[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [My TheShroudofTurin blog]
The following are quotes added to my Shroud of Turin unclassified quotes in October 2007. See copyright conditions at end.
[May, Jun, Jul, Aug (1), Aug (2), Sep, Nov, Dec]
1/10/2007 "The extensive scientific examination that had been planned for the Shroud did not occur. Another two years passed before the radiocarbon sample was even removed. These are some of the reasons that the process took nine years and produced a poorly planned, poorly executed, very limited, and quite controversial scientific testing of the Shroud in 1988. During the process, Gove consistently insisted that the Pontifical Academy be involved, for as the examples above indicate, as long as it was involved, Gove could easily influenced them and negated plans for STURP to participate in any further testing of the Shroud. Until Gove's book was published in 1996, STURP scientists were at a complete loss to explain their elimination from the testing and dating of the Shroud or to explain fully the controversy surrounding the removal and dating of the Shroud sample. Gove's book supplied many answers. From the beginning of STURP's carbon dating efforts in 1979 until the publication of Gove's book in 1996, STURP scientists were unaware of Gove's deep-seated animosity toward them and of his efforts behind the scenes to eliminate them." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.195-196) 1/10/2007 "One of the other ways to disassociate STURP from any role in carbon dating the Shroud was to prevent its members from attending the workshop. Gove admitted, "I said that unless STURP could show that it had some role to play, I personally could not justify their presence at the workshop." [Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.93] This statement was made in spite of the fact that Gove and the carbon dating laboratories had joined STURP's carbon dating effort and had agreed that STURP could remove the sample (and be present during the lab's preparation and measurements), and that the lab's own protocol, which Gove himself had submitted, called for STURP to arrange for the samples to be removed from the Shroud. In April of 1986, Gove wrote to Professor Chagas and "urged him again to send all of us official invitations on behalf of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to attend and participate in the workshop as soon as possible:' [Ibid., p.112] He enclosed a list of people who he thought should be invited; however, the only names on the list were from the carbon dating community and Dr. Canuto of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. This and other instances had caused Cardinal Archbishop Ballestreros [sic], the custodian of the Shroud, to appeal to the Vatican secretary of state and to the Pope that the Pontifical Academy was taking matters away from him concerning the Shroud. [Ibid., p.113] Gonella contacted Chagas asking him to also invite Robert Dinegar, the STURP C-14 coordinating investigator; Jacques Evin, a carbon dating specialist from France; and William Meacham, an archaeologist and an expert on the Shroud of Turin. Gove volunteered to Chagas that he did not understand why the latter two men should be invited. [Ibid., p.113] Gonella also suggested that STURP chemist Dr. Alan Adler and James Druzik, conservator with the J.P Getty Museum, be invited to attend the meeting. Chagas volunteered to Gove that he did not think he was going to invite either of those two. [Ibid., p.113] Chagas eventually agreed to Gonella's requests and invited these men, all of whom except Druzik attended the workshop. Meacham and Adler, whose lengthy and combined expertise of the Shroud included practically every aspect of its numerous features, not only attended but also provided valuable advice, yet this advice was ignored by those who conducted the carbon dating procedure and sampling from the Shroud. As an archaeologist with a great deal of experience in having samples retrieved on site and carbon dated, as well as having a wide range of knowledge on all facets of the Shroud, Meacham was an especially qualified participant for the workshop. His advice was not only ignored; it was ridiculed by Gove. At the workshop, Dr. Adler repeated STURP's position that samples from various parts of the Shroud should be removed for carbon dating purposes. He discussed STURP's proposal for overall tests, emphasizing its concerns for the conservation of the image and the cloth, and repeated that, in addition to the STURP scientists, four to five textile conservation specialists would also be present (as well as many observers). As another example of the unscientific concern for the Shroud by Gove, his own book shows that when an inquiry was made to Adler as to when STURP could take on the job, Gove stated, "This comment appalled me but I remained silent. As far as I was concerned, STURP would never take on the job." [Ibid., p.164]" (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.196-197) 1/10/2007 "In light of the Shroud's known and unknown contaminants and history, Meacham warned the lab directors at the Turin workshop, and in an article published the same year, `[t]o measure Shroud samples, one must consider every possible type of contamination and attempt to identify and counter them all, before the measurement is made and a 'radiocarbon age' assigned.' [Meacham, W., "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties," in "Turin Shroud: Image of Christ," Cosmos: Hong Kong., 1987, pp.41-56] Meacham further warned that `an elaborate pretreatment and screening program should be conducted before the samples are measured.' [Ibid., p.48]. If the laboratories had followed this advice, perhaps they could have determined whether wax or starch had chemically bound to the cellulose in the sample taken from the Shroud for dating. Chemical analysis by combustion of the linen before and after the cleaning treatment could have revealed if any wax had become chemically bound to their samples. Enzymes could have detected the presence of starch. Meacham's article, as well as previous articles, had even listed wax and starch among the known contaminants discovered on the Shroud. Meacham further warned in the same article that, `unless there are specific conditions which warrant specialized pretreatment, most laboratories process samples with acid and alkali washes. While this standard pretreatment is usually effective in removing modern contaminants, it may not do so for intrusive materials deposited much earlier.' [Ibid., p.47]" (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.197-198) 1/10/2007 "We have seen how a radiation event could have infused C-14 into the cloth's porous cellulosic structure. If the carbon dating laboratories had measured the amount of nitrogen present in their samples, they might have helped provide a basis for determining the amount of neutron flux, if any, that irradiated the Shroud. This could have ultimately aided in determining the cloth's additional and original C-14, and its actual age, if the cloth had been irradiated in this manner. Unfortunately, the labs failed to prepare for the possibility of a neutron flux, and if they did measure the amount of nitrogen in the cloth, they did not disclose it in their report. This is ironic, because in the journal Nature and in interviews published shortly after the Shroud's date was announced, Dr. Robert Hedges, Dr. Edward Hall, and Michael Tite all acknowledged that if the cloth had been exposed to a neutron flux it could have altered the radiocarbon date that was assigned to the Shroud. [Jennings, "Still Shrouded in Mystery," 30 Days in the Church and in the World, 1.7, 1988, pp.70- 71; Hedges, R., "Hedges Replies," Nature, Vol. 337, 1989, p.594; Cornwell, J., "Science and the Shroud," The Tablet, January 14, 1989, pp.36-38] Hedges even admits these processes were `considered by the participating laboratories,' [Hedges, Ibid.] but were evidently rejected. When these carbon dating scientists have acknowledged the above possibility, they have also skeptically stated that it would have been quite a coincidence that the amount of neutron flux would have been so exact as to give the Shroud a date that approximates the time it was allegedly painted. [Hedges, Ibid.; Cornwell, op. cit., p.377] Yet these statements only show a further lack of understanding about the Shroud. If a neutron flux irradiated a cloth, the amount of carbon remaining on its samples would only partially result from the amount of radiation they received; it would primarily depend upon the extent that the carbon dating labs pretreated the samples and removed the additional C-14 from them. Incidentally, neutrons hitting N-14 or C-13 and creating new C-14 in the Shroud would not have given the cloth a dirty or contaminated appearance. (It would have made an insignificant contribution to the yellowing of the Shroud's linen fibers wherever it occurred; however, such yellowing has occurred throughout the cloth.) Yet this would have greatly contaminated the Shroud with additional C-14, significant amounts of which would have survived the standard pretreatment cleaning techniques that the labs applied to it." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.198) 1/10/2007 "William Meacham recently acknowledged that at the Turin workshop the directors of the carbon dating labs `ridiculed the notion that contamination could account for more than 1 or 2 percent of the C-14 after the standard pretreatment. Their stance was decidedly haughty then, and now shown to be dead wrong. The truth is that there are many possible sources of error which are not fully understood, and it simply behooves us to at least look for all the possibilities that we can. [Meacham, W., "C-14 Dating of the Shroud," February 16, 1998] Similar lack of preparation and diligence was exhibited by the same group of carbon-dating laboratories and their coordinating institution during the intercomparison experiment. This was the experiment discussed earlier that the carbon-dating laboratories and the British Museum conducted in order to validate new C-14 dating methods on cloth-and failed. Meacham also advised that samples should be taken from as many zones on the Shroud as possible, as an archaeologist attempts to do at a field site. He argued that taking samples from various areas would give greater credibility to its carbon dating. Instead of conceding even this basic point, Gove stated that these comments `seemed remarkably inappropriate as applied to the Shroud.' [Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.155] Meacham's suggestion was, in fact, remarkably appropriate to the Shroud, especially in hindsight after what actually happened during the Shroud's sampling. Even an uneducated layperson would have to admit that the taking of only one sample, especially from such a controversial location, was unfortunate. Gove's remark shows a failure to analyze the subject from any kind of scientific perspective and indicates a complete lack of objectivity. Yet the real reason for Gove's inaccurate and unfavorable remarks about Meacham may be found from what occurred later during the workshop. After Gove and Chagas openly stated at the workshop that STURP's larger scientific tests should not even be considered until the radiocarbon testing was completed, Meacham did not agree. He drew the analogy that an archaeologist would not abandon all of the important activities associated with an excavation or archaeological dig because of the results of one carbon date. He argued that all of the tests concerning the Shroud's authenticity, the cause of the image, its conservation, age, and origin, would have relevance regardless of what the carbon dating results were. Meacham said they should go forward. Instead of addressing these comments on their merits, Gove then stated that Meacham `should never have been allowed to play a role in the workshop.' [Ibid., p.165]" (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.198) 1/10/2007 "From 1986 to 1987, Gove lobbied against STURP harder than ever. During this time, the carbon dating laboratories' directors wrote letters to Chagas, and Chagas met personally with the Pope, echoing their complaints about STURP's planned tests. In the summer of 1987, Gove wrote a remarkable letter to Chagas, which contained a number of untrue and unsubstantiated comments that, of course, concerned STURP and even those in Turin. Gove himself stated: `In the letter, I sharply criticized the way in which the Turin authorities had handled matters concerning the Shroud in the past and the way they were continuing to mishandle them. I noted that the Shroud had been subjected to a number of scientific tests of dubious value carried out in ill-conceived ways by scientists of unknown reputation.... I stated that almost every aspect of the STURP organization was distasteful.... This included their dear religious zeal, their questionable sources of support, their military mind set.... Now, however, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, under Chagas, had a chance to change all this. [Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.191,192] Gove's incredible letter continued; before he finished, he would even compare STURP to the Spanish Inquisition. [Ibid., pp.192,193] This time he not only threatened that the carbon dating laboratories would withdraw without Chagas's continued support, he guaranteed their withdrawal `if STURP participates in the carbon dating enterprise in any way.' Ibid., p.192]" (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.199-200. Emphasis original) 1/10/2007 "In October 1987, the Archbishop of Turin officially announced that the Shroud would be carbon dated by three laboratories. Word had leaked in the summer that such a decision was going to be announced. The Archbishop's letter stated that he received instructions in late May from the Holy See on how to proceed with the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, but that it took more time to work out a number of logistics concerning various aspects of the procedure. The Archbishop's letter also stated: `The decisions took more time to be worked out than originally wished, owing to the situation without precedents created by a number of competing offers tied to a rather rigid proposal, and also by (the) initiative of some participants in the workshop who stepped out of the radiocarbon field to oppose research proposals in other fields, with implications on the freedom of research of other scientists and on our own research programmes for the Shroud conservation that asked for thorough deliberations (italics added). [Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.214]. Gove admits in his book that the Archbishop's `thinly veiled accusation that we were attempting to prevent STURP from carrying out its scientific investigations was quite accurate.' [Ibid., p.216] In November 1987, at a meeting in New York with Gonella, STURP learned that all of the other scientific tests on the Shroud had been cancelled or not been authorized. (Other groups, with much less experience and knowledge of the Shroud than STURP, had also submitted competing proposals to test the Shroud, but they, too, failed to receive such permission) None of these extensive tests have ever been performed to this day, which stands in the way of a tremendous opportunity to advance the state of scientific knowledge on a subject that challenges both science and humankind in a fundamental manner, perhaps more than any object in history. In addition, STURP was not even allowed to influence or participate in the decision of where to remove the radiocarbon samples from the Shroud. Whether these decisions had also been made by the Holy See is not known for sure, nor whether other members of the Pontifical Academy, or other individuals, had lobbied against STURP's participation in further testing of the Shroud. What is known, according to Gove's book, is that Gove, members of the carbon dating laboratories, Chagas, and Canuto led the effort against STURP's participation, with Gove initiating and leading. ... To take part in a process that eliminates further testing in this area indicates that the radiocarbon scientists were more interested in other matters than they were in obtaining the true age of the Shroud." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.200-201. Emphasis original) 1/10/2007 "Professor Gonella, the scientific advisor to the Archbishop of Turin, who was quite familiar with the events that occurred during the lengthy carbon dating process, reflected on these matters later. His translated remarks begin with comments concerning STURP's original proposal to carbon date the Shroud and the carbon dating laboratories' involvement. `This proposal was put forward in 1984 within the context of a vast multidisciplinary research programme presented by the group which had already carried out an investigation in 1978, and by other individuals. These investigations were above all intended to understand better the physical and chemical structures of the sheet and of the image, specifically with the ultimate aim of understanding how it had been practically formed and also the possible means for conserving it. Naturally, it would have provided a background, a much wider backdrop to evaluate all the possible implications of the carbon-14 test. Originally the laboratories had agreed to this research; they were practically committed to start working on the project; then they made it decidedly clear by all means possible, that they preferred to work alone, and that they wanted the carbon-14 test to be conducted independently of any other investigation.' [Gonella, L., in Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., "The Enigma of the Shroud," PEG: San Gwann, Malta, 1996, p.99] .... Commenting further on the carbon dating laboratories' involvement, Gonella said: At the beginning, when they themselves had asked us to be allowed to examine a sample of the Shroud, they had guaranteed us the utmost seriousness and completeness in the analysis, as well as promising to collaborate with the custodian of the Shroud, the Archbishop of Turin, and with his scientific consultant, the undersigned. Seized however by a feverish desire for celebrity, they began to renege on their promises: no further interdisciplinary investigations; just the carbon-14 test. They even badgered Rome, bringing pressure to bear so that , Turin would have to accept their conditions. Through the intervention of Professor Chagas, then president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, they set aside the undersigned so that they could do whatever they wanted.' [Gonella, L., Il Giornale, May 12, 1989, in Petrosillo & Marinelli, Ibid., pp.119-120] Gonella also stated that: `Scientifically I would have been happier and have my mind at ease if the dating operation had been carried out in the context of comprehensive, wide-ranging, and thorough chemical and physical investigation of the Shroud as had been originally planned. The carbon-14 laboratories preferred to work independently and they did not wish to collaborate with other scientists, something which, from the point of view of scientific methodology, left me greatly puzzled and certainly not satisfied. [Petrosillo & Marinelli, Ibid., p.99] Gonella's comments included his statements as a scientist. `It is a question of general principles of scientific methodology. At every congress and in every scientific discussion it is said that science must be interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary. Therefore it is with astonishment, with the regrets of a scientist, that I can say that there was once the real possibility of carrying through a vast multidisciplinary project but that unfortunately a section of scientific researchers opted to act completely alone.' [Ibid., pp.99,100]" (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.202-203. Emphasis original) 2/10/2007 "My conclusions published in October 1980-March 1981 (McCrone and Skirius 1980) (McCrone 1981) were as follows: `Our work now supports the two Bishops and it seems reasonable that the image, now visible, was painted on the cloth shortly before the first exhibition, or about 1355. Only a carbon-dating test can now resolve the question of authenticity of the 'Shroud' of Turin. A date significantly later than the first century would be conclusive evidence the `Shroud' is not genuine. A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ, would, no doubt, be so accepted by nearly everyone. Our work would then indicate later embellishment of an earlier image or, much less likely, that an artist was able to obtain a 14 x 3+ foot linen cloth dating from the first century. That an artist either enhanced an earlier image or created the entire image is inescapable.'" (McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.138) 2/10/2007 "`Father, this clearly points to the fallacy of some people who kept saying that, with regard to the Shroud, the Church was afraid of the truth...' `Absurd, to say the least! Our faith in Christ does not need the Shroud. It rests on a far more solid basis. The Church afraid of the truth with regard to the Shroud? Why, as far back as 1969 and again in 1978, the Church authorities placed the Shroud literally in the hands of the scientists. They are ready to do so again.'" (Rinaldi, P.M., "For the Holy Shroud, the Hour of Truth," April, 1988, in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.241- 242) 2/10/2007 "`It is known that the carbon-14 test, while reliable, does not produce an "absolute date." In other words, the test does not zero in on the exact date of the tested artifact. What if, in the case of the Shroud, the test should date it to the third or fourth century after Christ? Could it still be accepted as at least probably the burial cloth of Christ?' `"I am not a scientist nor an expert on the carbon-14 test. I do know that there are many misconceptions about the radiocarbon method of dating among the general public and even among journalists. While the test does usually provide a reliable indication of the true calendar age of a given artifact, there are any number of factors that can influence its measurements and produce significant discrepancies, as much as three hundred years and more, plus or minus. In the case of the Shroud, a carbon- 14 age later than the first century A.D. does not necessarily constitute scientific proof of the non- authenticity of the Shroud, the reason being that radiocarbon dating is based on a number of unverifiable assumptions. My hope is that, in the specific case of the Shroud, the experts will in due time clarify for the public at large the potentials and limitations of this test.'" (Rinaldi, P.M., "For the Holy Shroud, the Hour of Truth," April, 1988, in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.242) 2/10/2007 "`Assuming the carbon-14 test will render a positive date for the Shroud, will this constitute a definite proof that the Turin relic is indeed the burial cloth of Christ?' `Assuredly not! Neither the carbon-14 test nor any other test can of itself authenticate the Shroud. We cannot expect science to decide whether the Man of the Shroud is actually Christ. This is totally outside the scientist's field. However, this much is true: a positive date from the carbon-14 test that will connect the relic to the early centuries of the Christian era will certainly lend at least a degree of moral certainty to the possibility that the Man of the Shroud may indeed be Christ, particularly when the overwhelming evidence of other proofs is taken into consideration.'" (Rinaldi, P.M., "For the Holy Shroud, the Hour of Truth," April, 1988, in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.242-243) 2/10/2007 "`What if science were ever to prove that the Shroud is a clever forgery of some ingenious medieval artist?' `At this point, I am reminded of what Dr. Donald Lynn, a dedicated Shroud researcher, said when questioned on the possibility that the Shroud be indeed a forgery. 'Were the Shroud a forgery, it would be a greater miracle than if it were the actual burial cloth of Christ."' (Rinaldi, P.M., "For the Holy Shroud, the Hour of Truth," April, 1988, in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.243) 3/10/2007 "Why are Turin authorities reluctant to allow the cloth to be dated? As Dr. Mueller explains: `Any replicated date more recent than about A.D. 300 would establish that it is not the burial cloth of Christ. However, since an artist might well have bothered to obtain ancient linen, a date of even A.D. 30 ± 100 could not rule out forgery. Hence, the church hierarchy has little incentive, and considerable disincentive (unless its faith in the shroud is very strong), to permit radiocarbon dating.' [Mueller, M.M., "The Shroud of Turin: A Critical Appraisal," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, p.15]" (Nickell, J., "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, 1987, Reprinted, 2000, p.147) 5/10/2007 "Inevitably thoughts turn to the now notorious Turin Shroud, a length of linen in Turin Cathedral which bears seeming imprints of a naked, crucified body. Although the Shroud's history could be traced with certainty only back to the 1350s, the discovery in 1898 of its life-like photographic image when seen in negative revolutionized serious interest, so much so that evidence steadily mounted that it could be the very cloth purchased by Joseph of Arimathea - until 1988. In that year radiocarbon dating carried out by three separate laboratories showed the Shroud's fabric to have been made sometime between 1260 and 1390 AD, its mysterious image thereby being most likely the work of a mediaeval forger." (Wilson I., Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised, 1996, pp.133-134) 5/10/2007 "The radiocarbon dating laboratory at Oxford University, one of three which tested small samples of the Shroud's linen in 1988. According to the laboratories' instrumentation, the flax from which the Shroud was woven `died' sometime between 1260 and 1390, thereby strongly suggesting it to be a mediaeval fake. However, no truly satisfactory explanation has yet been forthcoming for how such a convincingly photographic image could have been created so long before the age of photography. Despite widespread popular belief that the Shroud has been `proved' a fake, carbon dating readings are not necessarily infallible, and some as yet undetermined anomaly to these remains an open possibility." (Wilson I., Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised, 1996, p.132) 5/10/2007 "Subsequently the Turin cloth has been the subject of a variety of absurd claims ranging from deliberate `rigging' of the carbon dating to the proposition that it was a `photograph' invented by none other than Leonardo da Vinci. Even so, its mystery remains very far from being resolved. Medically the Shroud's body image and apparent bloodstains are so convincing that dozens of well-respected specialists continue to contend that the cloth genuinely wrapped someone crucified in a manner identical to that recorded of Jesus. Historians can show that some form of cloth mysteriously imprinted with Jesus' likeness was recorded at least as far back as the sixth century - well over six centuries before the earliest date claimed by the carbon dating. And some highly talented professional artists have confessed themselves baffled how anyone, of any century, could have so convincingly `forged' facial and body images of the Shroud's astonishing subtlety. Because of certain anomalies now emerging concerning radiocarbon dating's claimed margins of accuracy, the much-publicized scientific `proof' of the Shroud's fraudulence may yet be in need of some serious revision." (Wilson I., Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised, 1996, p.134) 5/10/2007 "Likewise, and no less importantly, only the equally clear and fearful recognition of this same power on the part of the hard-hearted men who controlled the Temple can explain their so malevolent and repeated concern to snuff it out whenever it showed itself to them. As will be recalled from the earlier-quoted parable, the tenant farmers (with whom we may particularly identify the Temple priesthood) `knew he [the vineyard owner's son, and therefore Jesus] was the heir to the vineyard' and determined to kill him. Likewise evident, particularly from Mark's gospel, is that those who were reputedly possessed by devils were quickest to recognize Jesus as `Son of God'. This clear recognition of the power of good by the power of evil, and the perennial and seemingly insatiable anxiety of the latter to stamp out the former, is supremely important because, as many a committed Christian of today can corroborate, it is very real and remains every bit as active as it was in Jesus' time. ... Speaking personally, one of my most painful and yet illuminating experiences, having as a writer expressed my beliefs in Jesus in the 1984 version of this book and also in the otherwise so discredited Turin Shroud, has been to be most deviously targeted in efforts to undermine these beliefs by certain plausible-sounding and publicity-seeking people with absolutely no concern for truth. The illuminating aspect is that for modern-day people to be so motivated can only mean that they actually do recognize truth, but like Caiaphas, see it as too threatening to their own quite different priorities for it to be allowed to live." (Wilson I., "Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised, 1996, pp.178-179) 8/10/2007 "Available scientific evidence strongly supports the contention that the Shroud of Turin was in Palestine and in Turkey sometime before the 1350s when its presence in Europe was first documented. Of the fifty- eight pollen grains from plant species that were found on the Shroud by Dr. Frei (discussed earlier), only seventeen of these-less than one third, can be found in France or Italy. [Frei, M., "Nine Years of Palinological Studies on the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, Vol. 1, No. 3, June 1982, pp.2-7; Bulst, W., "The pollen grains on the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International, Vol. 3, No. 10, March 1984, pp.20-28] That seventeen of these pollen grains are grown in France or Italy should come as no surprise, since the Shroud has spent its last 645 years in these countries. What is surprising is that only a minority of pollens are native to Western Europe; the majority are native to the Middle East, including Turkey and Israel. It is interesting that the proportion of pollen grains from plants in Edessa (eighteen) and Constantinople (thirteen) is very similar to that of western European plants (seventeen). One would expect such a proportional distribution if the Shroud had a strong history associated with the Mandylion and the Image of Edessa, as postulated by Wilson and others." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.153) 8/10/2007 "The large number of pollen grains from plants grown in Jerusalem and the Middle East that are found on the Shroud cannot be the result of foreign contamination by winds while the Shroud was in Europe. First of all, the vast majority of the Middle Eastern species identified by Dr. Frei are from low-lying herbs and shrubs. [Schafersman, S., Letter to Walter McCrone, The Microscope, Vol. 30, 1982, pp.344-352] According to archaeologist Paul Maloney, "The pollens which do travel far are more likely those from trees which raise their pollen sources to the wind rather than low-lying shrubs which lie relatively protected from such winds." [Maloney, P., "Modern Archaeology, History and Scientific Research on the Shroud of Turin," in Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: An Interdisciplinary Symposium, Elizabethtown College: Elizabethtown PA, February 15, 1986] In addition, many of these Middle Eastern species found by Dr. Frei are insect pollinated, so they would not be expected in a wind-distributed assemblage. [Danin, A., Whanger, A., Baruch, U., & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p 24]" (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.153) 8/10/2007 "Even completely ignoring these reasons, foreign contamination could never account for the number and variety of pollen types found on the Shroud. The geographical area between the Middle East and western Europe is interrupted by several Mediterranean basins and high mountain ranges. As a consequence, the Mediterranean wind system between these two areas is countervailing. A pollen grain from Jerusalem would have to travel through more than 2,500 kilometers of these complex and countervailing winds to reach France or Italy. Even if a pollen grain had survived the wind system between the two regions, it would have had to land on the Shroud on one of the few days throughout its many centuries in Europe that the cloth was exposed to the outdoors. Yet under this scenario, if the Shroud was exposed to the outdoors and the pollen grain from the Middle East landed on it from wind blowing in France or Italy, the same air would easily contain many more pollens from France or Italy. Thus, such a foreign contamination theory could never account for the fact that the vast majority of pollens on the Shroud are native to the Middle East. Furthermore, the pollens on the Shroud are from plants that bloom in different seasons of the year. Not only would the same incredible accident described earlier have had to happen, it would have had to happen repeatedly." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.153) 8/10/2007 "As you can see, a historically documented, plausible provenance of the Shroud of Turin from first-century Jerusalem to present-day Turin is not hard to put together. Critics who denounce the Shroud as a fraud have not only been unable to agree on a method of forgery-they have also never agreed on a plausible, documentable place or `artist' of a forged Shroud. We have already seen that it would be impossible to forge the Shroud naturally or artistically, even with today's technology-much less during medieval times." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.154) 8/10/2007 " From 1978 To 1988 The Shroud Was at the pinnacle of the esteem in which it was held, both in the academic and popular mind. But a force was gathering momentum in the mid-1980s that would by misadventure and incompetent planning overturn utterly and completely this position of interest and awe in the eyes of the world. This force was of course the drive to carbon-date the cloth, in and of itself a quite logical step in the scientific study of the object." (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.52. Emphasis original) 8/10/2007 "Radiocarbon dating was invented in 1952. It is based on a very simple principle, namely that all living things absorb carbon through the food chain, and after death the radioactive isotope Carbon 14 begins to decay. It has a half-life of 5730 years, so by measuring the amount present in ancient wood, bone, shell, etc. one can obtain a "date" (in years before the present) when the organism died. Beyond about 36,000 years the amount of C-14 remaining becomes too small to measure. There are a number of complications, and the measurement technology is very complex, since the proportion of C-14 atoms to other carbon atoms (C-13 and C-12) is extremely small. Up to the late 1970s, the sample size required for conventional C-14 methods was too large to allow the test to be done on the Shroud. Two new methods for dating small samples became operational around 1980. One involved the use of an accelerator (called AMS dating) that could measure samples smaller than a postage stamp, down to about half a square centimeter of linen; the other was a system of gas proportional counting that required more sample than AMS but less than conventional dating. It seemed only a matter of time until the so-called `ultimate test' would be performed on the Shroud. There would however be a long period of increasingly strident altercation over how the test would be carried out." (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.52. Emphasis original) 8/10/2007 "On October 13, 1988, the results of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud were finally announced at press conferences in London and Turin. The age of the cloth was determined to be in the region of 1260-1390 A.D., thus seeming to prove beyond doubt that this object could not be the burial cloth of Jesus. With that announcement the Shroud of Turin morphed in the eyes of most people from being possibly the most important and fascinating archaeological object in the world to a forged medieval relic of little significance. That day back in 1988 is still very fresh in my memory, for it was the culmination of several years of effort, by me and many others, to have the Shroud dated. It was also the sad climax of several years of frustration over the faulty procedures, arrogance, Byzantine intrigues, machiavellian scheming and influence peddling that accompanied the planning of the test. The result was a disaster for the Shroud, and it truly marked the demise of the Shroud in the minds of millions of people who knew something of the fascinating image it held and the puzzle that it posed. The image and its puzzle are still there of course, but only a tiny percentage of those who formerly looked upon the Shroud with a sense of wonder do so today. For the vast majority, the C-14 result was the crowning and defining event in the encounter between the venerable relic and 20th century science. It was found to be medieval, a fake, maybe at best an icon of inexplicable realism, an oddity. But it was medieval, and thus could not possibly be the burial cloth of Christ." (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.53) 8/10/2007 "The tragedy was that these views were not warranted by the evidence. The dating was a fiasco; the result may well be incorrect. It has not been corroborated by any follow-up testing, which for some inexplicable reason has not been allowed by the Church. Research done in the last ten years has cast grave doubts on the validity of the date as an age for the cloth as a whole. It is quite possible that contamination and/or repair works are responsible for the aberrant age of the single sample selected. The decision to take only one sample, and the location chosen, may well go down in the history of the Shroud as one of the worst single events, behind only the fire of 1532 and the "restoration" of 2002. There is firm evidence available now that the sample taken was not representative of the cloth as a whole, and that it provided what archaeologists and geologists call a `rogue' or `fictitious' date, i.e. one that does not provide a true age of the object or context it purports to date." (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.53) 8/10/2007 "Dr. Schafersman, micropaleontologist from the Department of Geology, Miami University, concluded that Max Frei was in honest error or that he knowingly practiced scientific deception. My conclusion is that Max Frei believed so firmly in the authenticity of the Shroud that he manufactured his data in support of that conclusion. One of the numerous forensic microscopists at the INTER/MICRO-82 meeting, Dr. Thomas Kubic, a well-known and respected criminalist, defended Max Frei and questioned Dr. Schafersman's conclusion that Max had lied and committed a fraud by claiming that he had pollen data supporting the Shroud's Palestine to Constantinople to France journeys. I welcomed the opportunity to ask Dr. Schafersman to prepare a response to those who felt he did not make a convincing argument that Max Frei was a fraud in his 15 minutes of INTER/MICRO-82 time. His excellent response follows:" (McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.298) 8/10/2007 "The most important issue is the veracity of Max Frei's pollen data. Kubic is willing to accept the data as valid, although not necessarily Frei's conclusions. When presented with `scientific data,' this would be the common response of most scientists or informed persons, and for good reason: Through history, scientists have acquired a well-deserved reputation for high integrity in the gathering and presentation of basic data; the scientific method requires at least this. In my presentation about the STURP scientists and the nature of pseudoscience, I apparently did not emphasize the fact that pseudoscientists attempt to gain credibility for themselves and acceptance of their particular claims by using their affected position as scientists, since the public, voters and consumers all, has been conditioned by decades of scientific success to respect and believe scientists (this explains why pseudoscience is markedly a twentieth century phenomenon). Posing as good scientists, pseudoscientists have presented both bad data and bad conclusions to uninformed individuals, apparently in the hope that those who do not immediately buy the often incredible pseudoscientific conclusions will still fall prey to the misinformation in the data." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.298- 299) 8/10/2007 "This arcane practice of propagating misinformation and thus planting seeds of doubt has been utilized for twenty years by the `scientific' creationists. Again and again, I have found scientific distortions, misrepresentations, and falsehoods in the creationist literature in addition to the expected conclusions of supernatural creation of life and species. Such misinformation is also contained in the works of Velikovsky and von Daniken. Many people have been misled by such misinformation, since they read the pseudoscientific literature, accept the data as valid (since it is well-documented and presented by `scientists' or `scholars' who have Ph.D.'s or other academic credentials), and then may or may not accept the conclusions. Since they usually have no independent means of checking the veracity of the basic data, these people tend to rely on their respect for the authority and credibility of scientists (and the written word!) and accept the data without question. I believe that one of the basic rules of investigating pseudoscience is to be skeptical of everything, including the data, until independently examined." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.299) 8/10/2007 "This is the rule I followed in my investigation of `shroud science,' including the claims of Max Frei. No one is born with such skepticism--it must be deliberately adopted as a working method. Credulity is a well-known human behavioral characteristic which needs to be restrained when doing scientific work (credulity is pervasive among humans because its presence increased survival and reproductive success in early human populations, and thus became part of our human nature, by promoting belief in authoritarian claims, enabling authoritarian leadership and thus forming a stable social structure, lessening the fearsomeness of death and nature by promoting religion, etc.). Of course, there must be a balance between skepticism and credulity: we can't doubt everything. But a healthy skepticism is surely appropriate when investigating fantastic or incredible claims involving natural materials." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.299-300) 8/10/2007 "Since I have long followed the rule elucidated above, I was astonished to read that Kubic was accusing me of being `unprofessional,... slanderous,... unscientific,...insulting, [and] pseudoscientific' for my statement about Max Frei and his pollen results. Such invective is unusual for technical journals, and Kubic's sole reason for using such adjectives is that my rejection of the pollen data based at least in part on [my] unsubstantiated belief and statement that [Max Frei] is a `plain liar' is, in Kubic's opinion, neither scientific nor very nice. In reply, let me first point out that Kubic has my argument backwards: my statement about Max Frei's credibility is a conclusion drawn from the material and logical evidence that the pollen data is faked, not a predicate from which I concluded that the pollen data was falsified. I frankly don't understand how anyone could misconstrue these two quite different arguments. I would have to agree that anyone who rejected a person's published data because he believed that person to be a liar would indeed be acting unscientifically and maliciously. This is precisely what Kubic accuses me of doing, but his accusation is based entirely on his own confusion rather than on my substantive argument. Kubic is saying that condemnation before investigation is a sure path to error; I believe this myself, and, as we shall shortly see, suggest that Kubic would do well to heed his own advice. Of course, it might be argued that in my own presentation I didn't elaborate on my reasons for doubting the veracity of Max Frei's data and concluding that he was a liar, since my topic was the STURP scientists and I mentioned Frei only in passing. However, the presumption that reasons exist would have been appropriate or, if still in doubt, a simple question to me by phone or letter would have been useful. It is hardly respectable for one to accuse someone of slander and unprofessional conduct when one isn't in command of either facts or logic." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.299- 300) 8/10/2007 "It is necessary at this point to discuss the reasons for doubting the veracity of Max Frei's pollen data and concluding that he has perpetrated a fraud. From the statements in his letter, Kubic is obviously unfamiliar with Frei's actual claims and what has really been found on the sticky tapes; such ignorance would seem to be unusual for one who is critical of another for doubting those very claims. As many other individuals would do, Kubic implicitly accepts Max Frei's data simply because Frei is, in Kubic's words, an `esteemed professional.' Without really knowing what the data are, Kubic concludes that `the identification of [the Middle Eastern pollen] indicated that the 'shroud' had either been in those locations or had come into contact with persons, places or things from those areas at some time during its clouded past.' I am sorry to disagree with him, but there is always another possibility to examine (if we overlook the possibility of incompetence, of course): the possibility of fraud. This possibility is frequently overlooked in science, and Kubic and others probably consider the possibility of human deception in science to be unmentionable or too insulting to contemplate; nevertheless, I believe that the possibility of fraud must be considered in any investigation of any pseudoscientific topic." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.300-301) 8/10/2007 "We have innumerable examples today of such frauds and deceptions perpetrated upon an innocent public and scientists, and such deception is no doubt occurring right now (I will not take space here to document examples). Those who are familiar with pseudoscience will understand the frequent necessity of concluding that deliberate human fraud or deception is at the bottom of most pseudoscientific claims. This characteristic of pseudoscience cuts across such things as the scientific integrity or personal reputation of any individual. In fact, pseudoscience exists as a subset of human deceit because of two peculiar consequences of recent origin: the prestige of science in the modern world and the almost laughable readiness of individuals, especially scientists, to accept without question the veracity of data presented in a scientific context. Of course, although we should not be blind to the possibility of deception in basic scientific data, especially in a pseudoscience, we must nevertheless first examine the data objectively without bias." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.301) 8/10/2007 "Before we examine Max Frei's pollen data, I need to dispel a myth which will hinder our examination. The claim can be made that there is no way anyone can prove that Max Frei falsified his pollen samples with pollen he himself collected in Israel and Turkey, so therefore it is not proper to impugn Max Frei's integrity. This claim is true only to a limited extent: I can't prove Frei's data is faked anymore than I can prove the Shroud of Turin is not authentic or that the universe exists as a material entity. However, many people believe to the point of calling them facts that the Shroud of Turin is an artifact and that the universe is really there. The reason for this is quite simple: the truthfulness of neither philosophical nor scientific knowledge is predicated upon proof. Proof is used only in metaphysical disciplines such as mathematics and logic, in which constraints and possibilities are defined." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.301-302) 8/10/2007 "In the real world, anything, including a miracle, is possible but in the realm of science we limit the possible by the use of the highly corroborated working hypotheses of materialism, naturalism, and actualism. We would say that all empirical evidence agrees with the hypothesis (that is, the hypothesis is always corroborated and never falsified) that the material universe exists, therefore its existence in fact is the most reasonable explanation. We would say that all empirical evidence agrees with the hypothesis that an artist produced the Shroud of Turin and that there is no good evidence that it was formed naturally, therefore, its identification as an artifact is the most reasonable explanation." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.301-302) 8/10/2007 "Invariably, the most reasonable explanations are those which agree with most or all of the data and which do not contradict (falsify) other highly corroborated hypotheses or theories. This latter qualification is important; attributing the Shroud of Turin to a miracle (or the origin of life and species to special creation) is a possible explanation which will account for all of the empirical evidence; however, it is not the most reasonable explanation because it conflicts with the highly-corroborated hypothesis of naturalism. In a similar fashion, I will show that Max Frei's pollen data can be most reasonably explained by human fraud because the only other possible explanations are that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, that a miracle occurred, or both. Since we are pretty certain as scientists that the Shroud is not authentic and that miracles don't occur, human deception is the only explanation remaining. Proof is not necessary in this method, the scientific method, at all." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.302) 8/10/2007 "Max Frei, a well-known forensic microscopist, was allowed to take sticky-tape samples from the Shroud of Turin in 1973. He reported his results in 1978 at the International Congress on the Turin Shroud. The proceedings of the Congress were published and included a list of the plant species whose pollen Frei claimed to have found on the Shroud. This list is reproduced in an English translation in Appendix E of Ian Wilson's `The Shroud of Turin.' Frei claims to have found the pollen of 49 different plants, 33 of which are xerophyte, halophytes, or mesophytes found in Israel (Palestine), Turkey, or both, and not in Western Europe. The remaining 16 are present in Italy and France. Frei repeats his claim, with 48 instead of 49 species, in a brief paper published in Naturwissenshaftliche Rundschau (1979, 32(4) 133-135). Here also he published four SEM photomicrographs of pollen." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.302-303) 8/10/2007 "Max Frei's pollen data, if true, would be superb evidence of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. The pollen data would demonstrate that, at the very least, the Shroud had been in Jerusalem, the Anatolian steppes, and Istanbul (many of the 33 Turkish and Palestinian plants are endemic to these three specific areas)." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.303) 8/10/2007 "Frei's data does not demonstrate, of course, that the Shroud is not an artifact: the blank cloth could have been transported and exposed through these regions before reaching France, or a Palestinian artist could have created the image before the journey began. However, these explanations are highly unlikely, and have no support in either history or iconography. As is well known, there is no historical reference to the Shroud before its appearance in France in the middle fourteenth century, and the image is Gothic in style, but more on this in a moment." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.303) 8/10/2007 "Frei's data is such excellent evidence because pollen almost invariably falls to the ground within 100 meters of the parent plant. This phenomenon is used in palynology and biostratigraphy, for example, to document the ecological succession of plant communities in a small area as a lake transforms into a bog and finally into land, or in an area subject to warming as continental glaciers retreat and plant communities migrate northward. Typically, the simultaneous shifts in occurrence and abundance of dozens of plant species in a core through lake sediment mark the shifts of ecological zones with great precision. Such precision is possible because wind pollination is an inefficient process compared to insect pollination, and wind- transported pollen just doesn't travel very far. Therefore, finding such pollen on an object would indeed demonstrate that it was once in an area where such pollen was present (or that it came into contact with another object from that region). Finally, the remarkably large number of Middle Eastern plant pollen, 33 species, appears to make it inescapable that the Shroud was once in the Middle East." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.303- 304) 8/10/2007 "Now I must bring more information into the case to show that Frei's pollen data is incredible. The documented history of the Shroud of Turin begins in Lirey, France, in 1357. Ian Wilson has hypothesized a speculative earlier history for the Shroud, which he says was really the Mandylion folded in such a way that only the face was visible. The history begins in Jerusalem; somehow the Shroud is transported to Edessa (Urfa, central Turkey), where the Mandylion is first discovered; next the Shroud is taken to Constantinople to join the other Byzantine relics and displayed, still folded, as the Mandylion; finally, the Shroud is taken to France by Crusaders and Knights Templar. Unfortunately for Wilson, there is not a shred of historical evidence to support his speculative journey, and much to dispute it. For example, it seems incredible that the Byzantines didn't realize that the Mandylion was really a full-length shroud of the entire human body, front and back; furthermore, their records list both the Mandylion and a Shroud, so there is good reason to think that the Mandylion really contained only a facial image. So little is Wilson's hypothesized history accepted, that only the truest believers endorse it, even the STURP scientists don't take it seriously." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.304) 8/10/2007 "Yet Frei claims to have discovered pollen on the Shroud from four (and only four) distinct areas: Western Europe, Palestine, the Anatolian steppes (containing the city of Edessa / Urfa) and the environs of Istanbul. Thus, Frei's pollen data supports in exquisite detail a highly speculative history of the Shroud's journeys that no reputable historian or scientist endorses because there is no independent evidence for it. At the International Congress on the Turin Shroud in 1978, Frei `publically affirmed his support for (Wilson's) theory that the Shroud is one and the same as the former Mandylion of Edessa / Urfa.' Wilson doesn't doubt Frei's neutrality in the matter, because Frei's `upbringing was Zwinglian Protestant, and he is far removed from Catholic leanings.' By Wilson's criterion for neutrality, most of the STURP scientists would also be quite neutral." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.304) 8/10/2007 "The reaction of all the STURP scientists to Max Frei's pollen data is instructive: they either ignore it or explain it away by saying that winds can transport pollen for great distances and thus it is not reliable evidence. But this is nonsense. As I already explained, pollen accumulates in the immediate vicinity of the plants, and while it is true that pollen can travel for thousands of miles, this is a rare occurrence. Furthermore, consider two items: First, Frei claims to have found 33 Middle Eastern pollens on the Shroud; while a few might have been wind-blown to Europe, it is hardly likely that 33 different species managed to reach the Shroud on exhibit. Second, why only pollen from Palestine, Istanbul, and the Anatolian steppes? By STURP's reasoning, one might expect to find windblown pollen on the Shroud from Greece, North Africa, Great Britain, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, and Russia as well as the Middle East. The point I am making is that by dismissing Frei's pollen data as `pollen transported by wind for thousands of miles,' STURP is saying that winds blew the pollen of 33 different species from Palestine, Istanbul, and the Anatolian steppes, and nowhere else, to travel thousands of miles to France and Italy and land on the Shroud, which was displayed infrequently. These would be miraculous winds indeed, and I would sooner believe that the Shroud had actually been in the Middle East than STURP's hypothesis. STURP cannot legitimately dismiss Frei's data by claiming wind transport, because the odds of this much specific pollen traveling thousands of miles from only three limited areas to another are astronomical." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.305) 8/10/2007 "The STURP scientists dismiss Frei, and engage in their absurd evasion, because they don't want to discredit themselves by associating with Frei's results, which I believe they suspect to be falsified. Frei's fraud is, frankly, rather blatant, and the STURP scientists use much more sophisticated techniques to promote their pseudoscience. Yet, the STURP scientist does not want to embarrass any true believer, so they are as charitable as possible to Frei, and resort to circumlocution in their dismissal of his data." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.305) 8/10/2007 "There are some other unusual facts about Max Frei's pollen data. A temperate zone pollen assemblage typically consists almost entirely of tree and grass pollen, but Frei's assemblage of 33 species from the Middle East is almost all from low-lying herbs and shrubs, xerophytes, and primarily mesophytes, and halophytes. Such a natural pollen collection would be extraordinary. It might be useful to point out that of the 16 Western European pollen Frei claims to have removed from the Shroud, nine are from tree species. Another problem is that some of Frei's pollinated by insects. By my examination of the flowers of the genera, at least eight Middle Eastern species are insect-pollinated and would not therefore be found in a wind- distributed assemblage." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.305-306) 8/10/2007 "I first suspected that Max Frei's data were faked when I saw the movie "Witness of the Shroud" on television. One segment showed Frei addressing the assembled shroud devotees with huge projections of SEM photomicrographs of his pollen. In the dozens of illustrations, each species was represented by four or five perfectly preserved specimens; the pollen looked fresh-as-new. In the four published SEM photomicrographs, each illustration shows four or five pollen grains piled up, with perhaps more underneath. What a treasure trove! Frei had been lucky enough to discover hundreds of perfectly-preserved pollen grains on the Shroud, a number of each species. I don't know if this would be unusual or not for a typical pollen assemblage, especially one containing endemic xerophytes and halophytes from near the Dead Sea." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.306) 8/10/2007 "In science, it is quite important for other scientists to be able to corroborate one's findings by independent testing and duplication of observations. Fortunately, this has been done with sticky tape samples from the Shroud by a number of scientists. In 1978, five years after Max Frei took his sticky tape samples, two independent sets of such samples were taken from the Shroud. One was for the Italian scientific team and the other for the American (STURP) team. These tapes have been examined by Walter McCrone, Ray Rogers, J.H. Heller, A.D. Adler, and Giovanni Riggi. None of these individuals found more than a few sporadic pollen grains on the tapes, certainly nothing close to four or five specimens from 49 different species. This in itself is sufficient to doubt Frei's basic data." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.306) 8/10/2007 "Furthermore, Rogers reported to me that Riggi has found that all the pollen grains he observed were coated with calcite (probably precipitated on the pollen when the shroud was washed centuries ago). Frei reported neither the calcite nor having removed it. I must say that in my opinion, the excellent and abundant pollen in Frei's SEM photomicrographs look like pollen removed from living plants. It might be said in Frei's defense that someone else could have spiked the Shroud with the appropriate pollen, or spiked Frei's sticky tape samples when he wasn't looking. But the hypothesis of a second unknown person is unnecessarily complicating, especially since we know that Max Frei himself journeyed to Istanbul, Urfa and Jerusalem to collect characteristic and endemic plants for `comparative purposes.'" (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.306-307) 8/10/2007 "At this point, let me again state my argument. Although I can't prove that Max Frei falsified his data by spiking his own samples, I have presented evidence to show that this is the most reasonable explanation for the reported results. We now have a mountain of evidence that an artist produced the image on the Shroud of Turin, that the artist lived in France in the fourteenth century, and that the Shroud has never been out of France and Italy. If we accept that the Shroud is an artifact, it is still possible that Frei's results are legitimate, but it is a possibility of miraculous proportions (involving divine winds, etc.). If we therefore believe the pollen data to be real, we must invoke paranormal or supernatural processes to explain such data. Another possibility is that the cloth or Shroud was produced in Palestine and then made Wilson's hypothetical journey to France. While this would provide a natural explanation for Frei's data, the evidence for it is nonexistent, and Frei's results still conflict badly with what other scientists have found or what anyone would expect to find. It is especially ironic that Kubic himself states quite clearly that he thinks the Shroud to be an artifact, presumably produced in Gothic France. I suggest that if he were both aware of all the information in the case (which I have presented here) and appreciated the reasoning process necessary to distinguish science from pseudoscience, he would reconsider his implicit belief in the veracity of Max Frei's basic data." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.306-307) 8/10/2007 "I hope I have demonstrated that a scientific deception took place - that Max Frei's reported data cannot possibly be valid if we trust natural law and logic. Not only has no one even come close to repeating Max Frei's observations, but his reported data is at variance with other scientific evidence and known history." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, pp.307-308) 8/10/2007 "It now remains for me to discuss whether it is very nice to impugn someone's integrity in public. Based on the above analysis of pseudoscience and Max Frei's data, my personal belief is that it is proper to do so. Although the readers of this journal are probably not aware of it, such attacks on pseudoscientists by other scientists are becoming increasingly common. Scientists are becoming aware that scientific truth is a fragile thing and that it does not propagate throughout society on its own accord due to its intrinsic value. Scientific truth, or any type of truth must be advocated and taught by men of reason, intelligence, and good will. Truth is spread by education by individuals who believe in it. Pseudoscientific misinformation and claims are the antithesis of scientific truth (facts and theories) and thus stand in the way of any scientist's best efforts. Scientists have ignored such claims and misinformation in the past, but modern communication, media assistance, and the current cultural temperament make such pseudoscience more available, more believable, and more successful than ever before, so scientists are now fighting back. Two years ago I would have ignored Max Frei and the STURP scientists, but in today's world of Religious New Right anti- intellectualism and popular pseudoscience, I am motivated to speak out against them. Whatever their purposes, I feel they are a danger to our civilization and must be opposed by others in our democratic system." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.308) 9/10/2007 "But then something happened that made me rethink this whole Shroud thing, and many other things, as well. I met a successful science author, known for debunking unscientific ideas. I asked him my questions about the Shroud. The scientific expert did not answer my questions about the Shroud. In fact, the scientific expert completely ignored my questions about the Shroud. He responded, as if by rote: carbon dating proved the Shroud to be a forgery; there is no history of it before the 14th century; there were many faked relics in the Middle Ages. Man, I was so bugged. I was bugged because this exchange struck me as typical of the language use in discussions between speakers on opposite sides of so many issues lately, from stem cell research to the war in Iraq. Language can and should be used to get at truth. But language, like any powerful tool, is double-edged; people often use it to barricade themselves from any idea that they haven't already sanctioned, as member of some gated community built around fealty to Thought Brand X." (Goska, D.V., "The Shroud of Turin???," 11 April 2007) 9/10/2007 "Where can you go to escape from gated linguistic communities? Where can you go to ask anything you want to ask, and see it discussed seriously ... Hey - how about scientists and skeptics? Wouldn't their communities provide the ideal place to discuss anything and everything in an atmosphere of mutual respect and free inquiry? I wanted to see if self-identified skeptics who had debunked the Shroud had addressed questions like mine. A Google search lead me to Joe Nickell. He says that those who see anything worth studying in the Shroud are `Shroud partisans' and `good Catholics' or `the faithful.' Well, that's what we English teachers call `ad hominem.' In these instances, Nickell is trying to make his case not by adducing evidence to support his point of view, but by discrediting the person of those with whom he disagrees." (Goska, D.V., "The Shroud of Turin???," 11 April 2007) 9/10/2007 "And then there's the problem of Nickell's accuracy - `the faithful' don't, for the most part, accept the Shroud. Most Christians I have met have barely even heard of it. I was never told of it in Catholic school; I have never heard it mentioned in a Catholic church. I know about it because the research that scientists did on it gained attention in the secular media. Barrie Schwortz runs a website on the Shroud ... Is Barrie Schwortz, as Nickell alleges, a `partisan Catholic' who came into this research believing in the Shroud? Below is Mr. Schwortz's self-description. In the earliest stages of my involvement, I wondered whether someone raised as an Orthodox Jew should be a part of such a `Christian' project I am still Jewish, yet I believe the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that wrapped the man Jesus after he was crucified. That is not meant as a religious statement, but one based on my privileged position of direct involvement with many of the serious Shroud researchers in the world, and a thorough knowledge of the scientific data, unclouded by media exaggeration and hype (Shroud.com)." (Goska, D.V., "The Shroud of Turin???," 11 April 2007) 9/10/2007 "There was another problem with self-identified skeptic Shroud-debunkings. Schwortz's site includes the full texts of articles that argue that the Shroud is a forgery. It includes links to websites that purport to expose the Shroud as a fraud. I didn't find the full texts of articles supporting the Shroud's authenticity, or links to websites supporting the Shroud's authenticity on skeptic websites. In other words, a website maintained by a man who argues that the Shroud is authentic includes material supporting the full spectrum of opinion; the debunking websites I saw included only information that supports the debunker's point of view." (Goska, D.V., "The Shroud of Turin???," 11 April 2007) 9/10/2007 "The Shroud has been subjected to imaging analysis by NASA scientists, to carbon dating, and to analysis, performed by criminologists and botanists, of the pollen particles found on its surface. Forensic pathologists have analyzed the death depicted on the Shroud. At least since Descartes, the West has come to regard religion and hard science as polar opposite disciplines. It is this very intersection of religion and hard science that intrigues, delights, and perhaps even threatens many, and attracts many to the Shroud story. In truth, though, and perhaps counterintuitively, the hard sciences are limited in their ability to crack the mystery of the Shroud. This sounds contrary -- science has come to be understood as the source of definitive truth. In this case, though, hard science has failed to provide an answer that satisfies the demands of Ockham's razor. William of Ockham (1285-1347/49), posited that, `Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate;' that is, `Plurality should not be posited without necessity.' In other words, Ockham's razor demands that, of two competing theories, the simplest explanation is preferred. The Shroud compels exactly because there is no simple or easy explanation. None of science's tests, including carbon dating, has changed that. None has produced a simple explanation that meets the demands of Ockham's razor." (Goska, D.V., "The Shroud of Turin???," 11 April 2007) 9/10/2007 "One might argue, based on carbon dating, that the Shroud is a simple forgery, dating from the Middle Ages. That theory is not best tested exclusively by hard science. Rather, insights from the social sciences and the humanities are necessary in cracking this mystery. I am not a hard scientist. I am a Ph.D. candidate in the Folklore Institute at Indiana University. Folklore, like its fellow social sciences, has demonstrated that human expressive culture follows rules, just as surely as carbon decay follows rules. One does not need to be a social scientist to understand this. Suppose an archaeologist were to discover, in an Egyptian tomb, a work of art that followed the aesthetic prescriptions of Andy Warhol's 20th century American portrait of Marilyn Monroe. Certainly, hard science would argue that ancient Egyptians possessed all the technology necessary to produce such items of expressive culture. Ancient Egyptians had pigments; they had surfaces on which to draw. Hard scientists might see no mystery in a pharaonic Warhol Marilyn. A non-scientist would have every reason to find such a blasé attitude bizarre. Of course the ancient Egyptians could produce Warhol-like art. The fact is, though, that they simply never did. Ancient Egyptians, like all artists everywhere, followed the artistic mandates of their time and place. True, art does change, but it changes organically, slowly, and after leaving vast bodies of evidence of change in intermediary forms. For example, as different as it is, art from Greece's Golden Age can be seen to have grown from Egyptian art, in intermediary forms like Kouroi figures. The Shroud is as much an object of wonder and worthy investigation, in spite of carbon dating, as would be an isolated pharaonic Warhol, or a rock song that had been composed during the period of Gregorian Chant, or a Hopi vase that somehow came to made during the high point of peasant embroidery in Czechoslovakia. Yes, in each case, technology was available to create these anomalous forms; however, as any layman might well point out, humans did not choose to use available technology in order to create anomalous forms." (Goska, D.V., "The Shroud of Turin???," 11 April 2007) 9/10/2007 "There are two consistently unaddressed flaws in the arguments of those who contend that the Shroud must be of medieval origin, created by contemporaneously available technology. The first flaw is that even if technology had been available to create an image with all the remarkable features of the Shroud, there is no way to explain why an artist would have done so. This question must be explored not via carbon dating, NASA imaging, or pollen tests, but, rather, by comparison with other relics from the medieval era. I have not seen research by experts in medieval relics that attempts to compare and contrast the Shroud with comparable artifacts from the medieval era. Does the Shroud look like other relics, or does it not? If, as I suspect is true, it does not look like other relics from that era, then it behooves anyone who argues for a medieval date to explain exactly why. Those who argue this position must tell us why the equivalent of a Warhol portrait has been found among Egyptian artwork where the laws of human expressive culture dictate that it plainly does not belong." (Goska, D.V., "The Shroud of Turin???," 11 April 2007) 9/10/2007 "In the writings of church reformers like Erasmus and Martin Luther, one can read descriptions of medieval relics. In fact, many relics once popular in the medieval era can be visited even today. Reformers like Erasmus and Luther expressed open contempt at the gullibility of the Christian masses. Bones that were obviously animal in origin were treated as if the bones of some dead saint. Random chips of wood were marketed as pieces of the true cross; random swatches of fabric were saints' attire. Why, in such a lucrative and undemanding marketplace, would any forger resort to anything as detailed and complex as the Shroud? Why would a forger resort to an image that would so weirdly mimic photography, a technology that did not exist in the Middle Ages? Well, one might argue, the forger created the highly detailed, anomalous Shroud in order to thoroughly trick his audience. This argument does not withstand analysis. The relic market is profoundly undemanding. It was profoundly undemanding in the Middle Ages; it is barely more demanding today." (Goska, D.V., "The Shroud of Turin???," 11 April 2007) 9/10/2007 "The Shroud does more than not follow the simple rules of relic hawkers. The Shroud not only does not follow the laws of the expressive culture of medieval relics, it defies them. For example, blood is shown flowing from the man's wrist, not his hands. It is standard in Christian iconography to depict Jesus' hands as having been pierced by nails. This was true not only of the medieval era, but also today. What reason would a forging artist have for defying the hegemonic iconography of the crucified Jesus? Anyone who wishes to prove a medieval origin for the Shroud must answer that question, and others, for example: Items of expressive culture are not found in isolation. They are not found without evidence of practice. If one excavates an ancient site and finds one pot, one finds other pots like it, and the remains of failed or broken pots in middens. If the Shroud is a forgery, where are its precedents? Where are the other forged shrouds like it? Where is there evidence of practice shrouds of this type? If the technology to create the Shroud was available in medieval Europe, where are other products of this technology? Humankind is an exhaustively exploitative species. We make full use of any technology we discover, and leave ample evidence of that use. Given the lucrative nature of the forgery market, why didn't the forger create a similar Shroud of Mary, Shroud of St. Peter, Shroud of St. Paul, etc.? And why didn't followers do the same?" (Goska, D.V., "The Shroud of Turin???," 11 April 2007) 9/10/2007 "I'm not attempting here to prove the Shroud to be genuine. I am insisting that hard science alone cannot tell us the full truth about the Shroud, and that ignoring the obvious questions posed by the humanities and the social sciences leaves us as much in the dark about the Shroud as ever." (Goska, D.V., "The Shroud of Turin???," 11 April 2007) 20/10/2007 "The last of the 1973 tests also pointed to the Middle East and, more precisely, to the Dead Sea. Dr. Max Frei was a detective. He was the chief of the criminology laboratory of the Zurich, Switzerland, police department. And he was an expert in identifying pollens. All plants produce pollens. They are so small that they cannot be seen without the aid of a microscope. Pollens have a hard outer wall (the exine). Because of this shell, pollens can survive a long time after falling off their plants. One important fact about pollens is that each plant produces its own specific type of pollen, different from all others. An expert looking at pollens through a microscope can tell exactly what - species of plant a pollen comes from. Another important fact is that pollens are found everywhere that dust gathers, such as in the corners of rooms and on cloth. Dr. Frei knew that there must be pollen on the Shroud." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.31-32) 20/10/2007 "In 1973 Dr. Frei took pollens from the Shroud by pressing several sticky tapes against the Shroud material. Each tape was labeled, noting what part of the Shroud it had been pressed to. The pollens were then viewed by Dr. Frei through the large electron microscope in his lab. Frei found pollens from fifty-six species of plants on his Shroud tapes. Only seventeen of these plants grow in France or Italy, where we know the Shroud has been since 1355. The other thirty-nine plants grow in the Middle East. This seems to be overwhelming proof that the Shroud has spent most of its history outside Europe, and most likely in the Jerusalem-Dead Sea area. Frei also found pollen from three plants that grow in Southern Turkey, where the cities of Urfa and Constantinople are located. ... Frei's most important discovery was that some of the pollens come from a species of plants called halophytes. Halophytes only grow in soil which is rich in salt, as is found around the Dead Sea. This sea is called `dead' because it is saturated with salt. Nothing can live in its waters. Naturally, the soil around its shores is salt-rich. Halophytes are thus rare and special plants, and their presence provides positive evidence for the Shroud's whereabouts before it came to Europe. All this agrees with Dr. Raes' findings that the Shroud was woven in the Middle East. Does this pollen and textile information prove anything about the image of the man on the Shroud? No, it does not say anything about the image, only about the origin of the cloth. But if the Shroud is Jesus' burial wrapping, it had to come from the Holy Land. We now know that it does." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.32-33. Emphasis original) 20/10/2007 "We have seen that the Shroud has been tested and studied by many different scientists and historians and still it is as much a puzzle as ever. But there was one more test that remained to be done: to attempt to learn the date of the Shroud by the Carbon-14 (C-14) method. This process has proved to be successful in determining the dates of objects found by archaeologists digging at ancient sites. Any object which was once living (organic), such as the flax plant which provided the linen of the Shroud, can be dated by the C14 method if it is under 50,000 years old. ... Experts hoped that by performing the C-14 test on the Shroud of Turin, the test would show the age of the cloth within thirty to two hundred years." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.102,104) 20/10/2007 "As the test was planned, some C-14 specialists were pessimistic that it could produce an accurate date. They feared that too much contamination had occurred over the centuries. In the case of the Shroud, C-14 transfers from fourteenth, fifteenth, or even twentieth century hands could spoil the reading. Other C-14 experts believed that the cloth could be cleansed of its contamination and the test would give an accurate date for the Shroud. But all agreed that C-14 was not infallible." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.104) 20/10/2007 "Nevertheless, on April 21, 1988, three pieces about the size of postage stamps were cut from the Shroud. The removal was done under the authority of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome and the British Museum. The bits of Shroud material were hand-delivered to representatives of the University of Arizona, Oxford University in England, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at the University of Zurich. The labs were also given bits of material from other `dummy' cloths whose dates were known. None of the pieces was labeled so that, theoretically at least, the labs could not know which pieces were from the Shroud." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.104) 20/10/2007 "In September 1988, the results were leaked to the press. The Shroud had been carbon-dated to a time around 1350. Scientists whose research had seemed to support the Shroud's authenticity immediately challenged the C-14 findings. They came up with several objections to the way the testing had been carried out. They argued that the three labs had been given pieces of cloth taken from a much handled, much contaminated corner of the Shroud. Since only threads were needed, different parts of the Shroud could and should have been included, such as the `pristine' material next to the charred areas under the patches. Another major objection was that all three labs had agreed to use the same newly developed and relatively untested cleansing solvent. Since the contamination from centuries of handling is the most important obstacle to an accurate C-14 date, this procedure seemed to critics to be extremely careless." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.104-105) 20/10/2007 "The C-14 tests, therefore, did not put an end to the controversy over the Shroud. In fact, the mystery of the famous cloth was even more profound than be fore. As Luigi Gonella, scientific advisor to the Archbishop of Turin noted, there remained the question of how the image was formed. Also, how could one explain the numerous artistic and historical references which seemed to point to the Shroud as the genuine burial cloth of Jesus? How could one explain the fact that early portraits of Jesus seem to contain features found on the face of the man of the Shroud? How did pollens from the Holy Land get onto the Shroud? How shall we explain Constantine VII's description of the Edessa Mandylion in 944 as a `moist secretion not made with, artists' paints,' a description which precisely describes the Shroud? If the Shroud was really the burial wrapping of some person centuries later than Jesus, why has it not disintegrated as burial clothing does if left on the corpse for more than thirty-six hours? The questions surrounding Christianity's greatest relic did not end in 1988. As with all the other tests, theories, and documents, C-14 has added but one more piece to the great puzzle of the Shroud of Turin." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.105) 20/10/2007 "`We can conclude for now that the shroud image is that of a real human form or a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The bloodstains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made ... the problem remains unsolved.' STURP, Summary of Official Statement" (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.105) 20/10/2007 "`The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Christ in existence ... or it is one of the most ingenious, unbelievably clever products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other. There is no middle ground.' Shroud researcher John Walsh" (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.105) 22/10/2007 "It was in what remained of that cluttered, hysterical, gold-encrusted city [Byzantium] that Max Frei now began his investigations. On the walls of the ancient churches and palaces, pitted by time, grew many different varieties of plants. Dr Frei collected these, plucking specimens to dry, placing them in his special boxes and envelopes, hoping eventually to match their pollens to those, still unidentified, which he had taken from the Shroud." (Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, 1978, p.53) 22/10/2007 "Meanwhile, Dr Frei ranged the surrounding escarpments [of Urfa], happily collecting the specimens that would fill out his chapter in the story of the Shroud. Just as importantly, he met and made friends with the director of the local meteorological station. As a result he was able to obtain crucial information on such seasonal factors as the prevailing winds, the fluctuating effects of the seasons and so on." (Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, 1978, p.59) 22/10/2007 "One direct consequence of the journey to the Middle East was that Dr Frei was at last able to finish his report on the origins of the pollens he had found. He named five plants from the desert regions of the Holy Land, two which grew habitually on the desert borders. Two of the pollens derived from plants that grew in Turkey. In addition, there were spores from at least eight other Mediterranean plants. This enabled Max Frei to be much more categorical than before. He wrote, `Apart from what we already know from historical sources about the displays at Torino, Vercelli and Chambéry, which have left their traces, it is possible in the actual state of our knowledge to confirm that the Shroud is contaminated with pollen from desert plants growing in Israel, from a forest plant and a species from the steppe of Turkey, and from a grass from the sand-dunes of the Mediterranean shores. The greatest number of pollen grains identified comes from Mediterranean plants which grow in Palestine, at Istanbul and partly at Torino.'" (Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, 1978, p.67) 22/10/2007 "There was thus no question of the scientific evidence undermining Ian Wilson's original theory. Instead, it had been supported: the Shroud had apparently been in the places Wilson said it had. This did not, of course, make his ideas true - there was probably no proof imaginable upon which one could base historical connections of the sort he was proposing - but it confirmed that they had to be taken seriously. ...With the evidence of Max Frei, Wilson's arguments took on a new strength. David might have been anxious over the possibility that Frei's first field-trip would undermine the whole venture, that the closer look would have negated the encouraging results of his laboratory examination. As it was, he could relax; he was still very much on course." (Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, 1978, pp.67-68) 22/10/2007 "While these tests had been under way in Italy, in Belgium, the material of the Shroud was itself the subject of experimentation. Professor Gilbert Raes, of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology, had been given four samples: two threads and the two tiny pieces of linen. That it was, in fact, linen he established in his first tests. Illuminating his samples with polarised light to increase contrast, Professor Raes examined them under the microscope. Their structure was typical and clear to see. There would be no surprises here. What was something of a surprise, however, was that on specimens he had prepared, `originating from the warp as well as the weft of the material, one observed traces of cotton fibre. It seemed that the linen threads had been spun in a place where one also spun cotton'. Raes seized on the cotton, to see what clues it might provide. He was looking to see how many twists or `reversals' there were in every centimeter of thread, for these are features that vary with the type of cotton. 'For the cotton fibres found in the linen thread the number of reversals is around 8 per cm., which corresponds to the variety Herbaceum. This kind of cotton already existed in the Middle East.'" (Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, 1978, p.72) 22/10/2007 "That linen and cotton were worked on the same machinery causes one little surprise. `Ye shall keep my statutes', the Lord tells his people in Leviticus, and adds that `thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee'. Mixtures of this kind were frowned on in Jewish orthodoxy - but cotton, spreading westward from the Indus Valley, arrived too late to be included in an oral tradition that stretched back to the second Millennium BC. Thus the Mishna, the code of conduct regulating the day-today behaviour of practicing Jews; although written down perhaps three centuries later than was Leviticus, continues to prohibit the mixing of linen and wool but has nothing to say about cotton. As had happened so often, the Shroud had circumvented a potential negative which, if proven, would have destroyed its claims to authenticity. The circumvention, however, proved nothing of itself. The material of the Shroud was not ruled out as a Jewish product by the mixture that Professor Raes had discovered, but this did not go one step toward proving that it actually was a Jewish product." (Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, 1978, pp.73-74) 22/10/2007 "Equally the weave itself, with its herringbone patterning, could have been produced in the Middle East during the first century. Such work was more commonly seen in silks, but it was seen and there was no reason why it should not have appeared in a good-quality linen. This logical block to all positive affirmation is to be seen in the professor's own conclusions. As he tells us, `One may say that there is no precise indication available permitting one to affirm with certainty that the material does not date from the time of Christ. It is also true, however, that nothing allows one to assert that the material in question was actually fabricated at that time.'" (Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, 1978, p.74) 22/10/2007 "One interesting fact Professor Raes did discover. The cotton fibres he had found clung only to threads from the main body of the Shroud. Samples taken from a long strip of matching linen sewn to one side included no cotton at all. The conclusion had to be that it had been woven at a different time. If that were so, it seemed a plausible assumption that it had been added at a later period by someone who wanted to match the texture and appearance of the main cloth. Just as Max Frei's findings had given support to Ian Wilson's general theory, so this evidence added credence to one portion of it. It was Wilson's conviction that the Shroud had been folded in four when, as the Image of Edessa, it had first dazzled Byzantium. To the people of Edessa, indeed, it had always been a portrait. It had almost certainly been presented to them and their king as such, in that distant time before persecution had caused it to be hidden and the memory of it had faded from the city. But why had it not been offered to Abgar and his subjects as the Shroud of Jesus? Wilson's thesis is that this had been impossible at a period when graveclothes were considered fundamentally unclean - especially those of a convicted and crucified man, however holy. One could not offer such a gift to a king. Diplomatically, therefore, the Shroud had been folded to show only the head. Thus curtailed, however, it must have looked unsettlingly off-centre, and it was for this reason that a side- piece had been sewn on. Now Raes had shown that the side-piece certainly was a later addition. Again, this proved nothing positive - but the fact that these findings did not disprove the theory meant that it had cleared another hurdle." (Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, 1978, pp.74-75. Emphasis original) 22/10/2007 "The same problem faces another hypothesis offered in the Turin Commission's report, that of Professor Noemi Gabrielli. As the former Director of the Piedmontese art galleries; she had been brought in to place the Shroud to the general history of art. Her suggestion was `that the author's model was not engraved on a wooden block ... but drawn by the author directly onto a wet cloth stretched on a frame, using a compound of sepia-coloured clay and yellow ochre diluted in a resinous liquid, and that this original, while still wet, was then spread out over the Shroud, also well stretched, and pressed against it with a padded weight, as used to be done for printing'. The advantage of this theory, she claimed, was that it explained the `negative' effect of the image the positive of the original design became reversed in the subsequent transfer - as well as the absence of the distortions that might otherwise have been expected. As to who was responsible, she says categorically, `It is the work of a great artist of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, who used the Leonardo technique of shading. If we compare the Shroud with the face of Christ in the Last Supper we find a similarity in the technique and spirituality.' She asserts that the Shroud now in Turin must have been created some 130 years later than that displayed by Geoffrey de Charny and that the artist responsible, `with his thorough knowledge of anatomy, would appear to have transfused into his canvas his geniality and the emotional turmoil of his soul...' It should be `considered a masterpiece of figurative art'. By thus blithely both rewriting history and ignoring the scientific evidence, she makes out a case for the Shroud's having been created by a Renaissance genius as great as Leonardo da Vinci or - half-hinted at - by Leonardo himself. She has suggested, of course, the only man with the blend of artistic ability, technical ingenuity and psychological insight who might plausibly have forged so powerful an icon. She offers no evidence to support her notion, however. She lists other holy cloths claimed to be the shroud of Jesus, most long vanished, some of the copies that were made of these and the artists who painted them. Nowhere, however, does she link the general possibility of forgery, which has always been present, with particular evidence proving that this Shroud is spurious." (Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, 1978, pp.77-78. Emphasis original) 24/10/2007 "In a letter postmarked 15 April 1987 Sox sent me a clipping from the _London Times_ dated 15 April 1987, that was titled 'Science and the Shroud'. It was based on an interview with Professor Edward Hall of Oxford University. Hall asked the reporter to imagine a path about 130 yards wide made of a single layer of sand stretching from the Earth to the Moon. Our task, he explained, was the equivalent of finding a grain of sand in that path that differed slightly from the other grains. That was a measure of the problem being undertaken by seven laboratories in Europe and America sometime in the coming months." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol & Philadelphia, 1996, p.184) 24/10/2007 "A little after 6.00am the Archbishop, Michael Tite, Teddy Hall, Robert Hedges, Willy Wolfli, Paul Damon and Douglas Donahue arrived. The scientists to do the carbon dating were placed in the canons' stalls, but Tite was with Gonella, Riggi and two textile experts; one from France and the other from Turin. Apparently the latter pointed to the marking of the wound in the side and asked: `What's that large brown patch?' Obviously his knowledge of the Shroud was rather limited. The two argued with Riggi for more than an hour about where the sample would be taken from." (Sox, H.D., "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, 1988, p.133) 26/10/2007 "From 1204 on, all that was previously tangible seems to dissolve into the mists of history. Ahead yawns a period one may term `the missing years,' a historical gap of one hundred and fifty years, from the disappearance of what was unquestionably the Mandylion during the crusaders' sack of Constantinople in 1204, to the mysterious appearance of what is undoubtedly the Turin Shroud in France in the 1350s, in the possession of the knight Geoffrey de Charny. In many ways a gap of this kind in the historical record was to be expected. In view of the problem that had been faced throughout, the apparent lack of an early history for the Turin Shroud, if the Mandylion/Shroud theory is correct, there had to be a period of break for the Mandylion's true identity to be forgotten and for the Shroud to emerge, as it does in the fourteenth century, with total ignorance as to its earlier whereabouts. Had this break not occurred, the mystery that has been so difficult to unravel throughout would have been no mystery at all." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, p.172. Emphasis original) 26/10/2007 "Even so, however elusive the Shroud/Mandylion may be from 1204 to the 1350s, it is important to offer at least some theory to throw light on those years. The words of Robert de Clari are worth remembering `No one, either Greek or French, ever knew what became of this sydoine after the city was taken.' One thing was certain. The cloth did not stay in the hands of the Greeks. At the outset it is possible that it was some Byzantine who had access to the Pharos Chapel or the sacristy of the Blachernae church, who perhaps slipped in and secreted it away. If he did, he did not retain it long, perhaps being captured or surrendering it at an early stage for much-needed cash. Certainly it never succeeded in reaching the new Byzantine mini- kingdoms formed by survivors at Trebizond and in the Balkans. No mention occurs in their records of that time. Nor, when in 1261 a Byzantine emperor was able to walk back into Constantinople following crusader withdrawal, did the Mandylion come to light. In the fifteenth-century accounts of the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, the robe of the Virgin played a prominent, though unsuccessful, part in the city's attempt to protect itself. But there was no mention of the Mandylion." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, pp.172-173) 26/10/2007 "Not that the Greeks forgot the cloth they had nurtured for a little more than two and a half centuries. Far from it. ... It came to be portrayed on countless icons, mosaics, and mural paintings throughout the Balkans and Greece, wherever Byzantine artists had fled after Constantinople was taken from them. It was frequently depicted in Russian art, the Russians having been converted to Christianity by the Byzantines in the tenth century, subsequently inheriting much of their culture, including the Orthodox tradition in art. ... Battling against the Tartars in Kazan in 1532, Tsar Ivan the Terrible carried a representation of the Mandylion as a protective device on his imperial standard, and was victorious. ... Perhaps the quaintest detail of all is to be found in photographs of Russian troops entering Thessalonica during the First World War, preserved to this day in London's Imperial War Museum. They carry their regimental colors and these can be clearly seen to be a banner of the Mandylion, virtually identical with that used by Ivan the Terrible, and bearing the inscription `God is with us:'" (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, pp.173-174) 26/10/2007 "The epitaphios, too, came into its own after the fall of Constantinople ... One is almost tempted to believe that this was a Byzantine attempt to compensate for the fact that, while they possessed the Mandylion, they had failed to reveal its true form to the public. Probably so few knew the full story that the secret died in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, just as the secret of the cloth's whereabouts in first-century Edessa died with the persecution of the Christian population by Ma'nu VI. In Jerusalem and other places of Orthodox worship the priests on a Good Friday and Easter eve still adorn the altar with an epitaphios and scatter among the faithful rose petals with which the cloth has been strewn, as a sign of the coming Resurrection. One cannot avoid the reminiscence of the manner in which water used to gently sponge the Mandylion was similarly scattered among the congregation of the Hagia Sophia cathedral in Edessa." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, p.174) 26/10/2007 "If the Mandylion/Shroud did not stay in Byzantine hands, where did it go? The surprising fact is that it did not, certainly in any recognizable form, appear in the West. Robert de Clari was quite definite that neither Greek nor Frenchman knew what became of the cloth he saw, suggesting that although he made specific enquiries about it, these were to no avail. ... All other considerations aside, it seems inconceivable that a cloth that had such an illustrious earlier history should, once in the West, have suffered such an obscure fate." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, p.175) 26/10/2007 "That rival claimants should have such doubtful pedigrees clearly leaves open the possibility that the present-day Shroud of Turin is one and the same as the Mandylion of Byzantine history. If this is the case, however, the odd aspect is that neither in the Byzantine face-on-cloth form nor in the full-length-figure Shroud form that we know today did this cloth come to light during the next century. In this context it is important to appreciate that the Pharos Chapel, where the Mandylion should have been kept at the time of the Crusade siege, was spared the looting suffered elsewhere. ... Speculation is unavoidable. Perhaps it had been kept at Blachernae during the critical period, as Robert de Clari suggested, and was stolen from there by some lone crusader. Possibly. The Blachernae area was certainly among the first to be overrun when the crusaders poured into the city in 1204. Why, when the successful crusader returned home, did he not make public his find? Contrary to what we might expect today, there was, at the time of the crusades, no reason for anyone to keep such a relic hidden because he feared punishment for having stolen it. ... there are numerous accounts of knights and churchmen who returned to the West with stolen relics, to be greeted with adulation, not recrimination. ... Enormous sums of money were paid for them, the Crown of Thorns alone changing hands for the princely sum of ten thousand marks. There was every incentive to publicize their whereabouts. But no one brought to light the Mandylion/Shroud." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, pp.176-177) 26/10/2007 "If, therefore, the cloth survived-and de Clari does not suggest that it was destroyed-there would seem to have been devious circumstances in which it `went underground' in a way that has never previously been identified. For the reasons just mentioned, this was unusual and helps in developing a picture of the unknown keeper or keepers. The period of `going underground' extends through more than a century and implies a certain continuity of ownership. One must expect a group of owners rather than an individual. Furthermore, if they were not actually among the crusaders who took Constantinople in 1204, the group must have been closely connected with them. They must have possessed considerable wealth; otherwise surely there would have been too great a temptation to sell the relic, either openly or on the black market. It was, after all, worth a prince's ransom. They must have had the wherewithal to ensure its concealment and security-no mean feat over five generations. They must have possessed some very strong motive for acting in such a curiously secretive manner. Only Christians would have been interested in keeping the cloth to themselves. Who, therefore, had such a high opinion of themselves that they considered Christ's most precious relic their exclusive right?" (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, pp.177-178) 26/10/2007 "Finally, and not least, they must, if the Shroud/Mandylion identification is valid, have had some historical link with Geoffrey de Charny, the French knight who was the Shroud's first authenticated owner. None of this might appear to provide any real substance with which to identify the Shroud's possible guardians between 1204 and the 1350s, but as it happens there is one historical group of suspects who fit these requirements with uncanny precision. Some eighty years before the capture of Constantinople two French knights, Hugh of Payens and Geoffrey of Saint-Omer, with seven companions had founded the Crusader Order of Knights Templars or `Poor Knights of Christ of the Temple of Solomon,' so called because they were given land close to the site of the ruined Temple in Jerusalem. By 1204 they had become both wealthy and powerful, attracting to their ranks men of the noblest blood, distinguishing themselves as fearless crusaders, and building across Europe and the Near East a series of virtually impregnable fortresses. In a precarious age these fortresses were of no small importance, and became recognized as useful storehouses for national treasures and valuables of all kinds. Kings and popes alike came to bank with the Templars, giving the `poor knights' the reputation, if not the reality, of possessing enormous wealth. Because of this role the Templars were one of the principal sources of finance for the Fourth Crusade, although they themselves took little part in it. They were also in a position to act as guardians, traders, and pawnbrokers for the flourishing trade in relics, genuine and false alike, that ensued from the Fourth Crusade. Thus the means of acquiring the Mandylion/Shroud were there. Also, the Templars' heavily guarded monastery- fortresses provided the means of keeping the cloth's whereabouts secret for a considerable period." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, pp.177-178) 26/10/2007 "The question that therefore arises is whether there is any valid reason for believing that this might have taken place. The answer is surprisingly affirmative. The Templars' daytime business dealings with the money entrusted to them were impeccable. But at night dark mysteries surrounded their internal doings. Chapter meetings were held at midnight behind locked doors. Initiates were sworn under pain of death never to reveal the details of the ceremony by which they were admitted to the order. Most significant of all, at the beginning of the fourteenth century all Europe buzzed with gossip and rumors of a strange object they were said to be hiding-a mysterious `head' that they were believed to worship idolatrously at secret ceremonies, prostrating themselves before it to the Saracen war cry `Yallah.' According to one account, `... it was a certain bearded head, which they adored, kissed and called their Savior.' [Michelet, M., "Procès des Templiers," Paris 1841-51, Vol. II, p.279] Another described it as an idol, which `they venerate as God, as their Savior. Some of them, or most of those who attend the chapters, say that this head can save them, that it has given them all the wealth of the order, that it makes the trees flourish and the earth fruitful. Also they bind or touch this idol with the cords with which they gird themselves.' [Martin, E.J., "The Trial of the Templars," London, 1928]" (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, pp.178-179) 28/10/2007 "We have then the matter of the cloth's fate after 1204 when according to the Crusader, `neither Greek nor Frenchman knew what became of it.' [de Clari, R., "The Conquest of Constantinople," McNeal, E.H., transl., Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1936] This is the most mysterious period of all. But whoever came to possess it would seem to have possessed vast wealth, or otherwise they would have sold such a valuable relic; also they must have had some motive for keeping it secretly to themselves. To me the prime suspects seem to have been the Order of Knights Templar, who had a great veneration for the Holy Sepulchre, and built for themselves vast fortresses so heavily guarded that they became the banks of Europe, and so mysterious that rumours began to circulate of secret Templar ceremonies at which some great relic was venerated, a relic which had the appearance of the face of an unidentified bearded man upon a panel. In 1307 the rumours were all that were needed to give the King of France the excuse to lay his hands on Templar wealth by arresting every member of the Order, not without a struggle, a struggle in which the mysterious `idol' the Templars were accused of possessing certainly disappeared. Just one clue survives to the appearance of the last Templar `idol,' a clue found in the tiny village of Templecombe in England, once the home of a Templar preceptory. During the demolition of a cottage outhouse in the 1950's there came to light this oak panel painting ..., undoubtedly Templar, answering exactly the documentary descriptions of the `idol' and with the uncanny appearance of being a copy of the face on the Shroud. If the Shroud was indeed the idol possessed by the Templars, one further clue survives as to it's fate. In 1314 two of the last Templar dignitaries were brought out to be burnt at the stake, proclaiming to the last their innocence .... One was the Order's Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, the other the Order's Master of Normandy, Geoffrey de Charny. We do not know definitely if there was a family relationship between Geoffrey de Charny the Templar and Geoffrey I de Charny of Lirey, first known owner of the Shroud. But the likelihood is there." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.47-48) 30/10/2007 "A GREAT NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS, laymen and churchmen of all denominations now believe that the winding sheet in which Christ was wrapped in the sepulcher is actually in existence and located in Turin (Torino), Italy. It is known as the Shroud of Turin ... . It is the most sacred, the most controversial, and perhaps even the most important relic in all Christendom. The Shroud itself is of impressive dimensions fourteen feet, three inches long and three feet, seven inches wide. It is a single piece of time-faded linen with a strip approximately three and one-half inches wide running the length of the left-hand side. Only one seam was used for this attachment. On this sheet is an image which is so faint it looks more like a shadow cast on the cloth. The figure is the pale imprint in a honey-straw color (except for the blood stains, which are a deep burgundy) of the front and back of a powerfully-built man with a beard and long hair, between five feet seven inches and six feet tall, weighing between 155 and 175 pounds, and laid out in the normal position employed in Jewish burials of the First Century." (Adams, F.O., "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Patrick Walsh Press: Tempe AZ, 1982, p.5. Emphasis original) 30/10/2007 "The Shroud of Turin does exist. It is a long strip of cloth; of which the most commonly agreed upon measurements are fourteen feet, three inches long, and three feet, seven inches wide. (The fact that even its dimensions have been contested is but another example of how restricted the access to it has been.) Although the cloth is creased and yellowed, it is still supple and, for the most part, well preserved. It is made of pure linen, woven in a herringbone pattern in what is referred to as a three-to- one twill-that is, the weft, or horizontal, thread passes alternately over three and under one of the warp, or vertical, threads ... . According to Virginio Timossi, the textile expert who examined it in 1931, the Shroud bears many signs of primitive manufacture, including irregularities in the pattern and imperfections in the weave. These observations have been confirmed by Professor Silvio Curto, superintendent of the Museum of Egyptology in Turin, who was a member of the commission that examined the Shroud in 1973. Professor G. Raes, director of the Gand Institute of Textile Technology in Ghent, Belgium, examined several samples excised from the Shroud as well as microphotographs of it. He, too, concluded that the linen was made in ancient times. Laboratory tests conducted by Professor Raes showed traces of cotton fiber, indicating that the linen Shroud was woven on a loom that also had been used for weaving cotton. The cotton fibers are of a type textile authorities call Herbaceum, which was commonly used in the Middle East during the time of Christ. Dr. William Geilmann, another textile authority and a professor at the University of Mainz, Germany, authenticated a number of similar linen fabrics, all of which reliably date from the first to the third century. One of Dr. Geilmann's fabrics is woven in exactly the same pattern as that of the Shroud of Turin. Linen cloths of similar dimensions were woven by the ancient Egyptians. According to Professor Curto, all Egyptian cloth was made of linen until the third century A.D. It is said that the Jews learned the art of weaving during their captivity in Egypt and that they practiced the craft so well that Jewish cloth was often preferred to that of the Egyptians." (Humber, T., "The Sacred Shroud," Pocket Books: New York NY, 1978, pp.34-35) 30/10/2007 "A fortuitous event, the photographing of the Shroud in 1898, transformed this religious relic into an archaeological artifact that if not a forgery, profoundly affects our knowledge of the last days of Jesus on earth. For the past eighty-five years, this ancient strip of linen has probably been studied and tested to a greater degree than any art object or other archaeological artifact on record. Modern research on the Shroud began after an amateur Italian photographer, Secondo Pia, photographed the 14½ x 3½ foot Shroud of Turin for the first time, around the turn of the century. He made the startling discovery that the complete frontal and dorsal image of the nude man on the cloth is actually a negative image with photographic qualities. ... Since the taking of that first photograph, scientific and historical research have uncovered many facts that support the supposition that the Shroud could be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ" (Maher, R.W., "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, 1986, p.1) 30/10/2007 "The Holy Shroud of Turin is a piece of cloth measuring 14 feet 3 inches by 3 feet 7 inches. It was woven as a single piece but has a narrow strip sewn along one edge which is about 3½ inches wide. The weave is a three to one herringbone twill of linen but containing traces of cotton. Several noted authorities on textiles including Dr William Geilman of the University of Mainz; Professor Silvio Curto, Curator of the Egyptian Museum of Turin and Professor Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Technology have all attested to the fact that the cloth is consistent with the period of two thousand years ago, that it must have originated in the Middle East on account of its cotton content and total absence of wool and that some of its features make it impossible for it to have been woven at any other time, thus giving no support to any claim of later forgery of the cloth. It is also of a quality which only a wealthy man (such as, for example, Joseph of Arimathea) could have afforded in the time of Christ. Examples of linen cloths are known to have survived at least six thousand years and so the mere survival of the cloth, although unusual, is by no means impossible. It may be remarked that most of the other surviving examples have certainly not been put to the kinds of trials which we believe the Shroud of Turin to have been subjected to either throughout its chequered passage through history or its scientific scrutiny in modern times. Its appearance is a creamy off-white colour and when close to it one can see that its condition is very good. It has almost a sheen on it and those who have touched it say that it is quite supple. These are strange characteristics for a two-thousand year old cloth. The textile experts have over the past few years, proved scientifically the age and location of origin of the cloth and these findings are consistent with its authenticity as a burial cloth 2000 years old." (Morgan, R., "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, 1980, pp.51-52)
[top]
Copyright © 2007-2009, 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: 23 August, 2007. Updated: 14 July, 2009.