[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 December 2007. See copyright conditions at end.
2007: May, Jun, Jul, Aug (1), Aug (2), Sep, Oct, Nov.
1/12/2007
"The most recent scientific study of the Turin shroud will not surprise anyone with even a passing interest
in this mysterious bit of cloth. Retired chemist Raymond Rogers claims that the sample used for
radiocarbon-dating studies in 1988 - which suggested that the shroud was a medieval forgery - is quite
different from the rest of the relic. Rogers, who worked on explosives at the US Los Alamos National
Laboratory, presents chemical arguments for the shroud being much older than those datings implied. It is,
he says, between 1,300 and 3,000 years old. Let's call it somewhere around the middle of that range, which
puts the age at about 2,000 years. Which can mean only one thing... But it would be unfair to imply that
Rogers has steered his study towards a preconceived conclusion. He has a history of respectable work on
the shroud dating back to 1978, when he became director of chemical research for the international Shroud
of Turin Research Project." (Ball, P., "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January 2005)
1/12/2007
"The scientific study of the Turin shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God: it does more to
inflame any debate than settle it. Believers' ability to construct ingenious arguments is more than a match for
the most exhaustive efforts of science.... And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artefact, one of the few
religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a
serene, bearded man was made. It does not seem to have been painted, at least with any known historical
pigments." (Ball, P., "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January 2005)
1/12/2007
"And the relic is surrounded with legend and linked to Cathar sects, shady secret societies and papal
conspiracies. If all this sounds like a popular current novel about hidden codes and religious mysteries, that
may be no coincidence: among the flaky theories about the shroud's origin is one that it was created by
Leonardo da Vinci, using a primitive photographic technique to record his own image." (Ball, P., "To know a
veil," Nature news, 28 January 2005)
1/12/2007
"The photographic hypothesis has been developed (so to speak) in some detail, notably by South African
art historian Nicholas Allen. He has even used medieval materials to create faint photographic images on
linen cloth saturated with silver nitrate. But Allen failed to convince other shroud scholars, who reasonably
asked how an invention as marvellous as photography could have remained otherwise unknown until the
nineteenth century." (Ball, P., "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January 2005)
1/12/2007
"Among the wilder [sic] entrants is the idea that Christ's image was burned into the cloth by some kind of
release of nuclear energy from his body." (Ball, P., "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January 2005)
1/12/2007
"The international team of scientists who convened in 1987 to put a date on the shroud probably did not
expect to banish such fantasies. But by applying radiocarbon dating to the fabric, they were at least
employing the most definitive of archaeological tools. Or so they thought. The textile sample was cut from
the shroud in Turin Cathedral in April 1988, under the supervision of textile experts, representatives of the
laboratories in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich selected to perform the analyses, a conservation scientist from
the British Museum, and the Archbishop of Turin. The three measurements indicated with 95% confidence
that the shroud's linen dated from between AD1260 and 1390. This, the researchers said, was `conclusive
evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is medieval" [Damon, P.E., et al., Nature, Vol. 337, 1989,
pp.611-615]." (Ball, P., "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January 2005)
1/12/2007
"Needless to say, the ink was barely dry before others started to quibble. Professor of history Daniel
Scavone collected examples of erroneous radiocarbon dates and problems with the method that were "well
known to the 14C community". And microbiologists Leoncio Garza-Valdes and Stephen Mattingly proposed
in 1996 that bacteria and fungi on the fibres had skewed the dates, by a thousand years or so." (Ball, P., "To
know a veil," Nature news, 28 January 2005)
1/12/2007
"Rogers has pursued another objection. ... the suggestion that the carbon-dated fragment was taken from a
patch repaired in the sixteenth century did not look promising. The shroud was indeed damaged by fire and
patched up in 1532, but those patches, called the Holland cloth, are obvious. Rogers thought that he would
be able to `disprove [the] theory in five minutes'. But he now says that there is something in it. Luigi
Gonella, the Archbishop of Turin's scientific adviser, provided Rogers with a few threads from the piece cut
for dating, which he compared with the samples he collected during the Shroud of Turin Research Project.
The radiocarbon sample, but not other parts of the shroud, seems to have been dyed with madder, a
colorant not widely used in Europe until after the Crusades, Rogers writes in Thermochimica Acta
[Rogers, R.N., Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, 2005, pp.189-194]. This suggested that the fabric could have
been inserted during repair, after being dyed to match the original, older cloth. Well, maybe. Perhaps more
compelling is that most of the shroud lacks vanillin, a breakdown product of the lignin in cotton fibres.
There is vanillin in the Holland cloth, and in other medieval linen. Because it decomposes over time, this
suggests that the main body of the cloth is considerably older than these patches. By calculating the rate of
decay, Rogers arrives at his revised estimate of the shroud's age." (Ball, P., "To know a veil," Nature
news, 28 January 2005. )
1/12/2007
"There is no explanation, however, of how the 'repaired' threads used in radiocarbon dating were woven into
the old cloth so cunningly that the textile experts who selected the area for analysis failed to notice the
substitution. This is by no means the end of the story. Will scientists ever accept that trying to establish the
true status of the Turin shroud is a vain quest? The object itself is too inaccessible, and its history is too
poorly documented and understood, to permit irrefutable conclusions. And of course 'authenticity' is not
really a scientific issue at all here: even if there were compelling evidence that the shroud was made in first-
century Palestine, that would not even come close to establishing that the cloth bears the imprint of Christ."
(Ball, P., "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January 2005)
2/12/2007
"The mystery surrounding the Shroud began in the year 1389. That year, the Bishop of Troyes in France,
wrote a long letter to Pope Clement VII ... . The Bishop, Pierre d'Arcis, complained in this letter that a knight
named Geoffroy de Charny (whom we will call Geoffroy II) had placed a large cloth in his local church in
Lirey, France. Geoffroy II was claiming that the cloth was Jesus' burial cloth and that the image on it was that
of Jesus' crucified body. Many people, d'Arcis continued, were visiting the church to see this sheet, and
they were making donations. He charged that Geoffroy II was doing this for money. Though Bishop d'Arcis
had not seen the cloth, he thought it could not be the actual cloth which had covered Jesus' body because
the Bible does not mention an image on the shroud of Jesus. He was also angry because Geoffroy had not
asked his permission to display the cloth, but had gone over his head directly to the Pope's representatives.
He had gotten permission from them. The letter went on to say that `about 34 years ago' Geoffroy's father
(whom we shall call Geoffroy I), had first placed the so-called Shroud in the Lirey church. `About 34 years
ago' would mean about the year 1355, since Bishop d'Arcis's letter was written in 1389. This Geoffroy was a
warrior-knight in the Hundred Years' War against England. He had built the Lirey church because of a vow
made in 1342 while he was a prisoner of the British. According to d'Arcis's letter, Geoffroy I had been forced
to remove his Shroud by an earlier Bishop of Troyes. His name was Henry of Poitiers. Henry had conducted
an investigation around 1355, and the `artist who had cleverly painted it' had come forth and confessed.
Now, continued d'Arcis, the Lirey priests and the Charny family were trying to deceive the poor Christians
again. In his efforts to prove the Shroud could not be Jesus' burial wrapping, Bishop d'Arcis was doing his
duty to see that his congregation was not duped by false relics: He had to make sure that alleged religious
relics were really objects that had once been associated with Jesus or a particular saint. People of the Middle
Ages held strong beliefs in miracles and in relics. They could too easily be fooled by false claims. The busy
Pope, Clement VII, regarded d'Arcis's letter as a nuisance. Without ever seeing the cloth with his own eyes,
he ordered the priests at Lirey to refer to it as merely a `copy or representation' of Jesus' shroud. He then
ordered Bishop d'Arcis never to speak about the matter again." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin:
Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.12,14)
2/12/2007
"Did an Artist Paint the Shroud? In spite of the Pope's casual treatment of it, d'Arcis's letter raises many
questions. One would think, for instance, that the artist's confession d'Arcis mentioned would have closed
the book on the mystery of the Shroud of Turin. Surprisingly, however, it only adds to it: The figure of the
man on the Shroud is anatomically perfect. Yet, neither doctors nor artists of the period around 1355 knew
enough about the human body to represent it so perfectly. As we will see later, the flows of blood on the
Shroud man are natural and accurate. From numerous paintings we know that artists of that time did not
know how to depict realistic bleeding. Also, the figure is naked, but artists of that time normally did not
show the human body naked. And Jesus was never depicted unclothed. Who, then, was this genius who
was so original as to be the first to draw the human body nude and was so far ahead of his time in his
knowledge of human anatomy? Bishop d'Arcis did not name him. Shouldn't he have been well known? Next,
d'Arcis's phrase `about 34 years ago,' raises questions. Apparently he did not have an official dated
document before him. His letter frequently used the expressions `it is reported' or `they say.' His information
was mostly hearsay evidence. What documents, records, or other evidence do we have today of Bishop
Henry's supposed investigation of 1355 ('about 34 years ago')? None. Today only one letter exists from
Bishop Henry to Geoffroy I, first owner of the Shroud. In this letter Bishop Henry is not angry and he is not
suspicious. Its date is May 28, 1356. So it was written just about the time when he was supposed to be
accusing Geoffroy of displaying a false relic. Yet the letter praises and blesses Geoffroy I for his work in
promoting the Christian faith. There is no reference at all to the Shroud or to any investigation." (Scavone,
D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.14-16.
Emphasis original)
2/12/2007
"One thing is certain, there is only one person who could have cleared up this portion of the Shroud's
mystery: Geoffroy I himself. Geoffroy I has been called `the Perfect Knight.' His life was one of service to
king and country. Knights swore an oath to their feudal lord or king that they would serve on command. In
return they received a fief, or land, from their lord. Geoffroy's life is studded with military service. The
Hundred Years' War was a life-and-death struggle for France. Geoffroy performed honorably for his country.
Geoffroy's honorable service earned him the title of porte-oriflamme of France. This means he rode next to
King John the Good in battle carrying the royal standard or pennant. He met his death when he threw
himself in the path of a lance aimed at his king. Geoffroy I would surely have told the truth about the
Shroud. What truth would he have told? Geoffroy II claimed that his father had received the Shroud as a gift
for his valor in war. Geoffroy II's daughter, Marguerite, the last of the Charnys to own the Shroud, said her
grandfather (Geoffroy I) won it in battle. These vague statements have become part of the mystery of the
Shroud. But since they are the only record we have of how Geoffroy I received the Shroud, they are
important. Unfortunately, Geoffroy I died in battle without telling anyone how or when he had acquired the
Shroud. In fact, Geoffroy I never spoke of having the Shroud! We only know he had it from Bishop d'Arcis's
letter and from the claims of his son, Geoffroy II, and his granddaughter Marguerite. Geoffroy I's silence
suggests another possibility. Perhaps Jeanne de Vergy, Geoffroy's widow, began to promote the Shroud in
the Lirey church after Geoffroy's death. Souvenir medals of the Shroud from the fourteenth century have the
image of the Shroud man and are also stamped with the Charny family crest and the family crest of Jeanne de
Vergy. If it was Jeanne and not Geoffroy I who first publicized the Shroud, this could explain why Henry's
letter to Geoffroy I never mentions the Shroud." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing
Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.16-17)
2/12/2007
"About 34 years ago [1355-1356] ... after diligent inquiry and examination, [Henry of Poitiers, Bishop of
Troyes] discovered the fraud and how said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by
the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was the work of human skill and not miraculously made."
Memorandum of Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, to Pope Clement VII, 1389" (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud
of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.17)
2/12/2007
"Any painter who were ever to try to portray a face of the dead Christ with all the marks left on it by the
savage treatment inflicted on the Christ of the Gospels, would only end up with a monstrous-looking
portrait. All of those marks are visible on the incomparable face of the man of the Shroud, and I wish I had
been the artist who portrayed it. I could not have done it in any case. No artist could, not certainly by
painting a negative as the Shroud forger supposedly did:" Vice president of the USA Holy Shroud Guild,
Father Peter Rinaldi" (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San
Diego CA, 1989, p.17)
2/12/2007
"Even though the Bible is silent about what happened to the Shroud after Easter, there are other documents
of an unofficial nature which do point to the Shroud's survival after Easter Sunday. In the second century
(about 100-200 A.D.), several accounts were written about the life of Christ. These biographies are similar to
the Gospel accounts in the Bible. For various reasons the early Church Fathers did not include them among
the `official' texts of the Bible. Some of these writings contain incorrect religious teachings; some are just
copies of the Gospels with a few additions. Hence we have called them `unofficial.' The usual word for these
books is `apocryphal' or `hidden' books. But because they were excluded from the Bible does not mean that
they are utterly false. They agree with the Gospels on many points. As books actually written in the second
century, they are valuable source materials for that time." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing
Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.73-74)
2/12/2007
"Most importantly, these texts say that Jesus' shroud was removed from the tomb and saved. Writers of the
second century, therefore, knew of the existence of this sheet in their own day. The first of these apocryphal
books is called the Gospel of the Hebrews. The author is anonymous (unknown) as is the case with all
these apocryphal books. We have only fragments from it, for most of it has been lost over the centuries.
One key surviving passage says, `After the Lord gave his shroud to the servant of the priest [or of Peter;
the actual word is not clear], he appeared to James:' The Acts of Pilate is another apocryphal book of the
second century. It states that Pilate and his wife preserved the shroud of Jesus. It suggests that they were
sorry for their part in his death and were now Christians. These two books, along with the Gospel of
Peter, The Acts of Nicodemus, and The Gospel of Gamaliel, show us that second century writers
knew about the Shroud in their day. They disagree about who saved it from the tomb, but they agree that it
had been saved. The silence of the `official' Biblical stories about the preservation of the shroud is
countered by these books." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven
Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.74)
2/12/2007
"The Jerusalem Documents The Shroud record is again silent for nearly two centuries. These are
centuries of persecution of Christians. The earliest martyrs died for their faith during this period. The Shroud
may have continued to be hidden away for its own protection. The next reference to it comes in the
biography of a young girl named St. Nino. She had visited Jerusalem during the time of Constantine.
Constantine (312-337 A.D.) was the first Christian to rule the Roman Empire. It was he who put an end to the
religious persecution of Christians. He also decreed that death by crucifixion should be outlawed. St. Nino
took a great interest in the relics of Jesus' Passion (the sad events from the Last Supper on Thursday,
through Good Friday, to Easter Sunday). These relics included the nails that pierced his hands and feet, the
crown of thorns, the wood of the cross, the sponge with vinegared wine, the lance point that pierced his
side, and, of course, his burial sheet. Jesus' shroud, she reported, had been preserved by the wife of Pilate,
who then gave it to St. Luke who hid it away. After some time, St. Peter found it and kept it. St. Nino's
account is proof that in fourth-century Jerusalem people still knew of the Shroud's existence." (Scavone,
D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.75. Emphasis
original)
3/12/2007
"After St. Nino ... There is still more evidence for the Shroud of Jesus in Jerusalem; but there is also
evidence which places the Shroud in the small town of Urfa in southern Turkey ... . The ancient name of Urfa
was Edessa. Here, legend has it, existed a cloth with which Jesus had wiped his face, leaving on it a
miraculous portrait. It was known as the Mandylion or the Holy Icon of Edessa. What could this imprinted
face cloth have to do with the imprinted body cloth in Turin today? First let us review the four references to
Jesus' sheet in Jerusalem. Then we will turn full attention to the `Edessa connection:' 1) Around the year 570
a pilgrim to the Holy Land, Antonius of Placentia, wrote of seeing a cave on the banks of the Jordan River.
In it were seven cells, or rooms. In one of the cells was found `the sudarium which was upon Jesus' head:' 2)
Not much later, St. Braulion of Saragossa, Spain (585-651) also saw in Jerusalem the `linens and sudarium in
which the Lord's body was wrapped.' He adds something which might be good to keep in mind: `There are
events of which the Gospels do not speak ... such as preserving the burial sheet.' 3) Next comes the wording
to the `Mozarabic Liturgy.' (A liturgy is the `script' of a religious service.) This text was originally written in
the sixth century, so it is contemporary with Antonius and Braulion. The lines which intrigue the student of
the Shroud read, `Peter ran with John to the sepulcher. He saw the linens and on them the recent traces of
the death and resurrection.' Could this be the first hint that the surviving grave wrapping showed an image?
4) About a hundred years later, around 680, Arculf, a French Bishop, visited Jerusalem. He relates a story he
had heard. The sudarium, sometimes called the linteamen (linen), was taken from the tomb after the
resurrection by a Christian but later fell into the hands of Jews. The Christians wanted it back and brought
their case before the Arab caliph who ruled Jerusalem at the time. He ordered a trial by fire. (The only thing
that makes sense in this story is the ending.) The cloth was placed in the fire but wondrously flew out and
landed among the Christians. Arculf says that he himself had seen and kissed this linen. It was eight feet
long. This is much shorter than the Turin Shroud (14.3 feet), and Arculf does not hint at any image. The only
way of identifying Arculf's shroud with that in Turin is to suppose Arculf saw the cloth folded in half: Eight
feet is roughly half the size of the Shroud of Turin. It is not so easy to explain the absence of imprint.
Wouldn't he have mentioned it if he had seen it? The historical records placing the Shroud in Jerusalem are
not very persuasive. They may refer to some cloth other than the real burial sheet of Jesus. However, they
cannot be discounted completely, especially Arculf's story. They do represent part of the Shroud mystery."
(Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989,
pp.76-77. Emphasis original)
3/12/2007
"Another problem faced by the reader-as-detective is that so many different Greek or Latin words were used
for the burial wrappings of Jesus in the early documents. Sometimes the terms are plural and may include the
large sheet (sindon) plus the head or chin cloth (sudarium) and/or the strips of cloth or bandages used
to tie or bundle the sindon around the body (othonia). Sometimes only one of these terms appears and
seems to refer to the large sheet. The historical references are as mysterious and confusing as the scientific
work. But tracing the history of the Shroud is no less important or intriguing." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud
of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.77)
3/12/2007
"This report reviews and correlates results obtained from tests conducted on the Shroud of Turin during the
October 1978 investigation. Several image formation hypotheses are addressed. Although no single theory
adequately accounts for all of the observations, it is concluded that the image is the result of some cellulose
oxidation-dehydration reaction rather than an applied pigment. The application or transfer mechanism of the
image onto the cloth is still not known. Because many proposed mechanisms of image formation strongly
depend upon historical considerations, a determination of the age of the Shroud by radiocarbon dating is
necessary for further hypothesis testing. Available data from the `blood' areas are considered and the
results show these to be blood stains." (Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the
Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135,
No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, p.3)
3/12/2007
"The Shroud of Turin, believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus, has generated considerable
controversy, but unlike some other controversial subjects (e.g. flying saucers and ghosts), the Shroud exists
as a material object. It can be observed directly and objectively. The results of studies can be analyzed by
scientific methods." (Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin:
Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982,
pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, p.3)
3/12/2007
"Faint image properties Much has been made of the fact that the image on the Shroud is more readily
perceived at a distance than it is at close range. At distances of four to five meters, all of the image features
... can be easily recognized; whereas, up close, it is difficult even to differentiate image from non-image
areas. ... If the Shroud image had been produced by an artist and if the contrast values at the time of its
composition were comparable to those observed today, the faint image qualities suggest severe technical
difficulties with execution. For example, if the Shroud had been painted, it might be expected that the artist
would have stood first within a meter of the cloth in order to control the medium effectively and then at
distances of at least 4-5 m to observe the progress of the work. Similar difficulties with other techniques can
also be envisaged. Although the potential of human ingenuity in overcoming such technical difficulties
must never be underestimated, any hypothesis that the Shroud is the work of an artist must satisfactorily
explain how the problems posed by the faintness of the image were circumvented." (Schwalbe, L.A. &
Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation,"
Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co:
Amsterdam, 1982, p.6. Emphasis original)
3/12/2007
"Density shading and color properties The density shading properties of the image have been a subject
of scientific interest for over 80 years. During this time, the apparent negative image characteristics, revealed
in the 1898 Pia photographs, have received the most attention. However, as early as 1902, Vignon imagined
the cloth draped over the human figure and noted that the image densities appeared to vary inversely with
the anticipated cloth-body separations. To our knowledge, this observation was not examined in any great
detail until much later. Beginning in 1974, Jackson and coworkers took a more analytic approach to the
problem. In their experiments, a human volunteer was draped with a full-scale model of the Shroud, and
cloth-body distances were measured along the profile from side-view photographs. The results were then
compared with microdensitometer readings along a corresponding line from the 1931 Enrie photographs of
the Shroud. Jackson et al. found that a relatively simple functional form could adequately relate the two sets
of data and then used this function to map film densities from the entire two-dimensional photograph into a
three-dimensional surface with a modified VP-8 image analyzer system. The result of the exercise was that
the three-dimensional relief generated in this simple way strongly resembled that of a human figure with
surprisingly little distortion. They further illustrated with the same video technique that comparable results
were not ordinarily obtained from paintings, drawings, or normal photographs. In almost all cases, obvious
and gross distortions were apparent although satisfactory relief surfaces were ultimately generated from
photographs of phosphorescent objects taken through light-attenuating media. The results of this study led
Jackson et al. to conclude that there is `three-dimensional information' encoded in the image." (Schwalbe,
L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation,"
Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co:
Amsterdam, 1982, pp.6-7. Emphasis original)
3/12/2007
"In this report, discussion is limited to the question of how the image was actually transferred to the cloth.
Considerations of the image resolution and the density shading characteristics bear on this discussion only
insofar as they examine various physical processes and their potentials for generating or preserving these
characteristics. In this context, the VP-8 results do not prove that a three-dimensional object was used
directly in the image formation process. That is, it may still be appropriate to consider image transfer
mechanisms from flat models (paintings, etchings, or shallow bas reliefs, for example) which themselves may
contain the information that gave rise to the contour shading properties of the image. For this discussion,
the most significant result of the VP-8 study is the apparent global consistency of the three-dimensional
reconstruction. To us, this implies the existence of a simple function that maps Shroud image densities to
cloth-body distances in a global sense. This is potentially important because it would establish a condition
that must be satisfied by any seriously considered image transfer mechanism." (Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers,
R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from
Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982,
pp.7-8)
3/12/2007
"The image on the Shroud is most intriguing because it is not immediately obvious how it was produced.
The primary goal of the 1978 investigation was to apply a series of nondestructive tests to determine the
physical and chemical characteristics of the image more exactly. Various hypotheses about the image
formation can now be tested with these data. ... Hypothesis: The image is an artifact When first
introduced to the subject of the Shroud, many suspect that the image was produced by human skill and
ingenuity. Indeed the hypothesis that the image is a medieval artifact is at least 600 years old. A letter
written in 1389 by Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, refers to an investigation by his predecessor that
allegedly exposed the artist who had painted it. The controversy was revitalized in this century when
Chevalier based his own opinion on this historical evidence." (Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and
Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica
Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, pp.9-10. Emphasis
original)
3/12/2007
"Unfortunately, the materials and painting method were not specified in the bishop's statement, leaving us
with an open-ended problem. We are left to consider all possible materials and methods that could have
been used to produce an image on cloth through human skill or cunning. This situation results in the fact
that elimination of all known methods does not prove that a clever artist or hoaxer did not use a method
currently unknown. However, the elimination of historically known (and unknown but technologically
feasible) methods would make image production by willful human action appear less probable. If the Shroud
image is an artifact, few presuppositions about the time and place of its origin can be held. It could have
been produced in Europe during the 14th century or somewhere else before that time; even remote
possibilities cannot be discounted ... . In any case, it is reasonable to suppose that if an artist produced the
image, it would have been necessary to have either added a colored material to the cloth or changed the
composition of the cloth to produce a color. Different observations are required to test these two
corollaries." (Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of
the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, p.10)
3/12/2007
"Microscopy The most important observations for testing the painting hypothesis are those made by
direct microscopy. The Shroud threads (nominally 0.15 mm in diameter are composed of linen fibers of 10-15
ĩm diameter. What the eye sees as the image is caused by a discontinuous translucent-yellow discoloration
of these fibers. In pure image areas, the colored fibers appear only on the topmost segments of the threads,
and coloration extends only 2 or 3 fibers deep into the thread structure. The image has a half-tone quality;
its density or darkness is determined by the number of colored fibers per unit area. The hue of discolored
fibers is the same on light and dark density areas. The front and rear images of the body show the same
distribution of fiber coloration and maximum image densities. Color does not penetrate the cloth in any
image area ... nor is there any evidence for cementation between fibers or capillary flow of liquids. Fibers
from the image area have a `frosty' appearance; that is, their surfaces show a more diffuse light reflectance
than do the non-image fibers. No pigment particles can be resolved at 50X magnification in image areas. The
image does not look like a painting by direct microscopic examination." (Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N.,
"Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from
Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982,
p.11. Emphasis original)
3/12/2007
"In 1973, Frei used sticky tape to remove samples of surface debris for subsequent pollen studies. The same
technique was also used in 1978 by Rogers and Dinegar who took and documented a total of 32 samples
from the Shroud image, "blood" stain, scorch, water stain, and background areas. The tape samples, each
about 5 cm^2 in area, were applied with a specially designed roller and then carefully pulled from the cloth
surface. Rogers noted immediately that the sticky tape surfaces retained a wide diversity of materials but
that the amounts of material varied from sample to sample and in some cases appeared to depend upon the
thread lot associated with the sampled area. He also observed that the image-area tapes `lifted' more easily
than non-image tapes suggesting that the topmost fibers in the image area were somehow weakened. ...
McCrone and Skirius, who first examined the samples, found two types of linen fibrils present, some clear
and others uniformly colored yellow to faint yellow. Their study showed that significantly greater ratios of
yellow to clear fibrils were present on the tapes from the image area than on those from the nonimage areas.
The yellow fibrils are considered to be the most important direct observations of the Shroud and
subsequent photomicroscopic examinations indicate that they represent the dominant and probably sole
visible image element." (Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin:
Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-
49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, p.11)
4/12/2007
"Conclusions The only existing evidence that the Shroud of Turin is an artifact is the letter written by
Pierre d'Arcis in 1389 that simply states it as a fact. ... There has been no evidence found to suggest that the
visible image results from a colored foreign material on the cloth. In this regard, the data are quite internally
consistent. Microscopic studies have revealed the image to be highly superficial; the image resides in the
topmost fibers of the woven material as a translucent yellow discoloration. No pigment particles can be
resolved by direct Shroud observation at 50X magnification, nor can unambiguously identified pigment
particles be found on the tape samples at 1000X. Microchemical studies of yellow fibrils taken from tape
samples of the pure-image area have shown no indication for the presence of dyes, stains, inorganic
pigments, or protein-, starch-, or wax-based painting media. X-ray fluorescence shows no detectable
difference in elemental composition between image and nonimage areas. Spectrophotometric reflectance
reveals none of the characteristic spectral features of pigments or dyes. Ultraviolet fluorescence shows no
indication of aromatic dyes or aromatic amino acids that might be expected from animal-collagen pigment
binders. Direct visual observations of image areas that intersect scorch and water stains reveal nothing that
might suggest the presence of organic dyes or water-, protein-, or starch-based painting media." (Schwalbe,
L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation,"
Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co:
Amsterdam, 1982, pp.30-31. Emphasis original)
4/12/2007
"Conclusions The evidence seems to be sufficient to conclude that the Shroud `blood' areas are blood.
The presence of protein, bilirubin, and albumin, the optical absorption and fluorescence characteristics of
individual fibrils, and the iron concentrations determined by x-ray fluorescence, all support this hypothesis.
This contradicts earlier tentative conclusions that were drawn mainly from the negative results of less
sensitive tests." (Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary
of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, p.40. Emphasis original)
8/12/2007
"Peter Rinaldi ... wrote to his shroud friends that this had been a busy and difficult time for him. `I doubt if
the cause of the Shroud ever went through more trying times than it did during the last year. Surely you
must know by now that the scientists, using the ultimate test, the carbon-14 analysis, have dated the origin
of the Shroud to the 14th century AD. This would mean, of course, that the Shroud is not the burial cloth of
Christ.'... He continued: `Let me say, first of all, that not all the experts accept the results of the test. Some of
them are actually calling for a new test on good scientific grounds. I was intrigued by what one of them told
me: "Valid or not, the results of the carbon-14 test in no way solve the mystery of Christ's image on that
cloth. The test has not said the last word on the Shroud".' He recounted how, `Shortly after the results of
the carbon-14 tests were announced, a friend met me in front of the Turin Cathedral. Placing his hand on my
shoulder, he said mournfully: "I feel terribly sorry for the Church and for you". "You can't be serious," I told
him. "Do you really think the Church will fall apart because the Shroud may not be what many of us
supposed it to be? The Church has nothing to fear from the truth, provided, of course, it is backed by solid
facts... .I might be persuaded to accept the results of the test only when someone will demonstrate beyond
all question, how a medieval artist produced so extraordinary an image as that of the Shroud".'" (Gove, H.E.,
"Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996,
pp.292-293)
8/12/2007
"The 24 March 1988 edition of Nature contained another letter from Denis Dutton. He expressed the
worry that nobody had come forward with procedures to secure the authenticity of the samples. He
deplored the reduction of the number of labs to three. Shut out from the tests would be Dr Harry Gove of the
University of Rochester and Dr Garman Harbottle of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, as well as the
Saclay laboratory of France and the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell. Of equal importance
was the fact that the Vatican officials in charge of the test had still not come forward with procedures to
secure the authenticity of the samples-procedures, for example, to make it impossible for ancient mummy
linen to be surreptitiously introduced into the chain of evidence. Dutton is clearly an eminent and
respectable man but he was certainly snatching at straws here. I don't think anyone in the seven carbon
dating labs ever worried that there might be a substitution of Egyptian linen for the shroud-at least I
certainly did not." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics
Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.248)
9/12/2007
"On 10 May [1987] an article appeared in the New York Times concerning the Vinland Map. A friend of mine at the
University of California at Davis, Tom Cahill, Director of the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory at that institution,
had employed the cyclotron in his laboratory to analyse the trace element composition of the map using a
non-destructive technique called PIXE (particle induced X-ray emission). He concluded that the ink on the
map contained only extremely small traces of titanium, amounts that were quite consistent with it being a
genuine medieval document. In 1974, Walter McCrone had concluded that the white ink on the map had
been made from the pigment anatase (titanium oxide). Such white pigment was invented in 1917 and to
Walter this proved the map a fraud. McCrone hotly contested Cahill's findings and fired off an angry letter
to him stating, in effect, that war was declared. In an interview the New York Times conducted with him,
McCrone also branded as fraudulent the Shroud of Turin. He was clearly trying to re-burnish his image as
the world's leading iconoclast. As far as the Vinland Map is concerned, I would put my money on Cahill and
PIXE. Carbon dating will decide the question of the shroud. It will also settle the question of the Vinland
Map. The problem McCrone has is that his scientific techniques are unsophisticated compared to AMS and
PIXE." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing:
Bristol UK, 1996, p.190)
9/12/2007
"I listed the changes in the Turin Workshop Protocol being proposed by Ballestrero, clearly on the advice
of Professor Gonella. 1. Five AMS and two small-counter laboratories reduced to three AMS laboratories. 2.
No independent textile expert designated to remove the shroud samples. 3. Laboratory representatives not
permitted to witness shroud sample removal. 4. No suggested involvement by laboratory representatives in
the final data analysis. 5. No official involvement by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at any stage.
Professor Chagas invited to participate merely as a guest of the Cardinal of Turin." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon
or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.218)
9/12/2007
"The draft letter to the pope read as follows: `Your Holiness: Following your specific instructions,
representatives of scientific laboratories specializing in the technique of carbon dating small samples met in
Turin on 29 September-1 October 1986, to discuss the protocol to follow should you permit the dating of the
Holy Shroud of Turin. The workshop was held under the joint sponsorship of His Eminence Cardinal A
Ballestrero and of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. At the end of this workshop a detailed protocol was
arrived at that was agreed upon by all participants. The two main guiding principles were: 1. Removal of a
minimum amount of Shroud material. A total of 122 square centimetres (less than 0.03 per cent of the total
surface of the Shroud) will suffice for all the laboratories. 2. Absolute scientific credibility. It was
unanimously decided that, to improve the statistical credibility of the analysis, a minimum of seven
laboratories should perform the dating. It is important to note that they use different techniques." (Gove,
H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK,
1996, p.218)
9/12/2007
"In a letter dated 10 October 1987 to all the workshop participants, Cardinal Ballestrero has ordered
substantial modifications to the original protocol. In particular, the number of laboratories is reduced,
without any explanation, to three. ... `It is our collective impression that Cardinal Ballestrero has received
very unwise scientific advice. The proposed modifications will confirm the suspicion of many people around
the world that the Church either does not want the Shroud dated or it wants to have it done in an ambiguous
way. The procedure that the Cardinal of Turin is suggesting is bound to produce a result that will be
questioned in strictly scientific terms by many scientists around the world who will be very skeptical of the
arbitrarily small statistical basis when it is well known that a better procedure was recommended. Since there
is great world expectation for the date of the Shroud, the publicity resulting from a scientifically dubious
result will do great harm to the Church. ... Rather than following an ill advised procedure that will not
generate a reliable date but will rather give rise to world controversy, we suggest that it would be better not
to date the Shroud at all'." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of
Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.218-219)
9/12/2007
"The fourth enclosure was the proposed press release. It outlined the events up to Ballestrero's rejection of
the Turin workshop agreement and his selection of only three labs to carbon date the shroud. It was an
expanded version of the proposed letter to the pope. The concluding paragraph read: `The new procedures
suggested to the Cardinal of Turin and that he has now embraced, will, if implemented, yield a result for the
date of the Shroud that will certainly be vigorously challenged by the world scientific community for their
flimsy statistical basis. We urge the Cardinal of Turin to seek scientific advice from an unimpeachable
source that was available to him from the very beginning, but that he chose to ignore, namely the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences, which enjoys worldwide respect in the world scientific community. Only with the best
advice of world experts on carbon-14 dating can a scientifically credible date for the Shroud of Turin be
arrived at.'" (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics
Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.219)
9/12/2007
"On 3 November 1987, Hall told me that he would not sign the letter to the pope. ... He said that if all three
labs got the same result then of course everything would be fine, but he agreed there was some risk. ... He
thought representatives from the labs must be at least in the next room when Tite supervised the cutting,
and that they should receive the samples right there and then. He was particularly concerned that the British
Museum be protected against the charge that Tite substituted samples. That charge could be made if there
were no witnesses other than Turin authorities when the sample was taken under Tite's supervision. (In the
event, that was what happened and such a charge was later made.)" (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?:
Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.220-221)
9/12/2007
"The letter [to the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero] read: `Your Eminence: We have received your
letter of 10 October 1987, and we are honoured to have been selected to participate in the determination of
the age of the cloth of the Shroud of Turin. However, we are concerned to learn that a decision has been
made to limit the number of participating laboratories to three. We are in agreement with the conclusions
reached at the workshop held in Turin in September-October 1986, that is: "a minimum amount of cloth will
be removed which is sufficient to (a) insure a result that is scientifically rigorous and (b) to maximize the
credibility of the enterprise to the public. For these reasons, a decision was made that seven laboratories will
carry out the experiment..." `We believe that reducing the number of laboratories to three will seriously
reduce "the credibility of the enterprise" which we are also anxious to achieve. As you are aware, there are
many critics in the world who will scrutinize these measurements in great detail. The abandonment of the
original protocol and the decision to proceed with only three laboratories will certainly enhance the
skepticism of these critics. While we understand your desire to use a minimum amount of material from the
Shroud, we believe that the increased confidence which would result in the inclusion of more than three
laboratories in the programme would justify the additional expenditure of material. Although improvements
in statistical errors resulting from including more measurements might not be great, the possibility of the
occurrence of unrecognized non-statistical errors would be substantially reduced. For example, if only three
laboratories participate, and one of them obtains a divergent non-understandable result, the entire project
could be jeopardized, but if results from a larger number of laboratories are available, a divergent result could
be more easily recognized as such and can be treated appropriately in a statistically accepted manner.
Clearly it is the reduction of unrecognized non-statistical errors in measurements that leads to increased
confidence in the final result. We would very much like to take part in the programme to determine the age of
the cloth in the Shroud, but we are hesitant to proceed under the arrangement in which only three
laboratories would participate in the measurements. We urge that the decision to change the protocol of the
Turin workshop and to limit participation to only three laboratories be given further consideration.
Respectfully...' This letter spelled out in the most transparently unambiguous way the reasons for having
the measurements made by more than three labs. It would add little or nothing to the statistical accuracy of
the final result but it would provide a remedy for a rogue result by one laboratory as it had in the case of the
British Museum's interlaboratory comparison." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin
Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.222-223)
9/12/2007
"One of the next things I did-another last-gasp effort-was to write a letter to Sir David Wilson, the Director
of the British Museum, dated 27 January 1988. I enclosed a copy of the press release issued by the British
Museum following the 22 January meeting. I said that I had no reservations whatsoever concerning Dr Tite's
honesty, integrity and credibility as a representative of the British Museum in this enterprise. However,
there were many people who were overly suspicious of the entire operation. The situation was particularly
exacerbated by the fact that the head of one of the three laboratories to be involved, Professor E T Hall of
Oxford, was also on the board of directors of the British Museum. I pointed out that the original protocol
called for a third person to be involved in both the certification and data analysis, namely the president of
the Pontifical Academy of Sciences or his representative. I said that Dr Chagas was such a distinguished
scientist that if both he and Dr Tite had been involved and if the original seven labs had participated, the
enterprise would have been as credible as possible. I was astonished that Wilson would permit the British
Museum to risk having its reputation called into question in what had become a somewhat shoddy
enterprise." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics
Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.242)
9/12/2007
"ONE cloth which can contribute a great deal to the study of the Shroud of Turin and its authenticity is the
Sudarium of Oviedo. This cloth has been kept in Spain since the seventh century and housed in the
cathedral of Oviedo, a town in the north of Spain, since the eleventh century. The sudarium is a piece of
bloodstained cloth woven with the same type of thread as the Shroud. The cloth bears no image and
measures two feet nine inches by one foot nine inches. It is believed by many to be the face cloth or napkin
that covered the face of Christ when He was taken down from the Cross. The sudarium is mentioned in
the Gospel of St. John: `Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen
cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a
place by itself' (John 20:6-7). According to Jewish burial traditions, it was considered impertinent to show
the disfigured face of a dead man. Therefore, a sweat cloth or a napkin was placed over the face and was
then discarded at the tomb." (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford
IL, 2000, p.41)
9/12/2007
"The history of the sudarium is better documented than that of the Shroud of Turin. Much of our
information on the cloth comes from the writings of Bishop Pelayo, who was bishop of Oviedo in the twelfth
century. According to his Book of the Testaments of Oviedo and the Chronicon Regum Legionensium,
the sudarium was preserved in Jerusalem up to the year 614, when the city was conquered by the Persian
King Chosroes II, who reigned from 590 to 628. [Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Redwood Books:
Trowbridge UK, 1998, p.14] At that time a priest by the name of Filipo took the cloth and other relics, which
were kept in a cedar chest to Alexandria for safekeeping. When Chosroes conquered Alexandria in 616, the
cloth was taken across the north of Africa to evade the advancing Persians. The cloth was then brought to
Spain via Cartagena where Saint Fulgentius, bishop of Ecija, received the chest, or holy ark, along with the
fleeing refugees. In turn, he entrusted the holy ark containing the sudarium to Saint Leandro, Bishop of
Seville. Leandro once lived in Constantinople from 579 to 582 and may very well have seen the Shroud itself.
Evidence for this can be gleaned from a verse in the Mozarabic Liturgy for Easter Saturday which is
associated with Leandro. In the Illatio we read: `Peter ran to the tomb with John and saw the recent
imprints of the dead and risen one on the cloths.' [Ibid., p.17] This makes for another interesting connection
between the Shroud and the sudarium." (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity,"
TAN: Rockford IL, 2000, pp.41-42)
9/12/2007
"Saint Isidore later succeeded Saint Leandro as Bishop of Seville. One of Isidore's disciples was Saint
Braulio, Bishop of Zaragoza (585-651). In the eighteenth century, twenty-four of his letters were discovered
in Lyons. In one of his letters written in 631 to a priest named Tayo, Braulio says: `But at that time they knew
about many things that happened but were not written down, as one reads concerning the linen cloths, and
the sudario with which the Lord's body was enveloped, that it was found, but one does not read that it
was preserved. For I do not believe that it was ignored, with the result that these relics were not kept by the
Apostles for future times, and other things of that sort. [San Braulio de Zaragoza, in Migne, J.P., ed.,
"Patrologia Latina," Vol. 80, Buffer, T., trans., Apud Editorem: Paris, 1850, col. 689.] Isidore was eventually
succeeded by Saint Ildefonso, who had been his student. When Ildefonso was appointed Bishop of Toledo
in 657, he took the chest with him where it remained until 718. With the invasion of the Moors at the
beginning of the eighth century, the chest containing the sudarium was taken farther north to Asturias,
according to some authors, to avoid destruction. It was here that it first became designated as the `holy ark.'
Initially it was kept in a cave now known as Monsacro, six miles from Oviedo. In 840, King Alfonso II
commissioned a special chapel in the cathedral, called the Camara Santa, to house the holy ark. The fact
that the sudarium has been in the region of Asturias from ancient times cannot be disputed. On March 14,
1075, the holy ark was opened on the occasion of a visit by King Alfonso VI. Also present were his sister
Urraca Fernandez and Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, better known as El Cid. At this time a list was made of its
contents. The King ordered that the chest be silver-plated to honor the precious relics. The bas relief
includes images of Our Lord, the Twelve Apostles and the Four Evangelists. This work was finally realized
in 1113. An inscription on the reliquary reads: `el Santo Sudario de NS.J.C.' (`the Holy Sudarium of Our
Lord Jesus Christ')." (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2000,
pp.42-43)
9/12/2007
"Much of the scientific research on the sudarium has been carried out by the Equipo de
Investigacion del Centro Espanol de Sindonologia (EDICES) under the direction of Guillermo Hernias and
Dr. Jose Villalain of the University of Valencia. They first studied the sudarium in late 1989 and early
1990. ... During their studies they excised minute samples of the cloth and also tested pollen and dust from
its surface. Previous research on the cloth had been carried out by Monsignor Giulio Ricci and Dr. Max Frei,
who took pollen samples from the Shroud of Turin. Frei conducted similar pollen tests on the
sudarium and found pollen from Jerusalem, Oviedo, Toledo and North Africa, consonant with the
ancient account of the sudarium's itinerary. [Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Redwood Books:
Trowbridge UK, 1998, p.22] Of the thirteen pollens that were found, eight were on both the Shroud and the
sudarium. [Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M.W., "A Comparison of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the
Shroud of Turin Using the Polarized Image Overlay Technique," Sudario del Seņor: Actas del I
Congresso Internacional sobre El Sudario de Oviedo, Universidad de Oviedo, 1996, p.380] There is no
evidence on the cloth of any pollen which is indigenous to Turkey, Constantinople, France or Italy, which
are believed to be the locations along the route the Shroud traveled. Subsequent pollen studies conducted
by Dr. Carmen Gomez Ferreras, a biologist at the University of Complutense in Madrid, found pollen from
three genera of plants identified as quercus, pistacia and tamarix, which are native to
the region of Palestine. [Carmen Gomez Ferreras, "El Sudario de Oviedo y la Palinologia, " Sudario del
Seņor, p.86]" (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2000,
pp.43-44)
9/12/2007
"Stain Marks Perhaps the most obvious characteristics of the sudarium are its numerous stain marks.
Scientific analysis has shown that the main stains are composed of one part blood and six parts of
pulmonary oedema fluid. [Guscin, p.22] It has also been established that when a person dies by crucifixion,
"his lungs are filled with the fluid from the oedema. If the body is moved or jolted, this fluid can come out
through the nostrils." [Ibid., p.23] This finding is consistent with the manner in which the man on the
Shroud died. The remarkable aspect about the bloodstains on the sudarium is that they match exactly the
shape and form of the face of the man on the Shroud. Dr. Alan Whanger, professor emeritus of psychiatry at
Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, and his wife Mary, developed the polarized
image overlay technique which, in order to make comparisons, allows for two images to be superimposed
using polarized filters. When they applied this technique to the sudarium and the Shroud, they found
over seventy-five congruent blood stains on the facial portion of the two cloths and fifty-five congruent
blood stains on the back of the head and neck. Consequently, Dr. Whanger believes that these one hundred
thirty points of congruence between the sudarium and the Shroud provide overwhelming evidence that
both linens touched the same person. In a court of law, only forty-five to sixty points of congruence are
needed to establish a facial identity. Professor Avinoam Danin, a botanist from Hebrew University in
Jerusalem, and the world authority on the flora of the Near East, said: "There's no possibility that this cloth
in Oviedo and the Shroud would both have the same blood stains and these pollen grains unless they were
covering the same body." [Danin, A., The Holy Shroud Guild Newsletter, December 25, 1999, p. 3] Also
noteworthy about the facial characteristics of the two cloths is that both exhibit typical Jewish features: a
prominent nose measuring eight centimeters or a little over three inches, and high cheek bones. What is
more, the beard of the sudarium matches that of the Shroud perfectly. There is also a high concentration
of dust in the nasal area suggesting that the man may have fallen on his face." (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of
Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2000, pp.44,47. Emphasis original)
9/12/2007
"There was yet another cloth intimately connected with Christ's burial which was placed in the tomb but not
within the Shroud. Remember in the Gospel of John there is mention of "...the cloth that had been on Jesus'
head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself." This cloth is known as the
Sudarium (face cloth) of Oviedo, and it has been in the Cathedral of Oviedo in Oviedo, Spain, since the mid-
eighth century. Its history is known, and is different from that of the Shroud. The Sudarium stayed in
Jerusalem until A.D. 614, when it began to be moved from place to place just ahead of conquering Persian
armies. It was taken first to Alexandria in north Africa, from there to Cartagena in Spain, then to Toledo, and
from there finally to safety in the Cathedral of Oviedo, where it has been kept without interruption since the
mid-eighth century. It is kept in a beautifully decorated reliquary in a room known as the "Camara Santa,"
which also contains other relics, and is taken out for viewing much more frequently than is the Shroud of
Turin. The Sudarium is very highly venerated, and has been studied with great care and competence by the
Spanish group Centro Espanol de Sindonologia (CES-Spanish Center of Sindonology, study of burial
cloths). We have the honor to be members of their research team, although we are latecomers and so have
not been involved in most of their studies. What we have done, independently from CES before we became
connected with them, is to compare the blood stains on the Sudarium with those on the Shroud." (Whanger,
M. & Whanger, A.D., "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers:
Franklin TN, 1998, p.56)
9/12/2007
"The Sudarium is a linen cloth measuring two feet nine inches by one foot nine inches. We first learned of it
in 1983 while reading a book, The Holy Shroud, by Monsignor Guilio Ricci, in which he has a chapter on
the Sudarium. He had direct access to the Sudarium in 1955, and while studying the blood stains on it he
was struck by the similarity of those stains with blood stains that he knew to be on the face area of the
Shroud. So he diagrammed a number of these stains, and did extensive outline sketches of his observations
and speculations, and these are in his book. There are stains on the area which covered the back of the head
and neck, and double stains (almost identical stains facing each other, as in a Rorschach-type stain) on
areas which covered the face. One end of the Sudarium was placed under the head, and it was then wrapped
around over the face and folded back upon itself so that the face was covered by two layers. We were
intrigued by Ricci's findings and speculations, and felt that our Polarized Image Overlay Technique might be
very useful in evaluating and perhaps confirming and extending his observations. Alan wrote to Mon. Ricci
in Italy and obtained permission to use his photographs for comparison studies. Our overlay studies of the
Sudarium and the Shroud clearly show the validity of Ricci's observations. There are over seventy
congruent blood stains on the face portion and over fifty congruent blood stains on the back of the head
and neck. While a number of the blood stains are faint, many are large and obvious, and some are quite
dark." (Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence
House Publishers: Franklin TN, 1998, pp.57-58)
9/12/2007
"These blood stain patterns are so strikingly similar that they could have been formed only by both cloths
being in touch with the same body. The stains on the Sudarium are more extensive, especially in the mouth
and nose areas, indicating that the Sudarium was put on the body first while the blood was more fluid. This
is consistent with the Jewish custom of covering the face of the deceased with a small cloth while burial
preparations were being made if the face were disfigured or wounded. This was done as a mark of respect.
The small cloth would be removed before enshroudment and, because it had blood on it, would be placed in
the tomb. Life was considered to be in the blood, and it was customary for anything having the lifeblood on
it to be entombed with the body. The stains on the Sudarium face area are found without interruption from
the hair on one side across to the hair on the other side. This is different from the stains on the Shroud face
image. On the Shroud, there are stain-free areas on each side of the face where the chin band encircled the
face. We know, therefore, that, as was consistent with Jewish custom, the Sudarium was put on first and
then removed before the chin band was tied in place. Since there are no body images on the Sudarium, we
know that it was not put back over the face and then enshrouded with the body, but was placed in the tomb
by itself." (Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence
House Publishers: Franklin TN, 1998, p.58)
9/12/2007
"There is a large, relatively stain-free area on the Sudarium which corresponds to the middle and right
anatomic forehead area. There is a large blood stain in the shape of a reversed number three and other blood
stains on the Shroud in the same area. We speculate that some thorns from the crown of thorns were broken
off and may not have been removed at the time the Sudarium was put in place. These would have held the
cloth at that place a little distance away from the body. Perhaps the explanation for the large blood flow and
other stains found on the Shroud at that location is that the thorns were removed just prior to
enshroudment, causing bleeding which the Shroud fabric absorbed. On the body side of the Sudarium in the
middle of the forehead area is an image which looks like an upside down `Y' Interestingly, this is almost
exactly the length of the Gundelia tournefortii thorn that made up most of the crown of thorns ... "
(Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House
Publishers: Franklin TN, 1998, p.58)
9/12/2007
"More recently, a colleague of ours, Thomas Vuke, working independently, has been able to demonstrate by
computer the same findings that we have shown using our Polarized Image Overlay Technique. He used
only the densest blood stains to reveal the high correlation of stains on the mouth and nose areas of the
Sudarium and of the Shroud. His work clearly shows the configuration of the nose, the precise dimensions
of the mustache, and the accurate location of small wounds in that area." (Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D.,
"The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, 1998,
pp.58-59. Emphasis original)
13/12/2007
"In 1978, I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin, let alone seen a picture of it. When I did, I was surprised.
I thought I would see something analogous to all the paintings and statuary of Jesus that I had ever seen. I
had viewed Oriental portrayals of Christ in Japan and China, and black ones in Africa, a host of medieval
and Renaissance forms in Florence and elsewhere in Europe, as well as Byzantine and modern versions. This
was different. It was anything but artistic. In addition, everything was reversed. Its images were like
photographic negatives, with black and white, left and right, reversed. The cloth was also very bloody, with
the "nail holes" in the wrong place; they were in the wrists, not in the palms. There were large scorch marks
and burn holes down both sides of the fabric. The man was nude, his hands folded over the groin. I did not
know at the time that the photograph graph I was looking at had been enhanced; the actual images were so
faint that they could not be seen from up close, but only at a distance of about one or two yards. Yet if one
was too far away, they faded into the background of the cloth. I could not imagine a more unlikely object for
veneration. Then I was shown photographic negatives of the Shroud, which made the human images
become positive. This helped considerably by showing a man in a way familiar to our perception. However,
now the blood was negative, or white, which detracted from the whole. To say I was still unimpressed would
be an understatement." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA,
1983, pp.1-2)
13/12/2007
"About a month later I read a report by Dr. Robert Bucklin, the deputy coroner and forensic pathologist of
Los Angeles County. Dr. Joseph Gambescia, a pathologist in Pennsylvania, concurred in the findings.
Forensic pathologists specialize in causes of violent death, and it was this report which first caused my
eyebrows to rise a bit. I have, tucked far away in my background, an M.D., though I do not use it much. I
had also spent eight years on the faculty of Yale University School of Medicine: two in pathology and six in
internal medicine. The forensic report said (with some translation from the medical jargon): `Irrespective of
how the images were made, there is adequate information here to state that they are anatomically correct.
There is no problem in diagnosing what happened to this individual. The pathology and physiology are
unquestionable and represent medical knowledge unknown 150 years ago.' That, I thought, is a remarkable
statement." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.2)
13/12/2007
"`This is a 5-foot, 11-inch male Caucasian weighing about 178 pounds. The lesions are as follows: beginning
at the head, there are blood flows from numerous puncture wounds on the top and back of the scalp and
forehead. The man has been beaten about the face, there is a swelling over one cheek, and he undoubtedly
has a black eye. His nose tip is abraded, as would occur from a fall, and it appears that the nasal cartilage
may have separated from the bone. There is a wound in the left wrist, the right one being covered by the left
hand. This is the typical lesion of a crucifixion. The classical artistic and legendary portrayal of a crucifixion
with nails through the palms of the hands is spurious: the structures in the hand are too fragile to hold the
live weight of a man, particularly of this size. Had a man been crucified with nails in the palms, they would
have torn through the bones, muscles, and ligaments, and the victim would have fallen off the cross.' I had
never known or thought of that, but, of course, that is just what would happen." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the
Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.2-3)
13/12/2007
"`There is a stream of blood down both arms. Here and there, there are blood drips at an angle from the main
blood flow in response to gravity. These angles represent the only ones that can occur from the only two
positions which can be taken by a body during crucifixion.' That made physiological sense to me." (Heller,
J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.3)
13/12/2007
"`On the back and on the front there are lesions which appear to be scourge marks. Historians have
indicated that Romans used a whip called a flagrum. This whip had two or three thongs, and at their ends
there were pieces of metal or bone which look like small dumbbells. These were designed to gouge out flesh.
The thongs and metal end-pieces from a Roman flagrum fit precisely into the anterior and posterior scourge
lesions on the body. The victim was whipped from both sides by two men, one of whom was taller than the
other, as demonstrated by the angle of the thongs.'" (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin,"
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.3)
13/12/2007
"`There is a swelling of both shoulders, with abrasions indicating that something heavy and rough had,
been carried across the man's shoulders within hours of death. On the right flank, a long, narrow blade of
some type entered in an upward direction, pierced the diaphragm, penetrated into the thoracic cavity
through the lung into the heart. This was a post-mortem event, because separate components of red blood
cells and clear serum drained from the lesion. Later, after the corpse was laid out horizontally and face up on
the cloth, blood dribbled out of the side wound and puddled along the small of the back. There is no
evidence of either leg being fractured. There is an abrasion of one knee, commensurate with a fall (as is the
abraded nose tip); and, finally, a spike had been driven through both feet, and blood had leaked from both
wounds onto the cloth. The evidence of a scourged man who was crucified and died from the
cardiopulmonary failure typical of crucifixion is clear-cut." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin,"
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.3-4)
13/12/2007
"The description read like a modern coroner's report of a violent death. The parallels between Bucklin's
report and the Gospel accounts were obvious. The departures from convention - the size of the man, the
form of the crown, anterior scourging, two men, flagrum, wrist holes, all the accurate pathological
physiology - gave the Shroud an aura of verisimilitude." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin,"
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.2-4)
14/12/2007
"The VP-8 image analyzer has at its heart a computer. It was designed for the space program. Everyone has
seen the magnificent pictures of the planets obtained by NASA. The space probes do not carry cameras in
the common sense of the word. They have a device that picks up light signals electronically and transmits
them to earth. Recall a picture of Saturn with its rings. The portions of the rings closest to the probe are
brighter. Those parts of the rings which go behind the planet show less light; they are darker. The VP-8 is so
programmed that it interprets `darker' as farther away. It can take the signals coming in from Saturn, for
example, and show them on its television screen as a 3-D picture of a planet. In contrast, let us take a picture
of a man whose face is illuminated from a light to the right of him. The left part of his face is in some shadow.
Put this photograph in the VP-8, and you will see a grossly distorted face, with the darker part of the
countenance farther away and the bright part in the forefront. Indeed, any photograph of a man or a statue
or a landscape - which are, after all, flat or 2-D results in a badly contorted image on the VP-8 screen. It is
only when actual depth or remoteness is shown by less light that the VP-8 can produce a 3-D picture. The
description of `less or more light' depends on the number of quanta or photons of light. Jackson had never
heard of a VP-8, but when he drove over to Sandia, he took photos of the Shroud with him. Mottern asked
him why he wanted to use the Wratten filters. Jackson, always ready to chat about his baby, launched into
the story of the Shroud. Obligingly, the Sandia scientist brought out the filters. And then he put forward a
really dumb idea. `Why,' he suggested, `don't we put the photos of the Shroud into the VP-8?' Never loath to
try a new idea, Jackson agreed. All in all, it should have been a stupid waste of time, for a flat photo will, and
can, give only a warped picture. They placed the Shroud photo in the VP-8 and twiddled the dials, focus,
and rotation. Suddenly, both men saw, swimming up from the electronic fog of the screen, a perfect three-
dimensional image of a scourged, crucified man. Impossible! Ridiculous! Outrageous! Yes. But it was there.
The two scientists just stared. The positive photograph of the man in the Shroud had the appearance of a
two-dimensional face. The VP-8's three-dimensional image was as stunningly different from the photograph
as a statue is from a painting. The long hair, full beard and mustache, the serenity on the face of a badly
battered, crucified man, came alive, giving Jackson and Mottern the eerie impression that they were gazing
at an actual face of a man, not at a painting or a sculpture. Finally, Jackson took a deep breath. `Bill,' he said,
`do you realize that we may be the first people in two thousand years who know exactly how Christ looked
in the tomb?'" (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983,
pp.39-40)
14/12/2007
"Having accepted Jackson's invitation to the Amston meeting, I was reading up on the historical
background of the Shroud. No one seems to know where Geoffrey de Charny obtained it. Of course, if it
wasn't forged, it had to have come from somewhere - and that problem opened up a whole new can of
squirming worms. Clearly, if it came from the West, it was a forgery. If it did not originate in the West, then it
must have come from the East - where it may also have been forged. If it came from the East, how did it get
to the West? The overwhelming probability is that it was acquired during one of the crusades. And, of the
crusades, the most likely is the fourth. A lowly French knight named Robert de Clari claimed he had seen the
Shroud. Is there any evidence that this occurred? The answer is yes - perhaps. When Constantine gained
control of the entire Roman Empire and converted to Christianity, he established his rule in Byzantium, in the
East, and in A.D. 330 renamed the capital city Byzantium, after himself - Constantinople. His empire was the
bastion of Christendom, and the affluence and culture of Constantinople became legendary. ... The Fourth
Crusade set out, as had the others, to free the Holy Land from the infidel. ... The crusaders never reached the
Holy Land. Instead ... they laid siege to and captured Zara and Constantinople. The crusaders sacked,
looted, and raped. ... There are several primary sources of the history of the Fourth Crusade written by
participants - one of them, Robert de Clari. Robert came from Picardy, and when he entered Constantinople
he was so bedazzled by its splendor and wealth that his narrative has all the breathless sense of wonder,
surprise, and awe of a country boy who has visited the capital of the world - which, in effect, Constantinople
was. In Robert's narrative, he states that he visited the Church of Our Lady of Blachernae, `where was kept
the shroud in which Our Lord had been wrapped, which [was] stood up straight every Friday so that the
figure of Our Lord could be plainly seen there - and, no one, either Greek [Byzantine] or French, ever knew
what became of this shroud after the city was taken." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin,"
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.68-69)
14/12/2007
"Rogers' review began by stipulating that, for an appropriate scientific study of the Shroud, all possible
hypotheses should be stated. Then, after each hypothesis was framed, it must be scientifically tested. The
three proposed hypotheses were: 1. The Shroud is a painting. 2. It was produced naturally, by chemicals or
volatile products from a body, or fluids produced by a combination of processes involving organic reactions
and/or materials. 3. Rapid heating might be the cause of the images. Those were the three specific
possibilities as Rogers saw them. Of course, there was no mention of any miraculous creation or a by-
product of Resurrection; that type of thing is totally outside the purview of science. Scientists are in the
data business or, as they phrase it, mass, energy, time, and so on. And after all, the Shroud was not a mythic
object like the Holy Grail, but an actual linen cloth with images on it. It was made up of atoms and molecules,
which science can measure." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston
MA, 1983, pp.84-85)
14/12/2007
"Rogers went on to say that if the images were painted (or printed or stained or dyed), they would have
been done with colored materials. What colors were available in the fourteenth century, when the Shroud
first came to light, or before? First, they had to be inorganic or organic. These two terms are general
convenience categories for chemists. Inorganic materials usually contain a metal salt, like arsenic oxide, zinc
sulfide, or sodium chloride. Organic substances contain carbon. These definitions are not absolute, since,
for example, a diamond is pure carbon, and most chemists would not call a diamond organic. Organic
substances are usually divided into two classes, one, such as protein, starches, and fats, formed by
biological processes, the other more usually made by synthesis. However, these definitions are also flexible,
and there is a considerable degree of overlap. Because of the fire that the Shroud had been exposed to, there
must have been a temperature gradient, from the hottest portion, where the molten silver burned holes
through the folds of fabric, through the area of scorch, to that portion of the linen which was relatively
unaffected. The gradient of temperature, Rogers had calculated, went from about 900°C to well below 200°C.
If an inorganic color had been used on the Shroud, it would have had a binder of some type to make the
color stick to the fabric. The binders most often used were egg white, gelatin, milk products, and oil. Any of
these would have changed color along the line of the heat gradient. But the Shroud showed no color change
of this kind, as evidenced by the color photographs that were available. Organic or biological colors could
be ruled out by the same reasoning, for anything organic would have changed in hue; it would be darker,
lighter, discolored. But there was no evidence of this kind of change, which seemed to rule out the use of
any familiar coloring agent." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston
MA, 1983, pp.85-86)
14/12/2007
"There was also a serious problem with hypothesis number 2, reactions produced naturally by a body acting
on the cellulose of which linen is made. In 1973, when an Italian team examined the Shroud with
microscopes, they saw that the color of the images of the man was contained in the crests of the topmost
microfibers. Assume that your arm is a single thread of the Shroud. The hairs on top of your arm would be
equivalent to the topmost microfibers of the linen. Imagine that the color of the images is confined to the
crowns of those arm hairs, with no indication of capillary action nor any evidence of diffusion. That would
immediately rule out liquids and vapors. Further, the intensity of color did not seem to vary from one
microfiber to the next. The front and back images appeared to have the same intensity of color, even though
the body had clearly been lying on its back. Had the images resulted from body chemicals, the back image
should have been more intense or saturated than the front one. This also was not the case." (Heller, J.H.,
"Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.86)
14/12/2007
"As for hypothesis number 3, that the images were produced by rapid heating, there was no imaginable
physical mechanism that could produce a 3-D image by heat." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin,"
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.86)
14/12/2007
"Then Roger and Marty Gilbert came on line for a twenty-four hour run with the reflectance spectroscopy.
After they had measured the background (the off-image areas), they were to begin at the foot and work up
the body to obtain spectra, in the hope of developing some understanding of the nature of the images. Once
they obtained the initial series of spectra on the heel, they began slowly to move up the leg. The spectra
were totally different. .... By the time the Gilberts had reached one knee, all the spectra were alike, except for
the heel. `What,' wondered Eric, `is peculiar about the heel?' He called in Sam Pellicori, who rigged the
macroscope and slid it down the support system until it was right over the heel. He looked at it carefully
under full magnification, and after a long examination turned to Eric and said, `It's dirt.' ... Deep into and
between the threads dirt particles could be seen. Thoughts rocketed through Jumper's mind. What could be
more logical than to find dirt on the foot of a man who has walked without shoes? Obviously, no one was
crucified wearing shoes or sandals, so he was barefoot before they nailed him to the cross. There is not
enough dirt to be seen visually, so it follows that no forger would have put it there, because artists aren't
likely to add things that cannot be seen. It is only because of the anomalous spectra that the team looked at
the heel macroscopically. Could it be a genuine grave cloth? What other explanation could there be? It was a
single data point, but Eric and Sam realized it was not a trivial one." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of
Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.112)
14/12/2007
"As Pellicori and Evans continued their macroscopic examination, and took photomacrographs of
everything with different magnifications, certain salient points became clear. The body images were straw-
yellow, not `sepia,' as all the accounts stated. The yellow did not vary significantly in either shade or depth.
In short, it was essentially monochrome, with the color only on the crowns of the microfibers of the thread.
Where one of these fibrils crossed over another, there was a white spot on the underlying one. Some
microfibers looked like yellow and white candy canes, the white area resulting from one thread crossing
another and protecting the underlying area from the image-making process. The straw-yellow fibers showed
no sign of capillarity - the principle that makes ink spread on blotting paper. If the corner of a blotter is put
into an ink drop, fluid is sucked up into it. Liquid goes into polysaccharide fibers (paper, cotton, rayon, and
linen) by capillary action. The absence of capillarity is evidence that no fluid was used. By definition, paint
has a liquid base. When the base is water, usually a starch or a protein is added as a suspending agent. If,
then, paint had been used on the Shroud, the fibers should have adhered to one another and matted
together. An oily vehicle would have had the same effect. But neither matting of fibers nor adhesion
between them was seen on the Shroud image." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton
Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.112-113)
14/12/2007
"However, wherever there was a bloodstain in the image area, there was matting and capillarity, as would
have to be the case with actual blood, which is a mixture of water, cells, and blood proteins. Finally, there
was no meniscus effect in the images, but, again, there was in the areas where there was blood. A meniscus
can be seen in a glass of fluid, such as water. Where the fluid touches the glass, it curves up: this is the
meniscus. Lack of it in the images was further evidence that a liquid paint was not used, but its presence in
the bloodstained areas posits fluid." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co:
Boston MA, 1983, p.113. Emphasis original)
15/12/2007
"After the fire in 1532, the Holland cloth patches were sewn over the burn holes. These relatively modern
sections should have been the strongest part of the cloth. However old the rest of it - and the range was
from 630 to 2000 years - it should have weakened through the centuries. Linen can survive well in arid areas
like the Sahara, but not in the temperate climate of France and northern Italy. Dampness, oxidation, and
organisms like bacteria and fungi cause it to decay, become brittle, and break down. The team expected the
Shroud to be in a delicate condition. It was not. It was supple, strong, and felt almost like a new, expensive
tablecloth. The weave, a relatively tight herringbone twill, had not only right-angle strength, but diagonal
strength as well. We were to determine subsequently that, though it was covered with mildew spores, there
was no mildew on it. We still have no explanation for this or for its splendid condition." (Heller, J.H., "Report
on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.116-117)
15/12/2007
"Robert Dinegar and Ray Rogers, who were going to apply and remove the sticky tape, decided to approach
the procedure with extreme caution, in accordance with agreed-on procedure - and in contrast to what Frei
had done. If the first take caused even the slightest damage to the cloth, they would immediately abort the
experiment. On each selected target spot for tape sampling, a variety of test procedures was done before and
after the tape to make sure that no change of any kind occurred in the sampled area. There was no alteration
of surface anywhere after the tapes were removed. Samples of every feature were taken. These included the
off-image areas, Holland-cloth patches, burn and scorch marks, water-stain margins, inside water stains,
image and blood areas, areas at the margins of bloodstains, and scourge marks. Some tapes were taken of
intersect areas. For example, some of the water stain intersects nearly every other feature. In short, anything
that could be identified was sampled several times from various areas. Wherever a sample was taken,
physical measurements were again locked onto the site and recorded on a grid." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the
Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.117)
15/12/2007
"The first presentation was on X-ray fluorescence. I felt like a bird dog at the point, waiting with barely
restrained impatience. If paint had been used on the Shroud, the likelihood was overwhelming that the
pigments were inorganic, and X-ray fluorescence would tell the tale. X-ray fluorescence could identify any
of the dozens of inorganic pigments made up of such elements as arsenic, cobalt, and mercury, available in
the Middle Ages. Roger Morris, a physicist from Los Alamos, presented the paper. ... One of his coauthors
was Larry Schwalbe ... Finally the results were presented. There was calcium on the Shroud - lots of it. It was
evenly distributed over the entire length and width. I wondered where in the world it could have come from.
It was not concentrated in the image areas, so it couldn't have anything to do with paint, dye, or stain. Next,
they found strontium - also evenly spread all over the linen, but in lesser amounts than the calcium. I
thought this was peculiar. There is not a great deal of strontium in the environment, but it is so similar in its
chemical properties to calcium that it is often found wherever calcium is - in milk, for example. If strontium
was also distributed throughout, it couldn't have anything to do with the images, either." (Heller, J.H.,
"Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.136)
15/12/2007
"Finally, they found iron. Iron was spread uniformly over the whole Shroud except in the bloodstained
areas, where there was a significantly higher incidence of iron than elsewhere. `Well, well,' I thought. `That's
presumptive evidence that the 'blood' may be real blood. The iron atoms in heme porphyrins would account
for the extra iron in those areas. I have to figure out a way to test the garnet-red spots.'" (Heller, J.H.,
"Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.136. Emphasis original)
15/12/2007
"No other elements measurable by X-ray fluorescence had been found. I did not know whether to feel
disappointed or delighted. Intellectually, I was betting the Shroud was a forgery. But with no measurable
amount of inorganic material in the Shroud image - and with Ray Rogers' insightful thermal analysis, which
seemed to preclude organic and biological substances - what were we left with? `Zilch!' I thought, `a big,
round, fat zero!'" (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983,
pp.136-137)
15/12/2007
"Next to present data was Don Lynn, from the Viking team of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. ... He reiterated
that the images were directionless and therefore could not have been painted by human hand. He showed
slides wherein the computer dropped out the weave of the cloth, leaving the images minus the texture of the
linen. ... He and Jean Lorre had done microdensitometer readings on many of the photographs, four million
points for each one. The digital data were processed through an analog device and displayed on a television
screen ... They instructed the computer to subtract the hot spots, creases, and the like, which it obligingly
did. When they examined the resultant picture, they were able to determine that the supposed pigtail on the
back image and the reported chin bandage on the front were artifacts. They could demonstrate that an
occasional new thread of a different diameter, used when the linen was woven, caused these apparent shade
differences in the cloth. Because the threads were hand-spun, this was not surprising. The computer also
showed what appeared to be an elliptical lesion at the top of the flank blood flow area, which was not
visually apparent on the photographs. However, this narrow ellipse is completely consistent with the post-mortem
appearance of a wound in the flank made by a thin blade. Finally, in the eye sockets, where the VP-8
had shown something, they found an increased image density." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin,"
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.137-138)
15/12/2007
"John Jackson rose and discussed the VP-8 image. He presented mathematical models which demonstrated
that there was a single global-mapping function involved. This means that the Shroud-body distance, the
drape of the cloth, and the frontal image could be explained only by a single mathematical statement, which
stipulated that the Shroud had overlain a body. The back image indicated that a body had rested on that
portion of the cloth. Along with the nondirectional quality of the images, the results of the X-ray
fluorescence, and Rogers' evaluation, this significantly reduced the possibility that the Shroud was a
painting." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.138)
15/12/2007
"When everyone reconvened, Roger Gilbert presented his data. He had designed an ingenious piece of gear
to do reflectance measurements. It had both a xenon- and a mercury-lamp source, and produced
wavelengths of light ranging from ultraviolet to infrared. These different bands of the spectrum were used
successively by increments, and whatever was reflected back was then measured. Reflectance
measurements are seldom the methods of choice, because of scatter and anomalous dispersion, but when
one does not have any other means, due to the nature of the object and the need for nondestructive testing,
it's the best available option. We were shown dozens of slides of reflectance versus-wavelength curves.
There was far too much information for us to digest at one sitting, but one fact did become clear: the color of
the lightest scorch area was similar to the color of the images of the man." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the
Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.138)
15/12/2007
"It was now my turn. I rose and, by waving my hands a lot, managed to use up ten whole minutes. I had
seen seven microfibers with something on them that looked like blood, and one piece of biltong. I showed
two slides, one of a garnet-red nonimage microfiber, and one of Spanish linen with my own blood. ...
Following my presentation, McCrone came to the lectern. Everyone was eager to hear what he had to say.
He began. He had examined some of the Shroud fibers and stated that the body images had been made by
red iron-oxide earth pigments. Iron oxide is familiar to everyone as rust. It occurs in the ground in a variety
of geological deposits, and has been used for millennia as a paint. ... McCrone is a particle expert who has
written a five-volume atlas that is the definitive work in this field. Nevertheless, Sam Pellicori, who came to
the STURP project via astronomy and physical optics, was at that moment thinking, `I don't believe this. I've
measured the spectrum of iron oxide dozens of times. The color's totally wrong for what he's claiming. Based
on spectrophotometry and the X-ray fluorescence findings, there's no way that the Shroud images are
composed of iron oxide. I may be young and naive, and McCrone may be the master, but he's wrong."
Jackson was thinking that McCrone's analysis contradicted the Gilberts' reflectance curves." (Heller, J.H.,
"Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.139-140)
15/12/2007
"McCrone stated that, in his opinion, the iron oxide had been applied by a finger, and the pictures were
therefore finger paintings. He referred to what he had seen as `snow fencing,' indicating that the iron oxide
had piled up on the lee side of the fibers. He concluded by saying that the blood was also made up of an
iron-oxide paint. Slide after slide was projected on the screen, with McCrone pointing out red dots on the
fibers, and stating that they were typical red iron earth pigments. I was bewildered. Here was a particle expert
claiming that (a) the images were the result of iron-oxide red paint and that (b) the `blood' was iron oxide,
too. This was completely at odds with the data presented by the X-ray fluorescence team, who saw no
increase of iron signal between image and nonimage areas, but only where there was blood. It was at
variance with what Lynn and Lorre had found in their image analysis, as well as the Gilberts' analysis that
the images had a spectrum similar to the light scorch areas. It also left the 3-D aspect of the images
unaccounted for. My seven microfibrils may not have held blood, but they surely were not coated with iron
oxide. Most confusing. McCrone finished up by stating that he was 90 percent sure that the Shroud was a
painting - or perhaps there may have been a very faint pre-existing image that was later touched up by an
artist using red ironoxide earth pigments. I had a flock of questions to ask. However, before I had a chance
to ask any, other team members stepped in. `Dr. McCrone, how do you know those red dots are iron oxide?'
`Experience.' `Did you test them chemically?' `I don't have to. Experience. Besides, it's birefringent.' `How do
you explain the X-ray fluorescence studies and the Gilberts' curves?' `They must be wrong.' `How does your
iron-oxide paint jibe with the negative image and the 3-D information?' `Oh, any competent artist could have
done that.' `Do you mean that you just looked through your microscope and, without doing specific tests
for iron oxide, can proclaim it a painting?' `Yes.' And with that, he left the meeting, and I did not see him
again. McCrone had said that the red dots showed birefringence - a property of certain materials, such as
topaz or calcite, where transmitted light is `split' in two directions. This would turn out to be a pivotal point."
(Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.140-141)
16/12/2007
"X-ray fluorescence The Shroud contains the elements calcium and strontium, evenly distributed all over
the cloth. Iron is also present, and is evenly distributed except in the bloodstained areas, where it is found in
heavier concentrations. What could be made of these findings? No one knew. More iron in the bloodstains
made sense, since there is iron in hemoglobin. Was there iron oxide in a gelatin vehicle? What about the rest
of the iron and the calcium and strontium? There were no answers at this time." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the
Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.149-150. Emphasis original)
16/12/2007
"X radiographs of the Shroud Linen would be invisible to the kind of X rays most commonly used.
However, by using extremely soft X rays and sensitive techniques, we had gotten a complete set of pictures,
which made the Shroud appear as though it were being held up to a very bright light. The individual threads,
the warp and weft, the herringbone pattern, the burn holes and patches, could all be clearly seen. When
McCrone claimed that the images were the result of iron oxide, the radiographers immediately looked at their
X rays again. Iron is very dense compared with linen, and it should have stood out in the radiographs. If the
images comprised iron oxide, it should have been clearly visible in these pictures. It was not. Could there
possibly be too little to be seen on the radiographs, yet enough to be seen with the naked eye, as McCrone
claimed? No one thought so, but we could not be sure. What else did these pictures show? There was
nothing obvious. Later, Adler and I would discover something that sent people scuttling back to look at the
radiographs again. No further information had been gained from the soft X-ray photos at this time." (Heller,
J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.150. Emphasis original)
16/12/2007
"Image enhancement There was no evidence of directionality or of brush strokes in the images.
Additionally, there was an apparent wound in the flank." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin,"
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.151. Emphasis original)
16/12/2007
"3-D effect (computer readable) Various artists had attempted, with no success, to reproduce the Shroud
images as they appear to the unaided eye or with the aid of the VP-8. Each artistic rendering placed in the
VP-8 gave a distorted, grotesque result. A reasonable statue could be made from the VP-8 information when
the data of the Shroud-body distance were encoded. There was no other obvious information." (Heller, J.H.,
"Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.151. Emphasis original)
16/12/2007
"Infrared photography The Shroud was not a conventional oil painting or a conventional water color
painting; if it were, thermography would have revealed it. There was no other obvious information." (Heller,
J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.151. Emphasis original)
16/12/2007
"Ultraviolet and visible reflectance spectroscopy Other than the reflectance data, which supported our
transmission spectra indicating blood, there was no further information to be derived at this time." (Heller,
J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.151. Emphasis original)
16/12/2007
"Direct observation with hand-held magnifying glasses and macroscopy Low magnification, or 30 X to 40
X microscopy, will henceforth be referred to as macroscopy; microscopy means 100 X to 2000 X. (Above
this magnification, electron microscopy and scanning-electron microscopy were used, giving magnifications
up to and beyond 100,000 X.) The use of hand-held magnifiers, macroscopy, and photomacroscopy showed
that the images resulted from a straw-yellow color on the crowns of the threads only. There was no sign of
capillary action, which ruled out liquids, or of diffusion, which ruled out vapors. Only on the crowns of the
fibrils was there the straw-yellow color. There was no obvious difference in the shade of the yellow. It was
merely the number of fibrils colored that determined the intensity of the images. And it was because of this
numerical encoding of color that the VP-8 was able to read the 3-D aspect of the front and back images of
the man in the Shroud. Whenever one fiber crossed another, the yellow was cut off, and the fiber beneath
was white. In much of the bloodstain areas, what appeared to be blood had been abraded off the crowns of
the threads and had fallen into the interstices of the weave." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin,"
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.151-152. Emphasis original)
16/12/2007
"There was dirt on the sole of the foot, and minute abrasions with blood and some dirt on the tip of the nose
and on one knee. It was as though the man had fallen, unable to break the fall with his hands, and partly
skinned his knee and nose. There seemed to be a wound in the side." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of
Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.152)
16/12/2007
"Visible and ultraviolet photography The white-light photographs were of the highest scientific quality,
revealing details never before recorded. However, the ultraviolet photography was even more informative.
Evidence of lesions, abrasions, and scratches that were otherwise invisible had been found by this means.
There were fluorescent haloes around some of the heavy blood flow areas and along the sides of the
scourge marks. The nonimage parts of the linen had a greenish-yellow fluorescence, but the image area was
not fluorescent. The blood and scourge marks were black, completely absorbing the ultraviolet light. Blood
has an enormous extinction coefficient because of porphyrins. In the blood areas, there was capillary action
and the matting and adhesion typically seen when blood spills on linen. ... The work that Adler and I had
done indicated that the red color was indeed blood. Our work demonstrated that the microfibers and the
piece of biltong were old blood. However, they came from an off-image area. Could someone with a bloody
nose have touched the Shroud in the distant past? Were all the blood marks really blood?" (Heller, J.H.,
"Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.152-153. Emphasis original)
16/12/2007
"None of the physical research gave any indication of what made the images or how they were made. Such
data as there were seemed to diminish the possibility of the Shroud being a painting. There was no
explanation for the presence of calcium, strontium, and iron in the Shroud. Nobody except McCrone had any
idea of how the images had been made." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin
Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.152-153. Emphasis original)
16/12/2007
"Jumper told McCrone that he would make available laboratories, screens, slide projectors - anything that
was needed. Then, as professional scientists, we could discuss our findings and resolve our differences or
agree as to where, how, and why we disagreed. Wasn't that the way to do it? Face to face? And not in the
press? Wasn't that the way that the scientific process flourished best? McCrone agreed with Jumper and
was prepared to come. Jumper asked McCrone if he thought the Shroud was a fake. Absolutely, a complete
fake. Did McCrone still stick to the idea of jeweler's rouge and an 1800 date? Well, came the reply, maybe he
should not have said jeweler's rouge, but it was iron oxide, and all the rest was correct. Finally, McCrone
added, he had arrived at a definite date when the forgery was done - 1350. He now had some new data; we
could forget about the finger painting. He claimed that he had discovered the presence of a vehicle in which
the iron oxide was suspended. This vehicle was a water solution of animal (collagen) gelatin. The presence
of this protein was, he said, proof that the Shroud had been made with red paint. ... When Jumper came in,
he announced that he had just received a message from McCrone: he was unable to attend because of a
conflict. We were genuinely sorry, because McCrone had become more of a mystery as time went on."
(Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.153-154)
16/12/2007
"Jackson and Jumper presented their appraisal of the status of research on the Shroud. When they finished
with their precis, Sam Pellicori said that as far as he was concerned, McCrone's hypothesis about iron oxide
being the source of the images was just wrong. He had done a simple and elegant little experiment. He had
taken some filter paper, which is white and flat, and placed on it an amount of iron oxide in the concentration
that McCrone claimed existed in the images on the Shroud. Using a reflectance spectrum the Gilberts had
obtained from the bloodstains on the Shroud, he had compared it to the iron oxide. The spectra did not
match. Larry Schwalbe had done something similar. He had put iron oxide into a watery solution, shaken it,
and let the larger and heavier particles precipitate out. He took the suspended particles and determined the
limit of resolution of the specific X-ray fluorescence equipment that was used in Turin. The minimum amount
of iron oxide that could be seen by the human eye was the same amount that could be accurately determined
by X-ray fluorescence. Clearly, it would be absurd for an artist to use a pigment in an amount so dilute that
one could not see it with the naked eye; that was tantamount to painting in invisible ink. Schwalbe used
jeweler's rouge simply because it was a convenient form of iron oxide, but he also tested other forms of the
compound, and came up with the same results." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton
Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.155-156)
16/12/2007
"With the new slides in hand, we had tested a blood area directly - and it was indeed blood. We had tested
an image area for gelatin with a better test than Amido black, and we found none. Of course, if the Shroud
turned out not to be a painted object, the problem became much more complex. Obviously, the images had
been made by something, and some other form of human, artistic enterprise was next on our list of
hypotheses. Chemical reaction with a human corpse would be tested subsequently as a possible cause of
the images. ... As all the members returned to their chores, we decided to do some controls to see how
sensitive the Biuret- Lowry is for gelatin. Adler told the physicists to make a 10 percent gelatin solution,
then 5 percent, 2.5 percent, i percent, and 0.5 percent. They bustled about. Vern Miller took some of the 10
percent solution and the ultraviolet light, and disappeared into another lab. About two minutes later, he
popped in and said, `Hey, you guys, the gelatin fluoresces like crazy! We don't have to do all that chemistry
to prove that there's no protein in the image fibers. We already know that the images aren't fluorescent, so
there can't be any gelatin there.'" (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co:
Boston MA, 1983, pp.160-161)
16/12/2007
"Everyone was extremely impatient to find out whether McCrone was right or wrong. If it was determined
that his claims did not hold up on a preliminary basis, then the others would be willing to go on to other
questions. The next thing on our agenda was to find out if iron oxide was present on image fibers. X-ray
fluorescence had found none, X radiographs had seen none, and Pellicori's iron-oxide spectrum was
significantly different from the Gilberts' spectrum of the actual Shroud images. At the Santa Barbara meeting,
when Jackson had asked McCrone how he explained the fact that X-ray fluorescence had seen no iron
increase in an image area, McCrone had dismissed the issue by stating that the X-ray data must have been
in error or were not sensitive enough. That morning, Jumper announced that he had been looking at slides
and that in at least a third of the image fibrils, there were no red particles at all. `How,' he demanded, `could
iron-oxide pigment be the cause of the images if it's not present in at least thirty-three percent of the image
fibers?' Others in the group checked his observations and confirmed them." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the
Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.164)
16/12/2007
"I had been looking at the red dots and blobs on image and nonimage fibrils, and, increasingly, they looked
like blood. I said so. Immediately, we began to collect individual fibrils with red dots. One by one they were
placed on the slide. Now that we had a definitive test for blood in the blood areas, the determination as to
whether all the red dots were blood or iron-oxide particles would be relatively easy. Janney, Jackson,
Jumper, and Pellicori wanted to know what was going to happen. Adler explained, `I'm about to add
hydrazine. If the red particle goes into solution, it's got to be blood protein. It can't be iron oxide.' ... `And,'
crowed Al, `they're producing the typical hemochromagen color. This, lady and gentlemen, is not iron oxide;
it is blood!' For the next few days, repeated tests for protein in image fibers were negative. The red particles
dissolved in hydrazine. There was, of course, protein in the bloodstain areas but not in the body image
areas. Other tests were done, but by now we had enough unequivocal data to serve as a solid base for a
preliminary conclusion that the images were not gelatin and iron oxide and that the blood was in fact blood.
We had not ruled out unconventional colors and other methods of image making, but McCrone's
hypothesis was unlikely." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA,
1983, pp.164-165)
16/12/2007
"All of the physics experiments performed by other team members had posed more questions than they had
answered. The two initial questions that had been raised before the team went to Turin remained
unanswered: 1. What were the images and blood marks? 2. How was the Shroud made? McCrone had the
answers. He claimed it was the answer: the whole thing, including the blood, was a painting made by a
human hand. .... However, now there were these findings by the physicists in the group which contradicted
that hypothesis. Also, we had found blood. Jackson had asked me if I thought it possible that a fourteenth-
century artist might have used actual blood to paint a bloody image. When I made inquiries of several
professors of art history in regard to medieval and Renaissance pigments, I had been told that artists of
those times were always searching for paints and pigments that would endure. As a result, they were partial
to metal salts, such as orpiment (arsenic sulfide) or litharge (lead oxide). Blood would change color and
denature; on a fabric, if laid on as thickly as in the Shroud, it would abrade and flake - as, in fact, it had done.
It seemed to me unlikely that anyone would have used real blood as paint. " (Heller, J.H., "Report on the
Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.166-167. Emphasis original)
16/12/2007
"I asked Adler how he felt about it. `Hey, the data are the data. McCrone can say anything he wants to. All I
want him to do is publish it. Then we'll see how his data compare to ours.' That was going to be the crux of
it. In science, anybody can say anything he wants to, but it is not until it is openly published in a respected
scientific journal that it becomes official. There is a tough screening mechanism that is used universally by
all major scientific journals. When an author submits a paper for publication, the editor sends copies to
eminent scientists in the field. These scientific peers study the article closely. They evaluate whether the
experimental methods and techniques are up to their own standards. The data and the conclusions are
appraised, and even the bibliography is studied. The critiques of each of these peer reviewers are sent to the
author, who must do whatever is required to conform to their suggestions. This may mean carrying out more
experiments, trying different methods, setting up more rigorous statistical standards, and so on. The STURP
group had decided, in advance, that because of the potentially controversial nature of the Shroud work, all
their papers should be sent to the major journals so that the work could be critically vetted before
publication." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.167-
168l)
16/12/2007
"The fibrils and particles on the tapes were at least 630 years old; perhaps 2000 years. Over the period of at
least six centuries, dust, debris, pollution, and other contaminants had covered the Shroud, adding new
factors. From history we knew that untold thousands of hands, both clean and grubby, had touched and
fondled it. It had been kissed by innumerable people, both clean-shaven and with beards and mustaches.
We had discovered that it was not unusual for over 90 percent of the people who have access to the Shroud
to touch something personal to its surface. STURP members knew of postage stamps and pictures that had
touched its surface. One cleric had taken out a stained cotton kerchief and placed it on the Shroud.
According to the cleric, he had kept the kerchief, unlaundered, in his pocket since he had used it to touch
the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem years before. Untold bizarre materials must have had contact with the
Shroud's surface." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983,
p.170)
16/12/2007
"Then, with a sly look on his [Adler's] face, he said, `What do you know about the process of retting linen?'
`Isn't that something that you do to the flax plant to get linen fibers from it?' `Well,' he started smugly, `it
seems that in order to ret linen, you take the flax plant and soak it in a natural body of water, like a river or
lake. The useless part of the flax kind of rots away, and the fibers that remain are linen, which is spun into
thread.' `And?' `Well, during the retting, the linen fibers act as an ion exchanger, and do you know what ions
they take up selectively from water?' `You're funning me!' `Nope. Calcium, strontium, and iron!' `Hallelujah!
That explains the X-ray fluorescence data.'" (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin
Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.173-174)
16/12/2007
"We began by designing controls that would test what (a) we already knew, (b) we suspected, (c) others
claimed. What facts were inarguable? That it was old - at least six hundred years. That the patches were
about five hundred years old or less. That it had been in a fire, and some of it was scorched, charred, or
burned through. The temperature of the old molten silver would have been about 900°C. The temperature of
the Shroud farthest from the burn holes would have reached somewhere between ambient temperature
(about 22°C) and the onset of pyrolysis of linen (about 200°C). Furthermore, the burning of holes in the linen
occurred in a closed metal casket, where there was probably a limited oxygen atmosphere. (There was some
physical and chemical evidence of this. Vern Miller's experiment at the academy with burning linen in a
limited-oxygen atmosphere had produced a furfural-type material, which fluoresced in the ultraviolet. This
jibed with the ultraviolet reflectance spectra of the Shroud itself.)" (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of
Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.174-175)
16/12/2007
"In Colorado Springs, Vern Miller had brought a large number of beautiful scientific photographs taken in
Turin. Those taken by ultraviolet were most illuminating. At the margin of each scourge mark there was a
pale white fluorescence that could not be seen in white light. It is typical of a lesion made by a whip that
there will be an ooze of serum at the edges of the wound. Anyone who has skinned a knee will be familiar
with this fact. There was a similar white fluorescence around the margin of the heavy blood flows. This, too,
is physiologic. As part of the blood-clotting mechanism, the clot retracts after a while, squeezing out serum.
The fibrils from these white fluorescent areas showed a positive test for protein by fluorescamine and by
enzymatic test. We followed this up by using still another determination, Bromcreosol green, which gave us
a positive test for albumin, the main proteinaceous component of blood. Thus, we could conclude that what
was on the Shroud was whole blood. Microscopic amounts of blood were present as flakes, dots, blobs, and
one other form that was interesting. Where the blood had coated fibrils and hardened, it had in many cases
cracked off. These elongated, half-tubular replica casts of fibrils we called shards, since they looked like
half-round roof tiles. We took specimens of the various types of blood shapes and did still another series of
tests for blood, using potassium cyanide in ammonium hydroxide. This produced a positive result, giving
the typical color of cyanomethemoglobin. We had noted that some of the shards had a greenish-brown
color, which suggested to us that they might contain bile pigments; these are among the decay products of
hemoglobin. We ran a specific assay, which gave us a characteristic blue-azobilirubin color. When acid was
added, this became a paler purple and was discharged with UV light, giving still one more positive test for
blood." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.185-186.
Emphasis original)
16/12/2007
"Thus far, our positive blood tests had included (1) microspectrophotometric scans of crystals and fibrils,
(2) reflectance scans on the Shroud, (3) positive hemochromogen tests, (4) positive cyanomethemoglobin
tests, (5) positive tests for bile pigments, and (6) characteristic heme porphyrin fluorescence. Any one of
these is proof of the presence of blood, and each is acceptable in a court of law. Taken together, they are
irrefutable." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.185-
186. Emphasis original)
17/12/2007
"In science, we always try to challenge our own data. If there are any chinks in them that we do not find,
someone else will - and that smarts. `Suppose,' I postulated to Adler, `some forger contrived a method to
obtain fresh cow, pig, or sheep blood and painted like lightning to get the blood on the Shroud before it
clotted. Let us further postulate that he knew enough about twentieth-century pathophysiology, fibrinogen,
fibrin, platelets, and the like so that he painted all the wounds and bleeding correctly and ... `The point I'm
making,' I went on, `is that we know that it's whole blood, but we don't know that it's human whole blood.'
... To determine the species of animal from which a sample of protein is derived, we have to fall back on
immunology. The basis of the test depends on the formation of antibodies. Antibodies are proteins that an
individual's immune mechanism forms to neutralize any foreign material. This can include bacteria, viruses,
or protein from another species. If we inject a small amount of human-serum albumin into a laboratory
animal, it will make antihuman-albumin antibodies. .... If we take the laboratory animal into which we have
injected human-serum albumin, draw some blood, get rid of the blood cells, and add its serum to human
serum, we will have a reaction. The human-albumin molecules will combine with the antibody and
precipitate. We decided to use one of the remaining serum-coated fibrils for the test. Some antihuman-
albumin antibody was procured and a fluorescent tag attached to it. Bovine, porcine, and equine albumin
were used as controls, and, as expected, were nonreactive. When the antibody to human protein was added
to the fibril, it was strongly positive. `O.K.,' I said, `now we know it's human.'" (Heller, J.H., "Report on the
Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.188-189. Emphasis original" (Heller, J.H.,
"Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.187-188. Emphasis original)
17/12/2007
"Now that the blood question had been tested as thoroughly and redundantly as we could do it, we decided
to go forward to other determinations. `What,' asked Adler one day, `shall we test for in the way of
elements?' ... We could, we figured, rule out a substantial use of any element in paint with an atomic weight
over sixteen, because X-ray fluorescence would have caught it if it had been present in a significant amount.
We needed to look for elements that, had they been present in small amounts, might have been missed by
X-ray fluorescence or X radiography, and yet were present in sufficient amounts to be seen as color by the
human eye. We finally agreed that testing for the following elements would be more than adequate:
aluminum, arsenic, antimony, cadmium, calcium, cobalt, chromium, iron, nickel, mercury, manganese, lead,
palladium, tin, zinc, and silver. ... Once we had enough particles of a certain class - color, size, shape, optical
characteristics - we would bring in our reagents for testing. These were primarily chemical complexes with
such unmemorable names as 3-(4-phenyl-2 pyridyl)-5 phenyl-i,2,4-triazine disulfonic acid or p-
dimethylaminobenzalrhodamine. Though our interest was centered on the nature of the red particles, we felt
it was necessary to test all particles. In addition, it was possible that some elements were present in the form
of a dye, in which a metal such as aluminum had been used as a mordant. We decided to test all particles as
well as fibrils in our search for elements that might provide a clue to color." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the
Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.189-190)
17/12/2007
"To be painstakingly thorough, we even decided to check the red blood particles for their iron content.
Blood has iron in it, but only a thousandth of the mass of a hemoglobin molecule is iron; the rest of the
molecule protects the iron from responding to a simple iron test. The red color is caused by the porphyrin
structure. To free the iron, we would add a mixture that still goes by the old alchemists' name, aqua regia. It
is made from concentrated nitric acid plus concentrated hydrochloric acid - powerful stuff indeed. Once
aqua regia destroyed the porphyrin structure and the blood protein, we obtained a positive iron test - as we
expected." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.190)
17/12/2007
"We decided to do the iron test on the fibrils to see how much iron had been deposited by the retting
process. We took an off-image fibril, and it gave us a very strong positive for iron. Then we took an image
fibril. It too was strongly positive for iron, as was scorched fiber. An iron test inside a water-stain area gave
a weaker result than the others. The data were consistent with our retting-and-fire hypothesis. That
triggered a thought. Since we found that the iron oxide was primarily in the water-stain margins, those
margins should be more opaque to X rays. I called the radiographers on the team and asked them to check.
They looked again at their X rays. Sure enough, those margins were more radiodense, as they had originally
observed. First, we determined which of the red spots were blood. We proved that most of them were,
because (i) they dissolved in hydrazine, (2) produced hemochromagen, a pale pink material, and (3) gave a
positive test for protein. Iron oxide does none of these things. Nor does any other metal oxide or salt."
(Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.190)
17/12/2007
"As I was harvesting red dots, I suddenly saw one that was not on the slide itself, but in the stickum
alongside, where the adhesive had been squeezed out. This was an unusual particle compared with what I
had been looking at, and was obviously a crystal. I turned to Adler and said, `Look at this.' We traded
places. He said, `Do you know what this looks like?' `Yup. Cinnabar.' ... While he was going after reagents in
another laboratory, I studied the slide further. The piece of cinnabar was enormous compared with what we
had been working with. I could actually pick it up with a microforceps. It was in the stickum at the side of the
tape. Where had it come from? It was shaped like a pyramid with a broad base. After having measured the
base, I began to manipulate the optics, the light sources, and I finally convinced myself that I could see a
track across a corner of the slide where the crystal had been dragged. There were extremely tiny fragments
that had abraded off the base. When Adler returned with the proper chemicals, we obtained a strong,
positive test for mercury. This, together with its crystalline structure, proclaimed it to be cinnabar. Out of
this material the color vermilion is made. It has been much favored by artists through the ages; Rubens, for
example, used it extensively. We had heard through the grapevine that Walter McCrone was publishing a
third paper in The Microscope, in which he claimed that the presence of vermilion proved conclusively
that the Shroud was a painted forgery. Well, we had just found a piece - a crystal - of cinnabar, and that
certainly confirmed that there was at least one particle of vermilion on the Shroud." (Heller, J.H., "Report on
the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.191-192)
17/12/2007
"WE HAD NOW FOUND iron oxide and mercury sulfide. Both are pigments used by artists. Both are red.
To determine whether an artifact is painted, the first thing that a scientific detective will do is find out
whether any paint pigment is present. If it is, and if the presence of such pigment is the only standard, a man
may well feel that the problem is solved. The artifact is a painting. However, science demands particular
criteria for proof of anything. One criterion is embodied in the words `necessary and sufficient.' In order to
establish that something is a painted object, it is `necessary' to show colorants. However, that is not
`sufficient.' It must be shown that there is sufficient paint to account for the object one sees in the painting,
such as a house or a tree. We had just discovered one crystal of mercury (and its track), and like the hounds
after the hare, we began a complete and exhaustive search for additional samples. On that tape, and on all
the rest, there was not another one. It was McCrone's claim that the images were made of red ocher - also an
artist's pigment - and gelatin. We could find neither. It was also his contention that the blood was not blood,
but red iron oxide. We found blood - lots of it - by many different methods in the blood areas. And the only
area in which there was iron oxide was in the water-stain margins." (Heller,
J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.193-194. Emphasis
original)
17/12/2007
"It was now 1981, three years after the team's trip to Turin. McCrone sent me a Xerograph of his third paper.
In it, he stated that the blood was paint, a mixture of iron oxide and mercury sulfide. He claimed that he had
found nine microscopic particles of vermilion. Necessary? Yes. Sufficient? No. There was not enough iron
oxide or vermilion to account for one painted drop of blood, let alone all the gore on the Shroud." (Heller,
J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.193-194. Emphasis
original)
17/12/2007
"After Adler read McCrone's third Microscope paper ... he asked, `Say, isn't red ocher almost always
impure?' I mulled it over. `Yes. It seems to me that I remember it's always contaminated with manganese,
nickel, cobalt, or aluminum.' `... Let's test the iron oxide for impurities. If all the iron on the Shroud comes
either from the retting process or from blood, it should be pure; if it comes from ground deposits, as red
ocher does, it should have at least one of those contaminants in it.' ... We began to gather microscopic red
iron-oxide dots. ... We set up a solution of silver with catalyzed acid persulfate, dimethyl glyoxime, nioxime,
ammonium thiocyanate and fluoride, plus Aluminon and alizarin. There were no contaminants at the 1
percent level. ... I wanted to be sure that the other elements were not present at all. I decided to do an
electron microprobe test. First, I isolated iron-oxide particles from several tapes and put them on aluminum
stubs. The stubs were placed in the scanning electron microscope, and the image appeared on a CRT. ...
Magnifications of up to 100,000 times or more can be made. Once the iron-oxide particle was in place ... a tiny
beam of electrons hits the particle, X rays are emitted at different energies, and, in effect, one sees a
spectrum of different peaks - the unique fingerprints of various elements. ... There is a baseline that indicates
what wavelengths of X rays are being produced at different energies in kilovolts. Certain peaks at certain
kilovoltages are indicative of particular elements. Markers, which indicate where certain peaks should appear
if the element you are seeking is present, can be called to the screen via computer. In this case, I set up
cobalt, manganese, nickel, and aluminum. ... Since the beam was hitting an iron-oxide particle, a strong iron
signal immediately appeared, but I ignored it, since I knew iron was present. It was the other peaks that I was
looking for. ... The iron peak had long since gone way off scale, and there were no `contaminants' present. I
repeated this procedure with each of the particles placed on the stubs. The iron was pure, and hence not a
derivative from some hematite deposit in the Old World. It was now that Professor Riggi's decision to join
the team proved important again and complemented our present research. Back in Turin, he had obtained
some samples of Venetian red from Renaissance sources. Riggi put these samples in an electron microprobe,
and, sure enough, there were strong peaks of our four contaminants. Then Riggi obtained fresh, modern
Venetian red, and the same contaminants appeared. Thus, iron earth pigments, whether new or old,
contained the same contaminants. The iron oxide on the Shroud did not contain any of them. Riggi's control
experiment bore out the results of ours." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin
Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.194-196. Emphasis original)
18/12/2007
"McCrone had also mentioned that he had seen `orpiment, ultramarine, azurite, wood charcoal, and madder
rose.' He did not cite any experimental evidence other than that he saw them. We examined every particle
type we could find and tested it chemically, and could not corroborate any of his observations. We
continued to look for other metallic species, but the only ones we found were represented by extremely
minute black dots. They were located primarily around burn holes in the scorch area and gave a strong
positive test for silver. They were obviously spatter from the molten silver drops that had burned through
the cloth in 1532. They were far too scanty to have been picked up by X-ray fluorescence, as, of course, was
the case for the mercury sulfide. Nor could such minute amounts produce any color that could be seen by
eye. Naturally, there was carbon from the fire." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton
Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.196-197. Emphasis original)
18/12/2007
"Adler and I had now arrived at a point where we had exhausted all the possibilities of any other reasonable
(and some unreasonable) metallic species being present. ... It was time to get down to what I considered the
serious testing for straw-yellow fibrils so that we could determine the nature of the color. As a first step, we
decided we had better find out whether there were any fats or oils responsible for the color of the image
fibrils. ... We checked with the Hanus' and Wij's iodine-addition reagents. There was none." (Heller, J.H.,
"Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.197)
18/12/2007
"Now we had arrived at the part we were reasonably sure would answer the question `What chemical made
the straw-yellow images?' We had disagreed with McCrone that the images were made of gelatin and iron
oxide, but could not yet disagree that the images were man-made. Unless and until we found out why the
images were colored, we would not know that answer. Testing for the straw-yellow color, however, would be
much more complicated than testing for blood. But once we could identify the yellow paint or pigment, or
dye or stain, we might know a lot more about how the images had been made and how they came to be on
the cloth. All organic colors, whether natural or synthetic, fall into three categories. In the first group are
those which will change color in an acid or a base (alkali). In the second are those which will change either
with oxidation or reduction (the opposite of oxidation). Finally, there are those which can be extracted with
one of a large series of organic solvents, such as methanol, ethanol, benzene, toluene, acetone, carbon
tetrachloride, pyridine, ethyl acetate, dimethyl formamide. First, we tried to extract the color with
concentrated hydrochloric acid. No change. Then we tried concentrated sulfuric acid. No change. We were
still doing all tests against controls. When we used the sulfuric-acid extraction on the tan Coptic linen (A.D.
350) and the brown Pharaonic linen (1500 B.C.), the color came right off. I had no idea what the color was
and did not really care. Then we went to alkaline solutions. We used concentrated ammonium hydroxide and
strong potassium hydroxide, with no effect at all. Next in line was a powerful oxidant, 30 percent hydrogen
peroxide. What one buys in a pharmacy is either 3 percent or 6 percent; the 30 percent variety is very
dangerous material and must be handled with great care. Only one drop on your flesh is nasty. The peroxide
caused no change. After that, we tried an ordinary reducing material, ascorbate, still with no result. We made
some specific tests for certain classes of organic compounds - phenols, flavenoids, steroids, indoles,
lignins, porphyrins, pyrroles, nitroderivatives, and Saponaria extract (soapwort), to mention but a few. We
had increased our knowledge of what the yellow color was not. Now we had to see whether we could extract
it with different types of solvents. One by one, extraction systems were set up and tried - dioxane,
morpholine, ether, cyclohexane, dimethyl formamide, ethyl acetate, pyridine, chloroform, carbon
tetrachloride, acetone ... Absolutely none extracted or changed the color. At the end of months of work, we
had pretty well eliminated all paints, pigments, dyes, and stains. Where did this leave us? There were images
of a man that produced 3-D read-outs in a VP-8, and the images were not the result of any colorant that had
been added." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983,
pp.197-198)
18/12/2007
"Obviously, our next step was to examine whether there had been any intrinsic change in the cellulose
structure of the linen itself. The first thing to look for in anything that is old is oxidation. Oxidation refers to
the process whereby something reacts with oxygen. Oxygen is a very potent reactant, and almost anything
that is exposed to it will oxidize and deteriorate, as iron becomes rust. About 20 percent of the earth's
atmosphere is oxygen. If it were not for a peculiar circumstance of this planet, oxygen would react rapidly
with all manner of things and leave the atmosphere made up of nothing but nitrogen and a few other gases.
That circumstance is green plant life, which continuously produces oxygen from an oxide of carbon.
Cellulose, as we have seen, is a biopolymer of sugar. It can oxidize in an almost bewildering number of ways,
depending on conditions. Since Adler and I knew very little about all the conditions to which the cloth
might have been subjected since its fabrication, we could not assume anything. If the straw-yellow of the
images was the result of oxidation, we thought, we should be able to reverse the process with reductants.
We had used ascorbate but had seen no change. Perhaps it was not a strong enough reducing agent, so we
decided to use diimide, which is a potent one. If that did not show any change, we could forget about
oxidation. A droplet of diimide was added to a straw-yellow fibril and instantly became white. At last, after
two years of puzzling about the yellow, we had a positive test! Necessary? Yes. Sufficient? No. We began to
look at oxidative intermediate reactions. This necessitated thrashing through such items as acetal,
hemiacetal, aldol condensation (intra- and inter-), ester formation, and on and on. Finally, after working with
many types of intermediates, we wound up with an aldol condensation that, on dehydration, gave an alpha,
beta unsaturated carbonyl, which in turn went to a conjugated carbonyl (or alpha dicarbonyl groups). ...
This conjugated carbonyl ... is straw-yellow! The conjugated carbonyl is the end product of dehydrating
acid oxidation. (By contrast, alkaline oxidation produces no color.)." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of
Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.198-200)
18/12/2007
"We felt that we should be able, therefore, to make a pseudo-image fibril by immersing it long enough in
concentrated sulfuric acid, which is a strong dehydrative oxidant fluid, in addition to being a. powerful acid.
We began by using nonimage background fibrils. After thirty minutes in sulfuric acid, they had the right
color and chemistry of an image fibril. Using a special type of microscopic observation (phase contrast), we
could readily observe that the image fibrils were much more corroded than the nonimage fibrils. The sulfuric
acid-treated fibrils looked identical with the image fibrils under phase contrast microscopy. We also made
pseudo-image fibrils from the Spanish linen and other control linens. In sum, the microscopic corrosion of
the pseudo-image fibrils was correct, as were the straw-yellow color and the chemistry and the physical
infrared observations. We had a match." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin
Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.200)
18/12/2007
"Now all we had to figure out was how a selective dehydrative acid oxidizing agent got on the Shroud in
such a manner as to produce images of a man that in a VP-8 were 3-D! ... At this point, I decided to carry out
some gedankenexperiments. ... `thought experiment.' One attacks a problem by setting up a series of
events and constraints, and then solves the problem in one's head, rather than in the laboratory. ... For
numerous reasons, Adler and I had been assuming all along that the Shroud was a forgery. Any hypothesis
based on contact between the Shroud and body chemicals had to be ruled out, because the physics of the
images seemed to preclude it. Forgery (painting, block print, or such) was something that could be tested
for. If the images on the Shroud were man-made, we could rule in or out the various possibilities. I make that
statement with an extraordinarily high confidence level. We both believed it at the beginning of our
research, and we believe it now. We sat down and began to brainstorm. What would have been the
constraints on an artist who decided to paint the Shroud? During the 120 hours that the team examined the
Shroud, they observed that the straw-yellow of the images was confined to the surface fibrils only. In no
circumstances did the color penetrate more than two or three fibrils. And it was confined to their crests. The
hue of each straw-yellow fibril was essentially the same as all the rest. It was merely the numbers of fibrils
that gave the impression of darker or lighter areas. This was a very important point, for the VP-8 is a
modified computer. It can assess things quantitatively. The images of the man on the Shroud were encoded
in the number of fibrils, which is why the VP-8 could `read' them. This is radically different from the way any
imaging works in our everyday world. For example, our eyes see objects, including people, by an albedo
image - by the light that is reflected. A photograph also picks up an albedo image from the light reflected off
the surface. An artist sees an albedo image and portrays it on his canvas. If he is painting a landscape with
foreground and background, he uses perspective. A VP-8 cannot handle the world of albedo images and
perspective, but it can and does handle quanta of light. In effect, it sees numerically, not reflectively. The
images on the Shroud are numerical, as well as reversed, as in a photographic negative." (Heller, J.H.,
"Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.200-202)
18/12/2007
"Obviously, no one can paint with sulfuric acid, because it would destroy the bristle, would show signs of
capillarity, and have all the other constraints of our gedankenexperiment. Heat can cause the same kind of
oxidation as sulfuric acid, but any heat source radiates in a diffuse manner, and cannot account for the
resolution or the three-dimensionality seen in the features of the face of the man in the Shroud or the
microprecision of the color on the crests of only the straw-yellow fibrils. How about other image-making
techniques, such as two giant block prints, each one two meters long and one meter wide, and heated?
Stone was used for block prints in the medieval period. If you put sulfuric acid on a stone, the acid reacts
immediately and destroys the stone; the same, of course, applies to wood or metal. Aside from a vast series
of technical improbabilities in accomplishing such madness, we could think of no other possibility. There
were a few other really strange ideas, such as hot statues, bas-reliefs, and so on, suggested by
nonscientists, but these had long since been examined and rejected, because they could be ruled out - both
theoretically and experimentally." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co:
Boston MA, 1983, p.203)
18/12/2007
"Along with the rest of the team, we tackled this question. It is in our nature and our training to refuse to
accept the mystical as an explanation of an object. The Shroud is an object - palpable, measurable. Well, we
had measured, and done so in extenso. We would just have to persevere until we had the answer to the
question `How did the images get there?'" (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin
Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.204)
18/12/2007
"Adler and I had reached the conclusion that the images could not have been made by artistic endeavor.
Jackson, Jumper, and Ercoline had tackled the problem by asking the same question in a slightly different
way. Could the images have been made by eye/brain/hand? Their approach was physical, as opposed to
chemical. They began by analyzing the 3-D images in the VP-8. It is only when actual depth or remoteness
is manifest by less light that the VP-8 can produce an authentic 3-D picture. Could an artist produce a 3-D
image? There are paintings that were made from the Shroud itself by some of the masters. In the VP-8, they
are dimensional disasters. To take experimentation and measurement one step further, Jackson, Jumper, and
Ercoline obtained the services of some police artists, who copied the Shroud as faithfully as they could. The
results in the VP-8 were badly contorted. Then they had the artists draw from the 3-D VP-8 images. Again,
the VP-8 images were seriously aberrant." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin
Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.207. Emphasis original)
18/12/2007
"At this point, the investigators took a different tack. They procured a life-size plaster bust of a bearded
man. A photograph of the statue put in the VP-8 produced a badly misshapen image. They coated the bust
with phosphorescent paint, and the outcome was worse. Ingeniously, they contrived an experiment to
encode brightness and dimness as authentic distance dimensions. They took the bust, still with the
phosphorescent coating, and submerged it, nose up, in a large container of dilute black ink. The nose, which
was closest to the top of the inky solution, was brighter; the eye sockets and the hairline, darker. A
photograph of the surface of that liquid, when placed in the VP-8, produced an authentic 3-D image of the
head. They then went on to test the hypotheses based on the hot statue, block print, engraving, and bas-
relief transfer. All resulted in seriously deformed images. They carried their analysis further. They went to a
stereometric laboratory, where they placed a volunteer of the same stature and weight as the man in the
Shroud on a glass-topped table. They crawled beneath to make measurements and photographs and saw
that the weight of the man caused a flattening of certain areas. Over the shoulder blades there were two
bilaterally symmetrical, almost trapezoidal flat areas, just as seen in the VP-8 image of the back. There was
also flattening of both buttocks, thighs, and calves. One leg made an impression identical with that seen in
the VP-8. The other did not. Jumper looked at the front image of the VP-8 and saw that one knee was slightly
raised. They raised the knee of the volunteer so that the sheet covering him showed the same amount of
prominence. There was a proportionate marginal rounding of the thigh and calf of the partly flexed leg, and
now the subject's back and the VP-8 back image were alike. To my knowledge, these nuances could not have
been known by anyone who did not do the glass-table experiment." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of
Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.207-208. Emphasis original)
18/12/2007
"Nor was this the end of it. On the hands there appear only four digits. The thumbs are missing. It may not
be "artistic," but it is neurological. If a spike is driven through the wrist between the radius and ulna, it is
likely that the ulnar nerve will be damaged, which will cause the thumb to flex acutely into the palm of the
hand. Rigor mortis would keep it that way. The fingers in the Shroud image are longer than average, but they
are still within the normal range (Gaussian distribution). This may be reasonable anatomy, but it is not, I
suggest, reasonable for an artist. One wrist is not seen on the Shroud. When the volunteer crossed his
hands and flexed the thumb of the upper hand, the cloth tented at about a two-inch distance from the lower
wrist. All the above, including the blood and wound pathophysiology, require knowledge not known until
the nineteenth century and demand artistic information available only from inside the Shroud covering
both sides of a corpse. The conclusion of the physical scientists was that the Shroud could not be the result
of eye/brain/hand. They had come to the conclusion that Adler and I had reached through a different
route." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.208)
18/12/2007
"We went on to examine the possibility that some chemicals from the body formed the images on the
Shroud. The chemicals could be substances produced by the body or added to the body, such as an
anointing fluid. The interaction of both also must be considered. This was not too promising an avenue, for
had there been substances on the body, which was lying on its back, the rear image would have been more
saturated than the front one. It was not." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin
Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.207-208. Emphasis original)
19/12/2007
"Adler and I had found no traces of aloe, myrrh, or any other spice. We had found no oils, though they may
have oxidized away. " (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA,
1983, p.209)
19/12/2007
"Sam Pellicori, a champion of the body-contact hypothesis, had done some interesting experiments. In three
separate experiments, he had placed oil, lemon juice, and perspiration on his fingers. Then he placed linen on
top of his hand and pressed it gently to his flesh. He then placed the cloth samples in an oven at low
temperature to produce an accelerated aging effect. In each case there was indeed a yellowing of the contact
area. He had brought the linen samples with him. The team examined them and, although there was a surface
effect, several of us insisted that we could see some capillarity in several of the fibrils, which is not the case
on the Shroud. We all agreed with Sam that the torso of the man had had to be in contact with the Shroud,
or the transfer of the scourge marks would not have appeared as they did. For example, there were many
such lesions that were invisible in white light and could be seen only in the UV. The hemoglobin and serum
ooze could have come only from direct contact. However, the recessed areas of the face could not have
been in contact with the cloth, as proved by the VP-8 images and the Shroud-body distance data. Pellicori
agreed that that was still a problem for his hypothesis. It was not a problem, but rather the problem."
(Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.209-210.
Emphasis original)
19/12/2007
"However, as a group we raised every reasonable and even unreasonable chemical hypothesis and scenario.
One by one, each was destroyed. There seemed no apparent or even remote chemical mechanism produced
by a body with and without anointing oil that could explain the image formation." (Heller, J.H., "Report on
the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.210)
19/12/2007
"It was evident from the physical, mathematical, medical, and chemical evidence that there must have been a
crucified man in the Shroud. If we followed the principle of Occam's razor, we could draw no other
conclusion. William of Occam had stated six centuries ago a principle of parsimony that is dear to the heart
of scientists. It states that if there is a simple way of arriving at an explanation, contrasted to a complicated
one, the simpler is probably correct." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co:
Boston MA, 1983, p.210)
19/12/2007
"How were the images of the man conveyed to the linen? Virtually the only mechanism left was radiation,
which we then examined. The first candidate was ionizing radiation. Included under this heading are gamma
rays, X rays, ultraviolet plus energetic particles, such as electrons and alphas. Ionizing radiation produces
alkaline oxidation, not the acid form. I had exposed linen to six hours of intense ultraviolet radiation and
found no acid oxidation and no straw-yellow color. Furthermore, most ionizing radiation is very hard or
penetrating. As such, it will not be attenuated by air. If the man was, by some unknown mechanism, emitting
radiation, the rays from the noncontact areas - the space under the nose and the eye sockets, for example
must have been partly absorbed by air before they hit the cloth. Otherwise, we would have no distance
information in the VP-8. In addition, radiation from a source radiates in all directions (isotropic), as it does
from a light bulb. The only time it is unidirectional and parallel is when it comes from a laser. The bust
covered with phosphorescent paint looked like a light bulb in the VP-8. Only the black inky fluid attenuated
the light. However, visible light causes no chemical change in linen, so we could not have the cadaver in
inky water as a mechanism. Ultrasoft X rays and radiowaves are attenuated by water, but that got us
nowhere. We had just about exhausted the electromagnetic spectrum." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud
of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.210-211)
19/12/2007
"We turned once more to heat. A hot bas-relief - of all the models measured by the physicists - gave some
distance information, but it was seriously flawed. When the bas-relief was hot enough to cause the recessed
areas to show on linen, the hot spots, like the tip of the nose, burned through the cloth. Considering the
heat conductivity of linen - wet or dry - the mechanism did not work." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of
Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.211)
19/12/2007
"We had now reviewed all the new and the old experiments. The only possible mechanisms were molecular
transport and radiation, and we had just demolished both of them. This was extremely unsettling. " (Heller,
J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.211)
19/12/2007
"A few days later, I received a call from Father Adam Otterbein. His mentor, and the man who had kindled
his interest in the Shroud, was Father Wuenschel. After Father Wuenschel's death, the huge collection of
research data on the Shroud he had amassed during his lifetime was catalogued and kept in the seminary at
Esopus, New York. I had told Father Otterbein that I would like to look over this collection sometime. After
all, you can never tell what you may find. Father Otterbein fixed a time, and Adler, who loves old collections
of anything printed, came with me. The enormous amount of material collected by Father Wuenschel ranged
from photocopies or hand copies of volumes out of the Vatican library holdings to municipal records from
France and Italy to incunabula: notes, essays, manuscripts. If Father Wuenschel was in Germany when he
collected something, his notes would be in German; in France, French; in Turin, Italian; in Rome, Latin. I
came across a group of woodcut prints of dozens and dozens of clerics, each holding the Shroud. (Small
wonder that there was such a melange of fibrils on it.) As we burrowed further, we found that at least sixty
artists - Van Dyke and Rubens among them - had painted the Shroud from `life.' We already knew the
proclivity of viewers of the Shroud to touch something to the cloth. It was a safe bet that some of these
artists had placed their finished work on the Shroud. An artist painting in the same room as the Shroud
would be enough to explain such microscopic `accidentals' as a speck of vermilion from a palette or brush. I
had experienced this in the early days of the atomic era. Back in the early fifties I was the radiation safety
officer at Yale. I had been called in on an outside consultation. An overly enthusiastic artist had decided to
do a painting on canvas with luminous paint. He had used a mixture of radium and thorium with a phosphor,
a chemical that glows when activated by energetic radiation. The radium and thorium emit electrons, alpha
particles, and gamma rays. (It was this formula which was used on old-fashioned luminous dial watches.)
When I entered the room where the artist had been painting, I found that the spatter and spray from his
brush were almost everywhere, and the radioactive contamination was ferocious. If we added this spatter
factor to the fact that many artists touched their finished product to the Shroud, the finding of such
accidentals is not only logical, but virtually mandatory." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin,"
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.211-212)
27/12/2007
"Besides, when a surgeon has meditated on the sufferings of the Passion, when he has worked out its
timing and its physiological circumstances, when he has methodically set himself to reconstruct all the
stages of that martyrdom of a night and a day, he can, more than the most eloquent preacher, more than the
most saintly ascetics (apart from those to whom was granted a direct vision, and who were overwhelmed by
it), as it were share in the sufferings of Christ. I can assure you of a dreadful thing, I have reached a point
when I no longer dare to think of them. No doubt this is cowardice, but I hold that one must either have
heroic virtue or else fail to understand; that one must either be a saint or else irresponsible, in order to do
the Way of the Cross. I no longer can." (Barbet, P., "A Doctor at Calvary," [1953], Image Books: Garden City
NY, Reprinted, 1963, p.187. Emphasis original).
27/12/2007
"And now, reader, let us thank God Who has given me the strength to write this to the end, though not
without tears! All these horrible pains that we have lived in Him, were foreseen by Him all through His life;
He premeditated them and willed them, out of His love, so that He might redeem us from our sins. ... He
directed the whole of His passion, without avoiding one torture, accepting the physiological consequences,
without being dominated by them. He died when and how and because He willed it. ... O Jesus, You Who
had no pity on Yourself, You Who are God, have pity on me who am a sinner." (Barbet, P., "A Doctor at
Calvary," [1953], Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, pp.206-207. Emphasis original)
[top]
Copyright © 2007-2008, 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: 31 March, 2008.