Stephen E. Jones

Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified: August 2007 (2)

[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," [1998], 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," [1984], 
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," [1984], 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," [1984], 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," [1984], 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," [1984], 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," [1984], 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," [1967], 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," [1983], 
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," [1983], 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," [1983], 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," [1983], 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," [1983], 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," [1983], 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," [1983], 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," 
[1983], 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," [1983], 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," [1983], 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," [1984], 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," [1984], 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," [1984], 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)

[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.

Y>