expressed in writing on his behalf by Cardinal Angelo Sodono, Secretary of State for the Vatican: `His Holiness trusts that the Dallas conference will advance cooperation and dialogue among the various groups engaged in scientific research on the Shroud and in promoting awareness of its outstanding religious significance. He is convinced that the growth of such collaboration, in complete respect for the autonomy of distinct areas of competence, will contribute to the important pastoral aim of making the mystery of the Shroud better known and enabling its message to touch the hearts of men and women everywhere.' [Letter from the Vatican, 16 July, 2005, to the Most Reverend Charles Grahmann, Bishop of Dallas]." (Whiting, B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, 2006, pp.370-371. Emphasis original) 25/08/2007 "Before we review the radiocarbon dating controversy in connection with the Shroud, you should understand the fundamental principals of radiocarbon dating. Three isotopes of carbon are normally found in carbon-containing materials: carbon-12 (C-12), carbon-13 (C-13), and carbon-14 (C-14). C-12 accounts for 98.9 percent of naturally occurring carbon. C-13 accounts for the other 1.1 percent. C-14 is present only in trace amounts. C-13 and C-12 are stable isotopes that were formed when the planet's other atoms were formed. Practically all of the earth's carbon in organic and inorganic materials consists of these two isotopes. Any C-14, or radiocarbon, that was formed along with the planet disappeared long ago because this isotope is radioactively unstable and decays. However, new, minute amounts of C-14 are continuously formed during collisions of cosmic rays with nitrogen-14 (N-14) atoms in the atmosphere. N-14 is not unusual: Air is about 78 percent nitrogen and 99.63 percent of all the nitrogen on earth is N-14. This newly formed C-14 is also unstable and disappears naturally. The amount of C-14 on earth remains nearly the same because new C-14 is created in the atmosphere at almost the same rate that older C-14 is decaying on the earth's surface. Thus, carbon-14 is said to be in balance." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.156) 25/08/2007 "However, this balance is infinitesimal with C-14 being approximately one part in a trillion of the overall carbon content (1/1,000,000,000,000). This very tiny amount of C-14 formed in the atmosphere, along with the much larger amounts of C-13 and C-12, is taken up in atmospheric carbon dioxide by photosynthesizing plants and is, thereby, spread throughout the biosphere, thus allowing all living things to have a similar ratio of C-14 to C-12. Since these carbon isotopes have the same chemical behavior, this ratio is maintained while the organism lives. However, upon its death, the C-14 disappears according to its radioactive half-life, which is approximately 5,730 years. By measuring the C-14 to C-12 ratio, scientists can calculate the date of the organism's death. ... Since the fraction of C-14 to C-12 is so infinitesimal, and since this measured ratio is the basis for calculating the organism's age, any error in measuring or counting the C-14 isotope could alter the date, perhaps significantly. A correct date can be calculated if and only if the very tiny trace amount of measured C-14 from the object accumulated there by the above natural process. If the measured C-14 got on the object any other way, the interpretation of the date will be incorrect." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.156-157. Emphasis original) 25/08/2007 "Errors in radiocarbon dating have been quite numerous. Just a few notable mistakes are:
\ ... My point is even most scientists are unaware of how error-prone carbon dating can be. This dating measures the ratio of C-14 to C-12, so if there are any errors in measuring the small amount of C-14 or in measuring the C-12, the date will be incorrect. Even if the two isotopes are correctly measured, the isotopes that were measured must be original, and must belong only to the object from which they were taken. This dating process is not absolute and is subject to enormous error. The reasons for the errors in the above examples were varied. In the last example, it was found that the outer portions of the bone had exchanged carbon with the air and ground water. In the example of the leaves, it was found that they had absorbed carbon from the atmosphere from the burning of oil containing old hydrocarbon. For some of the other examples, the reasons range from volcanic activity to incorporation of atomic bomb carbon. The reasons for and the extent of contamination were never fully understood for some of the remaining. Sometimes, the best and only method of evaluating the extent or effects of contamination on an object or site is to observe the divergence of the radiocarbon date from the site's historically datable context. For these and other reasons, many radiocarbon dates have been rejected by archaeologists and geologists as being anomalous or in conflict with other C-14 dates or more reliable data. Good scientists do not rely on carbon dating in isolation when there is other evidence available to help confirm an accurate date." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.157. Emphasis original) 25/08/2007 "Quotes from the most elementary textbooks show that contamination can cause errors in dating. `Carbon from other sources may easily be trapped in porous materials ... The archaeologist is the only person who is in a position to know of these contaminating potentials' [Stuckenrath, R., Jr., "On the Care and Feeding of Radiocarbon Dates," Archaeology, Vol. 18, 1965, pp.277-281]. `[C]ontamination of the sample may take place ... and removal of the contaminant from the pore spaces and fissures is almost impossible.' [Goudie, A., "Environmental Change," Clarendon: Oxford, 1977, p.10]. Excavated samples are `liable to absorb humic matter from the solutions, that pass through them (resulting in) contamination by carbon compounds of an age younger than its own ... there is also the possibly of exchange of carbon isotopes under such conditions ... That there are other risks of contamination and other pitfalls involved in this method is obvious enough.' [Zeuner, F.E., "Dating the Past," Hafner: Darien CT, 1970, pp. 341-346] The possibility of contamination should be exhaustively investigated and pretreatment measures should be designed accordingly whenever any critical radiocarbon dating is being attempted. Unfortunately, even with specialized pretreatment, contamination cannot always be detected and, if detected or identified, cannot always be eliminated." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.157-158) 28/08/2007 "Another line of evidence corroborates this. Plants scatter pollen in abundance, far the chance of any one airborne spore meeting with the appropriate female part of a plant of the same species is very small. The air contains masses of spores in summer, as all hay-fever sufferers know, and they settle everywhere. Microbes then attack them, and after a time only the pollen cases remain. However, these are characteristic of the species and almost indestructible, and they can be used by forensic scientists to determine where items of clothing have been, for instance, following a crime." (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," , Souvenir Press: London, 1995, p.17) 28/08/2007 "In 1969 a Swiss criminologist, Dr Max Frei, pressed some sticky tape on parts of the Shroud and examined the pollen that came off. He found that it was from forty-nine different plants, thirty-three of which grow only in Palestine, Anatolia and the area round Istanbul. [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," Robert Hale, 1982, p.26] Although precise conclusions regarding the time and place of manufacture cannot be drawn from these facts, some approximate ones can. The cloth was woven on a hand-loom somewhere in the Middle East, probably not Egypt, perhaps Syria or Palestine. The date is difficult to judge. An expert who narrowed it down to the first to third centuries AD [Rinaldi, P.M., "The Man in the Shroud," Futura: London, 1978, p.55] may well have been swayed by the result he hoped to achieve. It is just as likely to have been made in the Middle East in medieval times as centuries before that." (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," , Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.17-18) 28/08/2007 "While the exact time and place of manufacture are uncertain, there can be no doubt that the Shroud is a beautifully made length of cloth, and probably cost a very great deal. This has prompted the suggestion that it was intended as apparel rather than a shroud. [Tyrer, J., "Looking at the Turin Shroud as a Textile," Textile Horizons, December 19811, pp.20-23, p.22] There is a lot of sense to this. A shroud would probably have been made from the simplest weave, which is why the funeral cloths that have been preserved from early times are nearly all plain weave. Garments do not survive so frequently. Incidentally, it is worth noting that this material would have been allowed under the Mosaic Law, for in the Mishna flax may have impurities of cotton. Mixtures of flax and wool were strictly forbidden, however; as it says in Leviticus (19:19), `Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not ... neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.'" (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," , Souvenir Press: London, 1995, p.18) 28/08/2007 "In the Shroud of Turin we have a piece of linen made in a 3 to 1 twill weave, broken at intervals by a forty- thread stripe measuring from 3/8 to 7/16 inch (10 to 12 mm.) in width, and making an over-all herringbone pattern in the cloth. Irregularities in the weave and thickness of the fabric, together with dissimilarities in the thread, indicate that it is a piece of hand-woven, hand-spun linen. In the course of the centuries the linen has turned yellow. ... It is quite possible to keep linen fabrics for two thousand years and over. Numerous linens of such an age, and some considerably more ancient, are preserved, especially linen from the Near East, Syria, and Egypt." (Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, 1957, p.28) 28/08/2007 "To date it has been impossible to determine with any scientific exactness as to when the twill weave was first employed. But it was certainly known in the first century. Professor Geilmann showed the author an entire collection of reliably dated fabrics, mostly linen, from the first to the third century. One of them had the identical pattern as the Cloth of Turin. Many others were similar to it. On the other hand, an exact dating is impossible on the basis of woven structure alone, since various woven designs, among them the twill pattern, have been in use down through the centuries." (Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, 1957, pp.28-29) 28/08/2007 "The Near East ought surely to be considered in dealing with the origin of the Cloth of Turin. The technique in the Cloth of Turin was known there at least from early Syrian fabrics. Palmyra especially should be mentioned. Fabrics in the twill weave, woolen to be sure, have been discovered in the excavations at Dura Europos on the upper Euphrates which was buried around the middle of the third century. But the structure of the weaving alone does not permit us to date the origin of the Cloth of Turin more precisely, since twill weaves were used from the earliest times. But up to now there seems to be no evidence that fabrics in the twill weave were known in France in the period before and during the fourteenth century, although opponents of the authenticity of the Cloth have been much concerned in this regard. This places those who contend that the Cloth is the work of a fourteenth-century French artist, under a serious handicap." (Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, 1957, p.29) 28/08/2007 "Blinzler argues that this artist went to the trouble of procuring precisely a piece of oriental cloth, even ancient linen perhaps, in order to produce a shroud as realistic as possible! But a realistic forgery in this sense does not at all fit in with the medieval mentality, to which historical considerations of this sort were quite foreign. Not one of the medieval copyists of the Shroud ever hit on such an idea of providing himself with a piece of oriental linen. Dr. Volbach, an outstanding specialist in the history of relics, and quite cautious in other instances in his judgment on the Cloth of Turin, assured the author that a forgery of this sort would be unparalleled in the whole Middle Ages. Thus he rejected such an origin for the Cloth of Turin- despite the assertions in the memorandum of Peter d'Arcis." (Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, 1957, p.29) 28/08/2007 "The first area of scientific research that we shall examine may constitute the most important challenge to and refutation of the carbon dating of the Shroud. These scientific findings also indicate the key areas of future testing that must be performed on the Shroud to confirm whether it was irradiated with a particular form of radiation, whether new C-14 was created within it, to distinguish the original C-14 from the additional C-14, and to calculate the cloth's true age. In the same issue of Nature in which the carbon dating report of the Shroud appeared, this scientific journal also published a letter by Thomas Phillips of the High Energy Physics Laboratory at Harvard University [Phillips, T., "Shroud Irradiated with Neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 1989, p.594]. Phillips, also an IBM scholar, stated that if the body of the man in the Shroud gave off radiation during the image-encoding process it could have radiated neutrons, `which would have irradiated the Shroud and changed some of the nuclei to different isotopes by neutron capture. In particular, some C- 14 could have been generated from C13.' [Ibid] This same process could also form newly created C- 14 from nitrogen. This newly created C-14 would make the Shroud appear much younger that it actually is. When asked by a journalist if such a process could have caused an incorrect dating of the Shroud in 1988. Michael Tite, who coordinated the carbon dating of the Shroud for the British - Museum, commented: `It is certainly possible if one gave the Shroud a large dose of neutrons to produce C-14 from the nitrogen in the linen cloth.' [Jennings, P, `Still Shrouded in Mystery;' 30 Days in the Church and in the World, 1.7, 1988, pp.70- 71, p.71]. Robert Hedges, one of the scientists who participated in the carbon dating of the Shroud at the Oxford laboratory, also acknowledged to the journalist that a `sufficient level of neutrons from radiation on the Shroud would invalidate the radiocarbon date which we obtained.' [Ibid]. In fact it was Dr. Hedges who pointed out that the amount of neutron flux required to cause a 1,300-year difference in age was not nearly as much as first suggested by Phillips. [Hedges, R., `Hedges Replies,' Nature, Vol. 337, 1989, p.594] Because the amount of C-14 in the C-14 to C-12 ratio is so minuscule (one part in a trillion), if a neutron flux activated only an extra 18 percent of C-14 compared to that present naturally in the linen, it would cause a cloth from the first century to appear to be only 650 years old [Kelly, B., `Turin Shroud,' New Scientist, Vol. 119, September 1988; Statement confirmed by Dr. Robert Otlet of the Harwell Laboratory and by Prof. Edward Hall of the Oxford Laboratory according to Wilson in the British Society fer the Turin Shroud Newsletter 20, October 1988, p.14]." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.159-160) 29/08/2007 "Neutrons are very penetrating. While some would collide with the countless atoms in the cloth and bounce off in another direction, many would pass through the linen and the blood, bouncing off of or even penetrating the limestone surroundings, with some ricocheting back onto the cloth. After many bounces, a neutron would lose most of its energy but would then be in a position to alter the nucleus of another atom into a newly created C-14 nucleus. This could easily happen in one of two ways. Flax, from which linen is made, grows in soil that is dependent on nitrogen, so N-14 would be found within the linen itself. N-14 in the air, on the surface of the cellulose, or within the flax itself could absorb a neutron causing it to emit a proton. The remaining nucleus becomes a carbon-14 (C14) nucleus. ... When this reaction occurs with N-14 within the flax itself, or within the air permeating or passing through the porous fibers, these newly created C-14 atoms also become part of the flax. This reaction also produces energy, allowing the newly created C-14 to penetrate approximately 0.3 microns farther into the cellulose and break its chemical bonds. The other way in which these neutrons could create new, additional C-14 is if the neutrons collided with the nuclei of C-13 isotopes or atoms within the cellulose of the Shroud. The absorptions of an additional neutron would convert a C-13 nucleus into a C-14 nucleus. This newly created C-14 would also become part of the flax itself." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.160-161) 29/08/2007 "When an object or sample is given to laboratories to be carbon dated, age is based on the assumption that all of the C-14 that is measured accrued in the object naturally, without any additional or newly created C-14 getting into the sample. If additional C-14 formed and remained in the cellulose of the Shroud either from N14 or C-13, and then was measured, the age ascribed to it would be correspondingly incorrect. Rinaudo proved this by radiocarbon dating a 3400 B.C. Egyptian linen cloth before and after irradiating it with neutrons in the quantity first suggested by Phillips. The radiocarbon dating before neutron irradiation was in agreement with the mummy cloth's known historical age, but after irradiation, its age was shifted forty-six thousand years toward the future, five hundred centuries forward in time. [Rinaudo, J., "Protonic Model of Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin," Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, Turin, Italy, June 5-7, 1998, pp. 5-6] .... Under Rinaudo's method, an equal number of protons (at 1.135 million electron volts [MeV]) are released simultaneously with the neutrons. It is well known scientifically that air and linen attenuate protons, having an energy of about 1.1 MeV. These protons do not travel more than about 3 cm (1.18 inches) in air and 30 microns (two or three fibrils) in linen. These properties and this amount of proton energy will be shown to be ideally suited to produce the body images found on the Shroud. Moreover, in order to create similar conditions of observation or comparison between his experimental samples and the centuries-old Shroud, Rinaudo artificially aged his samples by subjecting them to elevated temperatures for a short time for ten hours at 150°C. He found that, when his sample was irradiated with the above energy at a very low intensity, the linen cloth remained white. However, after it was artificially aged, it took on a very similar appearance to that of the Shroud body image. This would be consistent with the development of the Shroud's body images over time. When Rinaudo computed the number of protons required to obtain an image like that on the Shroud, he also observed the corresponding number of neutrons necessarily present. Based on his earlier radiocarbon experiments with the Egyptian mummy linen cloth, he calculated the age change that would result from this corresponding number of neutrons. Significantly, he found the result to be an age shift of thirteen centuries. [Ibid] This form of radiation alone could explain why the measured radiocarbon date for the Shroud was contrary to all the previous scientific, medical, archaeological, and historical evidence that the Shroud wrapped the body of the historical Jesus Christ in the first century." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.161-162. Emphasis original) 29/08/2007 "At the same international conference at which Dr. Rinaudo spoke in 1998, a paper containing the results of experiments by three Italian scientists headed by Mario Moroni was also presented. [Moroni, M., Barbesino, F. & Bettinelli, M., "Verification of an Hypothesis of Radiocarbon Rejuvenation;" Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, Turin, Italy, June 5-7. 1998] Moroni took six mummy samples that were approximately 2,110 years old and exposed all but one of them to various conditions or treatments before radiocarbon dating them again. Two samples were not irradiated, but exposed to fire conditions to simulate what the Shroud incurred during the actual fire of 1532. One sample was only irradiated. The last two samples were irradiated and then exposed to the simulated fire conditions. Like Rinaudo's radiation, and that discussed by Phillips, Tite, and Hedges, this radiation consists of a neutron flux. The results of these experiments were very interesting: The two fire simulation experiments showed small radiocarbon age changes ... . The irradiation-only sample showed an age change to 360 years younger-after it was pretreated and dissolved so extensively that a mere 10 percent of it remained. However, the two samples that were irradiated and then heated in the fire simulation models showed significant age changes-1,120 to 1,390 years younger." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.162) 29/08/2007 "Almost all elements have atomic structures that require their atoms to be bound to another atom. This is true for carbon; when found in nature, it is always bound. When newly created C-14 is formed by neutron irradiation, it is extremely unstable and will bind at its first opportunity. During the pretreatment cleaning process, various chemicals and rinses are applied consecutively to the cloth sample. During this time, many of the pores of the sample's cellulose could open up. If water enters the pores, the carbon will attach to the oxygen within, become a gas (carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide) and bubble away. ... When these high- energy neutrons bounce throughout the cloth, they also break chemical bonds within the cellulose. This provides an opportunity for the newly created C-14 atoms to bind to and become part of the linen over time, and survive the pretreatment cleaning process better. This can occur in different ways. The breaking of the chemical bonds causes other atoms within the broken molecular structure of the cellulose to become unbound. These atoms (oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon) also need to bind to other atoms and, like the newly created C-14, will actively seek to bind to other unbound atoms. The newly created C-14 and the oxygen and other carbon atoms from the broken bonds will bind to each other within the molecular structure of the cellulose. For this reason, the longer period of time that passes, the more embedded the C-14 can get into the molecular structure of the cellulose. Heat would naturally speed this process as well as cause the binding to be more extensive." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.162-163. Emphasis original) 29/08/2007 "The Turin Shroud - a Leonardo da Vinci self-portrait? The fruits of an elaborate, multi-faceted piece of research conducted over the last five years by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince have recently been published in a book entitled Turin Shroud: In Whose Image? The Shocking Truth Unveiled. The authors ask a series of questions about where the Shroud in Turin came from, how the image that purports to be of the Crucified Christ was implanted in it, by whom, when, and finally why this was done. They take as their point of departure the results of the carbon-dating tests carried out in mid-1988, which demonstrated that the fabric of the Shroud was made sometime between 1260 and 1390. Despite the mis-match of dates, the authors propose that in 1492 Leonardo da Vinci substituted a new Shroud for the one that we know already existed in the 1350s. They claim that he devised a method of generating on the fabric an image of a crucified man, to which he added the image of his own face. Identifying this as a 1492 self-portrait depends, however, on comparisons with the celebrated red-chalk drawing in Turin. This dates from more than twenty years later, and may not be a self-portrait. Moreover, the evidence presented for the theory of a complex conspiracy between Pope Innocent VIII, Lorenzo de'Medici, the House of Savoy (to whom the Shroud belonged) and Leonardo himself is somewhat tenuous. Given the historical misinterpretations that pepper the text, the reader may find it difficult to take much of this book very seriously. But the investigation into how the image was implanted into (rather than merely onto) the fabric is more intriguing, for it may seem that the image was `fixed' by a primitive but precocious photographic technique. By trial and error the authors evolved such a process which produced images comparable with that on the Turin Shroud. This is a racy account of an investigation that is more detective fiction than historical research, and fails to present a persuasive case for a hitherto unrecognised Leonardo self-portrait. But it undeniably offers further contributions to the burgeoning Myth of Leonardo da Vinci." (Ames-Lewis, F., ed., "The Turin Shroud - a Leonardo da Vinci self-portrait?," Leonardo da Vinci Society Newsletter, Issue 5, November 1994. Emphasis original) 29/08/2007 "Except for carbon dating, the most recent scientific forays on the shroud occurred at the conclusion of its latest exposition in 1978. For a period of five days and nights a group of scientists subjected the shroud to a variety of experiments. Their aim was to establish that it was, indeed, the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. They came mainly from US government military and research establishments and had banded together under the aegis of the non-profit organization called the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc. (STURP). They comprised mainly true believers in the shroud's authenticity. They overwhelmed the Turin ecclesiastical authorities and their scientific advisors with their aerospace technology and their insistence on military-like secrecy and discipline. Like all the scientific investigations that had gone before, their results were inconclusive and generally of negligible importance despite the time and money expended. I believed STURP's members to be so convinced it was Christ's shroud that I was determined to prevent their involvement in its carbon dating, if that were ever to come about. I feared the most important measurement that could be made on the shroud would be rendered less credible by their participation. Fortunately in this I was successful." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.6-7) 29/08/2007 "Possibly not since the days of Galileo has such a curious interaction between science and religion taken place. It culminated in the only measurement that could provide definitive information on a fundamental property of the Turin Shroud, namely the time when the flax used to make the shroud's linen was harvested. Nobody would argue that this measurement had any scientific significance, unlike many others that have been made by the new method called accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). However, the wide public interest in the shroud and consequently in any scientific technique that could unambiguously establish its age, made it a legitimate object to be tackled by AMS." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.7) 29/08/2007 "Accelerator mass spectrometry was invented in 1977 at the University of Rochester's Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory located in Rochester, New York by scientists from Rochester led by myself, the University of Toronto in Canada led by Ted Litherland and from a small US corporation called General Ionex led by Ken Purser. It was also conceived independently at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. The first measurements of radiocarbon in nature by this revolutionary new method were carried out at Rochester where the technique was rapidly perfected. It was subsequently widely replicated in other laboratories throughout the world. It quickly became the method of choice for radiocarbon dating of organic matter, especially when the amount of material was limited." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.7) 29/08/2007 "Shortly after the publicity surrounding the invention of this new technique for carbon dating, a letter was received by the Rochester group from a minister in England concerning the Turin Shroud. The letter, dated 24 June 1977, was from the Reverend H. David Sox. It was the first time any of us in the Rochester AMS project had ever heard of the Turin Shroud. The question Sox raised was whether this new small-sample technique which he had read about in Time magazine could be used to date the shroud. We responded that, indeed, it could but it was a bit too soon to apply so recently developed a technique to such a renowned object. However, his inquiry led, via a complex chain of events, to the actual dating of the shroud cloth by accelerator mass spectrometry almost exactly eleven years later." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.7-8) 29/08/2007 "It is well known to scientists that one can sometimes obtain a desired scientific result by subconscious manipulation of the technique or the data. It is a human flaw that must be carefully guarded against. It is most easily circumvented by not having preconceived notions of what the answer should be. A belief that the shroud was the genuine article was the stuff of which STURP was made and I am happy to say that, in the end, they played no role in its carbon dating." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.8-9) 29/08/2007 "To carbon date organic material such as the cloth of the Turin Shroud, it is necessary to measure the relative amounts of various isotopes of carbon in the material. Isotopes of chemical elements are atoms that have the same number of protons in their nucleus (and thus the same number of electrons circling the nucleus) but different numbers of neutrons. Carbon has six protons and six electrons and the latter determine its chemical properties. The stable isotopes of carbon have either six or seven neutrons. These are called carbon-12 (6 protons plus 6 neutrons) and carbon-13 (6 protons and 7 neutrons) respectively. There is a radioactive isotope of carbon with a relatively long lifetime that has 6 protons and 8 neutrons (carbon-14). The relative amount of carbon-14 compared to stable carbon in an organic material is a measure of when that organic material died. Carbon dating was invented by Willard Libby in the 1940s and earned him the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1960. Radioactive carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and, along with the stable isotopes of carbon, it combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide gas. All living organisms ingest carbon dioxide. As long as plants or animals are alive the ratio of carbon-14 to stable carbon in their carbon component is about one part in a trillion. This ratio represents the equilibrium between the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and its decay. At the time of death of the organic matter the ratio begins to decrease. If death occurred 5730 years ago (the half-life of carbon-14) the ratio is only half a part in a trillion. A measurement of the ratio determines the time of death with considerable precision." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.11" (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.8-9) 29/08/2007 "It was during another AMS run in May 1978 that Litherland, Purser and I agreed that we should explore the possibility of getting involved in dating the Turin Shroud. As mentioned above we had learned of it in June 1977 in a letter from Reverend David Sox. I had already privately decided that it would be too good an opportunity to miss. It would be a highly public demonstration of the power of carbon dating by AMS. Besides, I was becoming increasingly curious about the shroud and the, to me, remote possibility that it actually was Christ's burial cloth. I was pleased that they concurred. I had not the slightest inkling how byzantine the project would turn out to be nor that it would be ten years almost to the day that we agreed to be involved in the Turin Shroud adventure that it was first dated by AMS at Arizona. Some time in late July 1978, we sent a paper to Turin describing how we would go about dating the shroud and offering to do so if the authorities there wished." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.14) 29/08/2007 "This was the letter from David Sox, dated London, 24 June 1977, that introduced us to the Turin Shroud: `Dear Prof. Gove, I write this in strictest confidence. You may know about the Turin Shroud or not. A great deal of very quiet diplomacy has been going on in hopes to have it carbon dated using small samples which have already been removed for other purposes. I have been involved in this process and Dr. Walter McCrone has been a valuable contact. Under no circumstances would I want him to know that I have approached you but there is a great deal of discussion as to whether his methods (or access to new methods) could bring about the best test. He is a marvellous person and I am very devoted to him but my experience with Prof. Apers of Belgium led me to question whether such a test was possible. The enclosed articles will 'spell out' some of this. I do not have a detailed analysis of his process but you will be able to check on Prof. Apers' analysis of it. I know this is a rather strange letter `out of the blue' but would appreciate your comments on the enclosed and am certain you can keep this in a confidential manner-that is extremely important. I heard about your new testing from a friend who works for Time magazine. My best wishes. (The Revd) H David Sox.'" (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.15) 29/08/2007 "By coincidence, on the same day I replied to Sox I got a call from Walter McCrone. ... He told me, in a rather secretive manner (the shroud seems to bring out conspiratorial traits in people), that he had an important piece of cloth whose age he was eager to know. In particular he said he would like to know whether it was 2000 years old. Presumably he thought I couldn't guess to what cloth he was alluding. ... I told McCrone he should write to me and he said he would. He did so on 11 July 1977. He described the Walter C McCrone Associates, Inc. laboratory in Chicago. It was devoted principally to applied microanalytical research. ... In his letter, McCrone remained coy about the source of the cloth he said he was interested in dating. He stated, however, that it was a very important sample believed to be of the order of 2000 years old. He thought it would become available to him in the very near future. He went on to say there were two samples weighing 60 milligrams and 110 milligrams respectively which must be dated to dependably distinguish between ages of 2000 and 700 years and, for some unstated reason, he needed the results before the end of the year. They were, as I already knew, the Raes samples and I suppose he wanted the results before the next shroud exposition scheduled for early fall of the following year. ... I said we were not yet in a position to date his important samples but, conceivably, might be in six months or so. I did not reveal that I knew what the samples were. I invited him to visit our laboratory. I sometimes think that McCrone dreamed of becoming history's greatest iconoclast. Having, in his view, demolished the authenticity of the Vinland Map he saw the chance to do the same to the Turin Shroud!" (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.18-19) 30/08/2007 "When a series of tests were carried out on the shroud in the fall of 1978, McCrone determined that there were traces of iron oxide powder on the shroud image. He immediately announced that he `had some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that the shroud is a fake. The good news is that no one is going to believe me.' It remained, however, for others to settle the question and to do so with somewhat greater objectivity and with a great deal more credibility." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.19-20) 30/08/2007 "One of the most famous and fascinating cases that involved analysing pollen from woven fabric to determine where something came from is the investigation into the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud of Turin is a 4.3 x 1.1-metre piece of linen cloth on which a faint image of a man's face and body can be seen. There are various lines of evidence, including blood samples, that suggest that the image is of a man who was crucified. Many believe this is the shroud that was wrapped around the body of Christ after his crucifixion; others believe it's a medieval forgery." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.92) 30/08/2007 "Scientists first examined the Shroud at the end of the nineteenth century, and research and debate on its authenticity continue today. Historically, it is alleged that the Shroud was taken from the Holy Land to Constantinople in Turkey and then, in the 1350s it was taken from Turkey to France. The first documented history of the Shroud is from 1357 AD, when it arrived in France. But pollen from the Shroud indicates an earlier history in the Middle East." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, pp.92-93) 30/08/2007 "Pollen was first collected from the Shroud in 1973 by Dr Max Frei, [Palenik, S., `Microscopic trace evidence- the overlooked clue: Part II, Max Frei-Sherlock Holmes with a microscope', Microscope, Vol. 30, 1982, pp.163-168] then head of the Scientific Service of the Criminal Police of Zurich, Switzerland. Some of his previous police work was based on pollen and, while testifying at the Turin Commission of Investigation that photographs of the Shroud taken some years before were authentic, he asked for permission to collect dust samples from the Shroud." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.93) 30/08/2007 "Frei pressed 5-centimetre sections of transparent sticky tape onto the Shroud, lifted them off and mounted them onto glass microscope slides for microscopic examination. He found hundreds of pollen grains on the tapes and compared them with reference pollen collected from plants in Israel, Turkey, Cyprus, France and Italy. Only a few pollen grains were from typical European plants found in Italy and France. Most of the pollen was from plants that grow in different parts of Israel, in nearby Turkey, and the western Mediterranean. Thirty-three per cent of the pollen grains were from Gundelia tournefortii, a prickly tumbleweed (thorn) restricted to the Middle East. Among other pollen types, Frei also reported pollen from Rock Rose and a bean caper plant, Zygophyllum dumosum, that would later help other investigations of the Shroud. From the natural distribution of plants represented in the pollen assemblage Frei concluded that the Shroud originated in the Middle East in an area near the Dead Sea and Palestine, and that it had travelled through Turkey to France and Italy. He collected further tapes from the Shroud in 1978 but didn't finish examining them before his death in 1983." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.93) 30/08/2007 "In 1988 radiocarbon dating, commonly expressed as carbon-14 or 14C, of linen strands from the Shroud produced a date of 1325 AD, strangely coincident with the first documented history of the Shroud. Sceptics declared the Shroud a thirteenth-fourteenth century forgery; and because Max Frei wasn't a recognised palynologist, his research and findings were not taken seriously." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.93) 30/08/2007 "In the year that Max Frei died, a German physicist, Oswald Scheuermann, noticed flower-like images in enhanced photographs of the Shroud. He conducted experiments and concluded that these images were made by corona discharge-the discharge of radiation from a surface charged with static electricity. That is, where the plant material touched the cloth it lost electrons to the cloth and left faint halo-like images of the outline of the plant material on the cloth. Scheuermann reported his findings to Professor Alan Whanger of Duke University in North Carolina and his wife Mary Whanger." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, pp.93-94) 30/08/2007 "The Whangers saw these faint images of plant material for themselves on the Shroud in 1985. Over the following decade they enhanced black and white photographs of the Shroud taken in 1931 and detected hundreds of images of flowers, buds, leaves, fruit and stems around the head and on the chest area of the image of the figure of a man on the Shroud. Tentatively, they identified 28 of the plant images as being from plants that grew in Israel." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.94) 30/08/2007 "In 1995 the Whangers enlisted the help of a well-respected Israeli botanist, Dr Avinoam Danin, to confirm their identifications of plants in the Shroud images. Danin was impressed. He verified their work and identified other plants represented by the images. Of particular interest was the image of a flower of the thorn Gundelia tournefortii near the right shoulder of the figure on the Shroud, the same place from which Frei had taken a tape that contained numerous G. tournefortii pollen grains." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.94) 30/08/2007 "The Whangers had acquired Max Frei's pollen tapes and Danin took them back to Israel in the hope that Dr Uri Baruch, an expert on Israeli palynology, would examine them. Baruch had publicly taken a stand against Frei's findings, but on examining the tapes he changed his opinion. Like Frei, Baruch found that almost one- third of the pollen grains on the tapes were from the thorn Gundelia tournefortii." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.94) 30/08/2007 "During another visit to the Whangers, Danin identified leaves and flowers of bean caper plants, Zygophyllum dumosum, in the image of a bouquet on the chest area of the figure of a man on the Shroud. At that time Danin didn't know that Frei had reported pollen of Z. dumosum on the Shroud tapes. Similarly, an image of a bouquet of Rock Roses [Cistus credicus] was found near the left cheek of the figure. Frei had found Rock Rose pollen on the tapes too." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.94) 30/08/2007 "Although pollen and images from many other plants that grow in the Middle East have been recognised on the Shroud, the independent identification of both pollen and images of Gundelia tournefortii and Zygophyllum dumosum are the most significant. The thorn G. tournefortii is insect pollinated and flowers from February to May. Such great numbers of pollen from this species could only have arrived on the Shroud from a flower being placed on it. Zygophyllum dumosum is restricted to Israel, western Jordan and Sinai, and its northernmost distribution occurs between Jerusalem and Jericho. 18 [Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic indicators for the origin of the Shroud of Turin," in Minor, M., et. al., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the mystery," Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium, Alexander Books: Alexander, NC, 2001, pp.202-214] The natural distributions of G. tournefortii and Z. dumosum overlap in two small areas, both in the Holy Land. From studying distribution grids of all the plants identified by pollen or images, Danin reported that the area the Shroud may have originated from is 10-20 kilometres east and west of Jerusalem." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.94) 30/08/2007 "The Whangers, Danin, Baruch and others have plenty of ammunition for the sceptics. The documented history of the Shroud shows that since 1352 AD it hasn't left Europe. If the similar carbon-14 date for the age of the Shroud is correct, how did so many pollen grains and images of plants from the Middle East come to be on the Shroud?" (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, pp.94-95) 30/08/2007 "The carbon-14 dating has since been discounted. The linen threads that were dated are chemically different from most of the Shroud linen. Was this younger thread used for mending the Shroud when it first arrived in France, or before it was taken from Constantinople?" (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.95) 30/08/2007 "Are the images of plant material on the Shroud artefacts or 'faces in the clouds' as one sceptic put it? They could be, but it's unlikely. After examining the pollen and image evidence, even the aforementioned sceptic agreed the images may be authentic. Some images can be seen on the Shroud without the aid of photographic enhancement, and the same images can be seen in photographs of the Shroud taken in 1898 and 1978-eighty years apart and with different cameras, films and developing methods." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.95) 30/08/2007 "The two independent botanical methods, palynology and the analysis of the halo-like images left by coronal discharge, show that plants were placed on the Shroud. Pollen analysis narrowed down the area from which the Shroud originated and determined the time of year when the pollen arrived on it." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.95) 30/08/2007 "None of this proves that the Shroud was used to cover the body of Christ. I'm not an adherent of traditional religion, but the abundant presence of pollen from the thorn Gundelia tournefortii and its image near the shoulder of the figure oil the Shroud does provoke thought. This species is not an ornamental and is unlikely to have been used in a floral tribute." (Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2005, p.95)
- dating of living snail shells to be twenty-six thousand years old
- dating a newly killed seal to be thirteen hundred years old
- dating one-year-old leaves as four hundred years old
- dating twenty-six-thousand-year-old-mammoth fur as fifty-six hundred years old
- dating a Viking horn to the future year of 2006
- bone tools from caribou ribs at an Alaskan site dated approximately twenty-seven thousand years old, yet a sample taken from the innermost portion of the bone dated to 1,350 years.
[top] [Aug (1)]
Copyright © 2007-2012, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 22 August, 2007. Updated: 10 January, 2012.