1/11/2007
"The subject of this book is a mysterious length of old cloth preserved in
Turin Cathedral. It has been called
various names in successive
ages by different people. When I first felt its fascination more than twenty years
ago, we non-Italians usually referred to it by its traditional Latin name of Sudarium Taurinensis, or
sweatcloth of Turin; but other names are more popular today. In Turin and the rest
of Italy it is known to
millions of Catholics as `la Santa
Sindone' or just `la Sindone', and to an ever-increasing number of English-
speaking people throughout Christendom and beyond it is becoming known as `the Holy Shroud of Turin',
`the Turin Shroud' or simply `the Shroud'. There is something apt and familiar
about the simplicity of that
monosyllable, and an unspoken
claim lies in its juxtaposition with the definite article. Other shrouds are
preserved in other places, of course, just as there were other dukes alive in the days of Wellington: but this
one - paradoxically - is unique. The Shroud." (McNair, P., "The
Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or
Fact?," in Jennings,
P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering
UK, 1978, p.21. Emphasis original)
1/11/2007
"On the face of it, the very idea that the linen cloth in which Jesus Christ
was wrapped in the tomb should
have survived to this day would
seem incredible. It demands even more of human credulity that the cloth
bears a photographic likeness which would seem to be that of Jesus as he lay in the tomb. Yet it is on the
evidence for these two seemingly impossible facts that this book has been written.
The cloth in question is
known by the Italians as the Santa
Sindone, or Holy Shroud. It reposes within Turin's Cathedral of St.
John the Baptist, in the circular, black marble Royal Chapel, designed by Guarino Guarini, which was once
the place of private worship for the dukes of Savoy, former rulers of Italy."
(Wilson, I., "The Shroud of
Turin: The Burial Cloth of
Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, p.13)
6/11/2007
"Pia's glass plates measured 51
by 63 centimetres, and are preserved in the Museum of the Holy Shroud at
Via San Domenico 28 in Turin. He took them home post-haste, leaving his assistants to clear up the
Cathedral, and when he developed the first of them he nearly jumped out of his
skin: in fact he records that
he almost let the plate drop
in his astonished excitement. For under his very eyes had formed something new
and totally unsuspected, a commanding face of calm and majestic beauty which none of the millions of
devoted worshippers in the past had ever seen before. Indeed one of the staggering
facts about the Shroud
is that although to our certain knowledge
it has been venerated as a sacred relic since the fourteenth
century,
the face which we now see reproduced on the cover of this book (and which is so hauntingly
familiar to many of us) was not seen until the small hours of 29 May 1898, just over eighty years ago - in fact
within living memory." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy,
Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed.,
"Face to Face
with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.26-27)
6/11/2007
"The explanation is in one sense simple,
in another sense baffling. It seems that what meets the naked eye in
looking at the Shroud is very like a photographic negative, which, when photographed, becomes positive in
the negative of the photograph, when the scuro turns chiaro and
the chiaro, scuro. The striking
face which
Pia first saw in 1898 is the positive preserved for centuries in the arcane negative of the Turin
Shroud, which awaited the nineteenth-century invention of photography to reveal it. People who maintain
that the image on the Shroud is a medieval fake argue that what has happened here
is the well-attested
process known in the art world as `reversal'.
In a letter to the Observer of 9, April 1978, for instance, Mr
John Parker (echoing the Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1912) claimed that "the yellow colouring that
represented the sweat of Christ has darkened to brown, through exposure to light
and heat, thus converting
the pristine `lights' to present
`shades' and producing the accidental `negative photo' effects." This solution
might be plausible enough if the image of the Shroud-Man had been painted, but I repeat that scientists
have detected no trace of any pigment on the Shroud." (McNair, P., "The
Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake
or Fact?," in Jennings,
P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering
UK, 1978, p.27)
6/11/2007
"Two of the most eminent opponents of the Shroud in the decade after the revealing
negative of 1898 were a
French Canon and an English Jesuit.
Ulisse Chevalier (1841-1923) was a distinguished clerical scholar - in
fact he was probably the most meticulous medievalist that France has ever produced. In 1899, 1900, 1902,
and again in 1903 he threw the whole weight of his immense reputation for erudition
into disproving the
authenticity of the Shroud, and at least
his E'tude critique sur l'origine du St Suaire de Lirey-Chambéry-
Turin (Paris, 1900) should be read and pondered by any serious inquirer
today before he leaps to a facile
Turin (Paris, 1900)
should be read and pondered by any serious inquirer today before he leaps to a facile
Turin (Paris, 1900) should be read and pondered by any serious inquirer today before he leaps to a facile
conclusion. At much the same time Father Herbert Thurston, S.J. (1856-1939), weighed
in at a more popular
level of scholarship and voiced the rational
disbelief of many Catholic and most Protestant historians in
Britain.
He concluded his influential essay of 1903 entitled The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History
with these confident words: `The case [against the Shroud's authenticity] is
here so strong that [ ... ] the
probability of an error in
the verdict of history must be accounted, it seems to me, as almost infinitesimal.'"
(McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face
with the
Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering
UK, 1978, p.28. Ellipses original)
6/11/2007
"The irony of those opening years of this century was that some of the top
intellectual brass of the Catholic
Establishment outside Italy
opposed the authenticity of the Shroud, while some of the most distinguished
lay agnostic scientists were openly championing it. On 21, April 1902, for instance, Yves Delage (1854-1920),
a very eminent Professor of Comparative Anatomy at the Sorbonne, who was known
for his
uncompromising stand against supernaturalism, gave
a lecture on the Shroud before the Academie
Française
in which he declared his belief in its authenticity (and jeopardised his career in so doing). In the
same year came out the careful scientific study entitled Le Linceul du Christ by Paul Vignon (1865-c1940),
also of the Sorbonne, but later Professor of Biology at the
Institut Catholique (Paris) and one of the
Shroud's most
convinced and able apologists of this century." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History:
Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon:
Great Wakering UK, 1978, p.28. Ellipses original)
6/11/2007
"Before
the fourteenth century was out, this late arrival on the scene had acquired the two most dangerous
and seemingly best informed - opponents in its entire history. Both were Bishops, and both appear to have
been men of exceptional probity in their generation. It is quite possible that
the Shroud was not exposed at
Lirey in Geoffroi's lifetime,
but it is difficult to unravel the circumstances of its public debut with any
accuracy. What seems reasonably certain is that within a year of Geoffroi's death the Bishop of Troyes,
Henri de Poitiers, was already condemning the cult of this `false' relic; and
late in the year 1389 one of his
successors in the see, Pierre
d'Arcis, drew up a comprehensive memorandum for the Avignon Antipope
Clement VII in which he claimed that the Shroud, far from being authentic, was the work of an artist who had
confessed to the fraud. Here, in Herbert Thurston's translation, is the most
damning passage from this
forthright document, with the original
Latin of some of the key sentences in parentheses: `The case, Holy
Father,
stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit,
that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice,
and not from any motive
of devotion but only of gain, procured
for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a
clever
sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he
falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was
enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained
thus impressed
together with the wounds which He bore. This
story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but,
so
to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to
attract the multitude so that money cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles
were worked, certain
men being hired to represent themselves
as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all
believed
to be the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes,
becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the
exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom
the truth of this matter. For many
theologians and other wise
persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the
Saviour's likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while,
if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists
would have omitted to record it, or that the
fact should have
remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination,
he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the
artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously
wrought or
bestowed.' [Chevalier, Étude critique,
pp. VII-XII; English translation in Thurston, `The Holy Shroud and
the
Verdict of History' in The Month, CI , January 1903, pp. 17-29] (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History:
Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the
Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon:
Great Wakering UK, 1978,
pp.29-30)
6/11/2007
"Let us suppose that the carbon 14 test, if and when it is applied to the Shroud, comes up with a fourteenth
century date. What then? Most of us, I imagine, would dismiss
the whole thing from our minds and rue the
waste of time spent
in studying it. But the niggle would probably remain in more than one conscience,
because the scientific evidence of authenticity in fields other than that of carbon dating appears to be so
strong." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?,"
in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face
with the Turin Shroud
," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.32-33)
6/11/2007
"We are left with no viable alternative: if the Shroud-Man is not the self-signature
of Christ, then it must be
the work of human ingenuity, with
either good or evil intent. And yet, strangely enough, the more we
examine
this third hypothesis - which at first sight seems so much more rational than the direct intervention
of God or Devil - the more it proves the most difficult of them all to swallow.
Let us spare a thought at this
point for the anonymous artist
of genius: who was he? What craftsman during the reign of the first two
Valois Kings had the requisite skills to create so exact a representation of the naked human body? Girard
d'Orleans? Jean Coste? Jean Petit called Jean de Troyes? What we know of their
work would hardly suggest
that any of these leading painters
at the court of King John II conceived and executed the portrait of Jesus
on the Turin Shroud." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings,
P., ed.,
"Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon:
Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.33-34)
6/11/2007
"In the past, learned historians both clerical and lay have been satisfied
that this portrait was subtili modo depicta and have championed the fake hypothesis. But what is so special about this relic that, six centuries
depicta and have championed the fake hypothesis. But what is so special about this
relic that, six centuries
depicta and have championed the fake
hypothesis. But what is so special about this relic that, six centuries
after Bishop Henri de Poitiers unmasked it for a fraud, both Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Muslims,
rationalists, nothingarians, scientists and even Oxbridge dons are busy discussing
it this year, and most of
them (as far as I can tell) are admitting
that there is more in it than meets the eye? If I had to answer in one
word, I should choose the Italian polysyllable which is in the mouth of so many sindonologists today: i n f a l s i f i c
a b i l e. The more we investigate this fabulous sheet and the ghostly image it bears, the more we
a l s i f i c a b i l e. The more we investigate this fabulous sheet and the ghostly
image it bears, the more we
a l s i f i c a b i l e. The more
we investigate this fabulous sheet and the ghostly image it bears, the more we
doubt whether any fourteenth-century artist could possibly have faked it. The Shroud-Man appears to be
intrinsically unfakeable." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy,
Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed.,
"Face to Face
with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, p.34)
6/11/2007
"Let us enumerate some of the difficulties
which beset the fake hypothesis. First, as we have seen, the
admixture
of cotton with the linen of the Shroud seems to preclude a European provenance for its fabric, and
Dr Max Frei has found that some of the pollen clinging to it came from Asia Minor and the Middle East. But
this in itself is not an insuperable difficulty, because a dedicated deceiver might
have used a length of cloth
brought back by some crusader,
or could conceivably have sought the material for his hoax in Palestine
himself - although such a quest would appear to be a trifle over-sophisticated for his day and age. Secondly,
and much more problematically, how on earth did the fourteenth-century faker project
the image of the
Shroud-Man on to the cloth? Monsieur le Truqueur
painted it on, stated Bishop Pierre d'Arcis in his
memorandum
of 1389, and that sounds commonsensical enough until we remember that there are no
brushstrokes visible on the Shroud, and no vestige of paint or any other known pigment. Another
suggestion (by Dr Joseph Blinzler) is that the hoaxer made a life-size statue of
a man and pressed it between
the upper and nether halves of
the folded linen sheet. But this proposed solution bristles with every sort of
difficulty. In the first place, is there any record or tradition of sculpture to this degree of stark anatomical
realism in mid-fourteenth-century France? (The first Lirey
expositions of the Shroud occurred one
generation before the
birth of Brunelleschi and Donatello in Florence.)" (McNair, P., "The Shroud and
History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-
McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, p.34)
6/11/2007
"In the second place, the mere act of
pressing alone, without pigment applied to the statue, would not have
left any image on the cloth; and, in the third place, even if it had, it would have produced an image not
perfect in proportion but distorted by physical contact, as anyone can confirm
by the simple experiment of
blacking his face with burnt cork
and then pressing his handkerchief all over it. The basic fact remains: we
just do not know by what natural means such an image could have been impressed upon the Shroud."
(McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings,
P., ed., "Face to Face with the
Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon:
Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.34-35)
6/11/2007
"Thirdly, we have to account for the mysterious business of the photographic-type
negative. We have
already seen that it cannot be explained
by `reversal' because there is no paint on the Shroud. Yet there must
be some natural explanation if the relic is a man-made fake. It would be an unusually clairvoyant and
altruistic scoundrel who would perpetrate a hoax so subtle that none of his own
generation, nor his children,
nor children's children down
to the tenth generation could appreciate it with their naked eyes, but which
depended for its full impact and effect on the invention of photography five hundred years later." (McNair,
P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?,"
in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin
Shroud
," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, p.35)
6/11/2007
"But perhaps the most staggering clue to the genius of this hypothetical artist
is that he has depicted Jesus
with the nail-wound in his wrist.
In France, Italy, Spain and elsewhere I have studied hundreds of paintings,
sculptures and carvings of Christ's crucifixion and deposition from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries,
and not one of them shows the nail-wound anywhere but in the
palm of his hand. It is not until we come to
Van Dyck in the
seventeenth century that we find the first representation of Christ with the nail-wound
through the wrist. His painting hangs in the Palazzo Reale in Genoa, a city in which he lived for some time,
and it is possible that he may have been influenced in this detail by seeing the
Shroud in passing through
Turin. Why did our fourteenth-century
faker, against all the cultural conditioning of his times, place the nail-
wound not in the palm but in the wrist? Anatomy and archaeology have since proved that he was perfectly
correct. Dr Pierre Barbet, chief surgeon at the Paris hospital of St Joseph in
the 1930s, conducted some
revealing if macabre experiments
with corpses and amputated limbs at that time. He established the fact that
the weight of a human body would cause the nail to tear the flesh right up between the fingers if driven
through the palm, because no bone would bar its way; whereas wrist-nailing ensured
that the body stayed
pinned to the patibulum of the
cross when it was hoisted on to the stipes, which was already impaled
in the ground at the place of execution. It is surely no dishonour to medieval artists that they did not know
this gruesome detail, for only in recent times have archaeologists, historians
and medical men begun to re-
discover the horrific techniques
employed in crucifixion - once all too well known in the Roman Empire; but
mercifully forgotten after Constantine abolished this form of capital punishment in 315 AD. Knowledge of
the precise physical pains which Christ suffered had been lost long before any
medieval artist began to
depict them. The Gospels say his hands
were nailed, so painters and sculptors naturally represented the
wound
in the palm. How then did the fourteenth-century faker, who lived a thousand years after the
abolition of crucifixion, know this telling and authentic detail of wrist-nailing? For authentic it was proved to
be just over ten years ago, when the first known remains of
a victim of crucifixion came to light in the
outskirts of Jerusalem
- a man in his mid-twenties called Jehohanan. His heelbones were transfixed by a
single nail and he had suffered the usual crurifragium. Although the nails were missing from his wrists,
they had left on the radial bone their telltale marks of scratching
and levigation." (McNair, P., "The Shroud
and History:
Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-
McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.35-36)
6/11/2007
"And now for the most amazing detail
of them all, which makes the fake hypothesis virtually incredible: if a
nail pierces the wrist between radius and ulna, it touches the median nerve, which automatically causes the
thumb to flex across the palm, so that it is invisible to anyone looking at the
back of the hand. On the Turin
Shroud we see the back of both
the hands of Jesus Christ, but there is no sign of either thumb." (McNair, P.,
"The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin
Shroud
," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, p.36)
6/11/2007
"Authenticity
is stamped all over this enigmatic relic, which just goes on springing surprise after surprise at
its mysterious perfection from year to year. The impressive matching of the scourge-marks with the pattern
of two soldiers administering the flogging, one either side, one taller than the
other: the angle of the
bloodflows on the forearm, mathematically
exact for crucifixion: the dimensions of the side-wound, and its
emission
of both blood and water: the stupendous witness of the wounds (in total verisimilitude) caused by
the spiky cap: all these features of the Shroud-Man and many more compel us to admit the harmonious
integrity of this unfakeable image. But it is above all the face which rivets our
responsive gaze - `an
appearance so marred beyond human semblance,
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief' (Isaiah 52.14,
53.3)
- yet a face of tranquil dignity, of royal authority, of divine beauty - a countenance in a million million:
unique. If the Shroud-Man looked like this in death, how did he appear in life?
Toi, qui-es-tu? - asked Paul
Claudel, brought face
to face with the Turin Shroud and its haunting image. The answer is unavoidable: it is
Jesus Christ our Lord. In the astonished words of the centurion who saw him die: `Truly this man was the
Son of God!' (Mark 15.39.)" (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History:
Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P.,
ed., "Face
to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.36-37)
6/11/2007
"If then this relic is the authentic
Shroud of Christ and bears his imperishable imprint, where was it between
about 30 AD and 1353? The short and truthful answer is that we simply do not know. It was evidently not
displayed publicly in its present form, for if it had been there would surely exist
some record of its display. It
is not impossible that it remained
hidden for a millennium in some remote monastic fastness, like Codex
Sinaiticus before it was discovered by Tischendorf: but this we cannot tell. Of course there have been many
clever reconstructions of its missing history, the most recent and ingenious being
the suggestion made by
Mr Ian Wilson that the Turin Shroud
and the Edessa Mandylion are one and the same thing.' `Mandylion' is
a Greek word which means head-shawl or kerchief, and was applied to a piece of ancient cloth which was
venerated in Asia Minor (first at Edessa and later at Constantinople) until it
vanished without trace in 1204
AD. It was said to bear the
image of the bearded face of Christ, a likeness acheiropoietos, or `not made by
hand'. Mr Wilson argues that the Mandylion was the Shroud of Christ so folded up and protected by
ornamental trellis that only the image of the face was displayed. His hypothesis,
presented with a wealth of
circumstantial evidence, is as attractive
as it is unconvincing; for, although it would have explained so
much,
it is fraught with difficulties which many critical readers will find insuperable. One is purely practical,
and might occur to any housewife. If a linen sheet is folded and protected so that
only a small part of it is
exposed to the air, after several
centuries that part is likely to have suffered discoloration. If the Shroud
spent more than half its life as the Mandylion, there should be a circular area around the face of Christ which
is more yellowed than the rest of the cloth: but this is not the case." (McNair,
P., "The Shroud and History:
Fantasy, Fake or Fact?,"
in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon:
Great Wakering UK, 1978, pp.36-37)
6/11/2007
"If the Shroud is authentic, do we need its history before 1353 to prove it?
As historians we are programmed
to answer Yes: any artefact
which turns up in one century purporting to come from another is rightly an
object of suspicion until proved genuine, whether it is Drake's plaque, the Vinland map, or Piltdown Man.
But as logicians we are bound to answer No: authenticity is authenticity, and a
priori we can argue that if
an article is genuine it is
genuine, whether we have history to prove it or not. If I find a Rembrandt in my
attic its authenticity is not altered by the fact that I cannot account for its provenance. A pot, a coin, or a
statue can lie buried for two millennia and retain their integrity: they are what
they are. When I was in St
Andrews last January, the Professor
of Ecclesiastical History took me round St Mary's College, and showed
me a black leather chalice-holder embossed with the insignia of the Virgin Mary and inscribed with Latin
tags. He told me that it was found last year in a college cupboard, where it had
gathered dust unnoticed
since before the Reformation. Improbable,
but true." (McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or
Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering
UK, 1978, pp.38-39)
6/11/2007
"The Shroud is such a remarkable thing
that, in the last analysis, there can be only two honest opinions
about
it. The first (which occurs most readily to the Protestant and rationalist in me) is that it is a piece of
fourteenth-century representational art, and therefore probably a fake - an unusual
fake, admittedly, well-
intentioned possibly, ingenious certainly,
but not the shroud in which the body of Jesus Christ was
wrapped;
or, if indeed the length of linen was that shroud, then the image on it has been added later by
human hand as a pious fraud, by some process which even modern scientists do not understand. And of
course if the image is not authentic, then the veneration of it comes perilously
close ta breaking the First and
Second Commandments."
(McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P.,
ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, p.39. Emphasis
original)
6/11/2007
"The alternative opinion is almost too shattering to the equanimity of most
of us to entertain for more than a
moment or two. It is that
in the Turin Shroud we have not only the linen cloth in which the body of the Lord
Jesus was wrapped, but also a representation of that body portrayed by other than human hands, by some
supernatural process which confounds all explanation. Either way the thing is a
marvel - of illusion if it is a
fake, or of reality if it is
not. But it is my conviction that in this most mysterious thing - embarrassing in its
uniqueness, exciting in its challenge - we face the same reality that confronts us in the Incarnation and
Resurrection of Christ. In both those central miracles of world history was manifested
the splendour of God:
could it be that the radiant incandescence
of that almighty act of love and power when the Son of God `was
raised
by the glory of the Father' has scorched his image and likeness on the Shroud, a sign for our scientific
century which demands scientific proof?" (McNair, P., "The Shroud and
History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in
Jennings, P., ed.,
"Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978,
p.39)
6/11/2007
"As a Christian I must declare my belief that the truth of Christianity does not require such signs as the
Turin Shroud, for its proof is the living witness of the Spirit of God in all who
receive Jesus Christ as
Saviour, Lord and God; but perhaps
from time to time we fallible human beings need such demonstrations of
a reality which transcends our powers of explanation to jolt us out of the complacency of our agnosticism
and confirm our faltering faith. Lord, I believe: help thou mine unbelief!"
(McNair, P., "The Shroud and
History: Fantasy, Fake or
Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-
McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, p.40)
8/11/2007
"There is no longer any question but that the artist's rendition preserved
in the Hungarian Pray Codex [1192-
95 AD] represents the cloth
we now recognize as the Shroud of Turin. Moreover, by that rendition we know
that this is the earliest firmly documented demonstrable viewpoint that the cloth we know as the Shroud of
Turin was the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. In color photographs of the
Codex even one set of the
angular flows of blood down one of
the arms is clearly visible-an observation I believe was first made by the
Belgian scholar, Jef Leysen (personal communication, Spring, 1998). And here is shown-as already noted-a
comparatively accurate portrayal of two different sets of holes that represent
the pre-1516 burns at the two
ends of the Shroud. Therefore,
the pre-1516 burn marks are more accurately termed pre-1192 burn marks. But,
most importantly, their existence some 65 years prior to the first bracket of the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date
creates a problem for the 95 percent confidence level claimed by the three labs
because one must
conservatively add at least 100 years onto
the above date to allow for the development of a tradition that the
cloth portrayed by the artist was in fact the burial cloth of Christ. On the other hand it would be
commensurate with a 68 percent level of confidence which expands the window to
a 500 year opening that
would encompass that date. Still, the
labs have insisted that the 95 percent confidence level is the level
achieved by their tests." (Maloney, P.C., "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief
Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D.
& Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin:
Unraveling
the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC,
2002, pp.33-34)
9/11/2007
"Another reason why this relic, of all in the world, has been subjected to
such unusual debate is, I suspect,
because of the awe on the
one hand and the fear an the other which it induces. Those who believe in it, like
those who believe in God and Christ, are filled with awe at the prospect of the possible truth. Those who
profess not to believe in it, who set out to prove its falsity, like those who
are atheists and set out to prove
the non-existence of God,
are filled with an innate tear at the prospect of the possible truth. It is this which
has led to the frenetic challenges to its authenticity: that fear by the unbeliever that perhaps the believer is
right after all. All cynics and sceptics show that sense of
insecurity, no matter what they argue about. When
they go against
the established tide of human opinion and development, particularly of innate concepts,
they display fear. Thus the argument about the Shroud fails into a similar category of insecurity by the
doubters and a calm serenity of security and persistent searching by the believers."
(Morgan, R., "Shroud
Guide," Runciman Press: Manly
NSW, Australia, 1983, p.30)
9/11/2007
"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear
there are only two choices: Either
the shroud is authentic
(naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of
human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both
Wilson [Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin," 1979, pp.51-53.] and Stevenson
and Habermas [Stevenson, K.E.
& Habermas, G.R., "Verdict
on the Shroud," 1981, pp.121-129] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the
man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud
was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was
nailed to the cross, had his
side pierced, and so on. Stevenson
and Habermas [Ibid., p.128] even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million
that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate). I agree
with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'
[Schafersman, S.D., "Science,
the public, and the Shroud
of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp.37-56, p.42]"
(Nickell, J., "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, 1987,
Reprinted, 2000, p.141. Emphasis original)
9/11/2007
"Can the Man of the Shroud be identified?
(Balance of Probabilities) A number of scholars of critical
disposition,
intent on solving this mystery, have wondered whether the image imprinted on the Shroud
might be that of Jesus Christ. Obviously this enquiry too, for it to be of scientific value, must be based
exclusively on objective considerations. Here then is a study on the balance of
probabilities, made by
Professor Bruno Barberis of the University
of Turin, reviving and completing studies by Yves Delage, Paul
De
Gail and Tino Zeuli. The method of research, while of absolute scientific rigour, is based on extremely
simple considerations. The thesis is this: `If you throw a coin up in the air,
the odds are two to one (1/2) it
will land on the side you
have chosen; if you throw a die up in the air, the odds against your getting the face
of the die with your selected number on it are six to one (1/6). If you throw coin and die up at the same time,
since the two events are independent of each other, the odds of your getting the
preselected side of coin
and face of die at the same time will
be twelve to one (1/2 x 1/6 = 1/12). Now let us examine the seven most
significant characteristics common to Jesus of Nazareth (according to the Gospel narrative) and the Man of
the Shroud, and see what the odds are against all these characteristics being found
at the same time in the
same man who had undergone the torment
of crucifixion. 1. Both Jesus and the Man of the Shroud were
wrapped
in winding-sheets after death by crucifixion. Note that not many crucified men can have had a
regular burial. (It was the most ignominious of punishments, reserved for slaves, brigands and murderers,
and extended after death with contempt for the corpse): one chance in a hundred
(1/100). 2. Both Jesus and
the Man of the Shroud had a cap
of thorns put on his head. No historical document mentions any such
usage. Let us limit this very remote probability to one in five thousand (1/5000). 3. The patibulum weighed
heavily on the shoulders of the Man of the Shroud as also on
Jesus's. Only occasionally was the
condemned man made to
carry the horizontal beam of the cross to the place of execution: odds of two to one
(1/2). 4. Same odds (1/2) on the way the hands and feet were fixed to the wood of the cross. They could be
fastened with nails but a simpler and quicker method was to tie them on with ropes.
5. The Shroud displays a
wound on the right side of the Man
who was wrapped in it. John's Gospel (19:33-34) tells how in Jesus's
case `instead of their breaking his legs, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance, and immediately out
came blood and water.' Odds perhaps of ten to one (1/10).
6. The Man of the Shroud had been wrapped in
the sheet as soon
as he was lowered from the cross; no washing or anointing of the corpse took place. It
was the same with Jesus, since the Jewish Passover was about to begin, during which no manual labour
could be performed: odds of twenty to one (1/20). 7. The Shroud bears the imprint
of a man's corpse, but no
traces of putrefaction. Hence
it wrapped a human body for a brief period though long enough for an imprint
to be formed on it. And did not the corpse of Jesus rest in the tomb for little more than thirty hours, from
Friday evening until dawn on Sunday? This is an extraordinary case of agreement
which we may rate at
odds of five hundred to one (1/500). .
From this analysis, Barberis then obtained the aggregate probability; this is given by the aggregate total of the individual probabilities
considered, viz: 1/100 x 1/500
probability; this is
given by the aggregate total of the individual probabilities considered, viz: 1/100 x 1/500
probability; this is given by the aggregate total of the individual probabilities considered, viz: 1/100 x 1/500
x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/10 x 1/20 x 11500 = 1/200,000,000,000 In line
with the scholars preceding him, he was able to
deduce that
out of a hypothetical 200 billion victims of crucifixion ONE ALONE could have possessed the
same identical characteristics common to Jesus and the Man of the Shroud' and the Gospel tells us what his
name is: JESUS CHRIST, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and
was buried and who
on the third day rose again from the dead."
(Moretto, G., "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ,
1999, p.58. Emphasis original)
9/11/2007
"However, well over half a century before this particular observation by Dubarle
and his correspondent,
another Frenchman had been fired by
the self-same idea that something along these lines was the way to
establish
that the shroud really was around during the early centuries. This was Paul Vignon, who as early
as 1900 had been shown the shroud photograph by Paris anatomy professor, Yves Delage. Although a
biologist by training, Vignon became launched into decades of enthusiastic research
into every aspect of
the shroud. Late in his life, however,
the topic that particularly absorbed him was the incidence in early
Byzantine portraits of the Christ Enthroned/Christ Pantocrator type of curious facial markings seeming to
derive from equivalent features on the shroud. To present his findings, Vignon
compiled a beautifully
produced book, Le Saint Suaire de Turin devant la Science, l'Archeologie, l'Histoire, l'Iconographie, la Logique (The Holy Shroud of Turin in the light of Science, Archaeology, History,
Iconography and Logic).
Logique (The Holy Shroud of
Turin in the light of Science, Archaeology, History, Iconography and Logic).
Logique (The Holy Shroud of Turin in the light of Science, Archaeology, History, Iconography and Logic).
[Masson: Paris, 1939] But the potential impact of this was tragically blunted by
the outbreak of the Second
World War within a few weeks of
its publication. (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for
Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.161-162)
12/11/2007
"The Shroud image suggests quite strongly
the presence of many skeletal details e.g. carpal and metacarpal
bones,
some 22 teeth, eye sockets, left femur, left and possibly right thumbs flexed under the palms of the
hands, as well as soft tissue and soft tissue injuries; all presumably originating from some form of radiation
emitted from the body enshrouded. [Whanger, A. & Whanger, M., "Polarized
Image Overlay," Applied Optics, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1985, pp.766-772] No scientific human model has been satisfactorily utilized to offer
Optics, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1985, pp.766-772] No scientific human model has been satisfactorily
utilized to offer
Optics, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1985, pp.766-772]
No scientific human model has been satisfactorily utilized to offer
elucidation of the origin of this quality an image. Many have postulated image formation theories ... Later
researchers such as Giles Carter and Thaddeus Trenn have studied radiation biology
in a theoretical
framework and have achieved promising results
in terms of image superficiality and clarity. [Carter, G.R.,
"Formation
of Images on the Shroud by X- rays: A New Hypothesis," in "Archaeological Chemistry," ACS
Advances in Chemistry No. 205, 1984, pp.425- 446] The human radiation model seems
to offer the greatest
application to the Shroud image thus
far." (Accetta, A.D., Lyons, K. & Jackson, J., "Nuclear Medicine and
its Relevance to the Shroud Of Turin," in Walsh, B.J., ed., "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin
International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press:
Glen Allen VA, 2000, p.3)
12/11/2007
"The human radiation model we used generated a number of characteristics which
parallel the image on the
Turin Shroud. It must be noted that
these researchers in no way are claiming that they reproduced any of
the exact characteristics of the Shroud image. Rather, those characteristics which are similar can potentially
help to explain better those seen on the Shroud as well as point to the probable
general origin of its image. ...
First, we demonstrated that
a human model can be used to generate images resulting from emitted radiation,
that resemble the image on the Shroud. ... Second, we demonstrated that this radiation when captured by a
vertical collimator can yield the verticality parallel seen on the Turin image.
Third, we demonstrated that the
nature of the emitted radiation
is such that it produces an image void of a sharp outline such as that on the
Turin Shroud. ..." (Accetta, A.D., Lyons, K. & Jackson, J., "Nuclear Medicine and its Relevance to
the
Shroud Of Turin," in Walsh, B.J., ed., "Proceedings
of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research
Conference,
Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, 2000, p.4)
12/11/2007
"The radiocarbon dating performed on
the Shroud of Turin in 1988 by laboratories located in Oxford,
Tucson
and Zurich concluded with a 95% probability that the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin dated from
between 1260 - 1390 AD. A reanalysis of the data used to derive this range of dates suggests that the
statistical tests performed earlier assumed C-14 homogeneity in the samples and
as a result may have lead to
a misleading range of dates. A
different series of statistical evaluations has been applied to this radiocarbon
date data leading to the conclusion that the Shroud subsamples each contained differing levels of C-14. An
evaluation of this conclusion was conducted and found to be statistically supportable.
Further analysis
revealed that the sample dates observed were
directly related to the physical location of the sample on the
Shroud
linen. This necessarily implies that the linen samples were non-homogeneous as regards C-14 and the
radiocarbon date derived for the Shroud samples are of questionable validity. The hypothesis of a
relationship between the sample location on the Shroud cloth and the date measured
was evaluated and
found to be statistically significant."
(Walsh, B.J., "The 1988 Shroud of Turin Radiocarbon Tests
Reconsidered,"
in Walsh, B.J., ed., "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research
Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, 2000, p.326)
12/11/2007
"The results of the radiocarbon dating
of the Shroud of Turin [Damon, P E., et al., "Radiocarbon dating of
the Shroud of Turin", Nature, 337, pp.611-615, 16 February 1989] caused many who believed that the
cloth
which was tested could no longer be considered the authentic
burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. Further, a
number of researchers
who had devoted a substantial portion of their research time on issues related to the
Shroud saw their funding evaporate or lost further interest. For a number of years, interest in the Shroud
waned, only to revive in the late 1990's in anticipation of two public viewings
of the Shroud, one in 1998 and
the other in 2000. Further,
there have been several proposals in recent years that have offered the possibility
that the radiocarbon dating may have been distorted by physical or biological agents. In 1997 one
researcher [Van Haelst, R., "Radiocarbon Dating the Shroud - A Critical Statistical
Analysis," 1999.
http://www.shroud.com/vanhels3.htm] critically
analyzed the statistical evaluation performed in the original
dating
and found the assumptions made and statistical conclusions drawn to be of questionable certainty.
As noted in the original research, "the spread of measurements for sample 1 (Shroud of Turin sample)
is
somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors
quoted". Applying a X-Squared test to their data, the
authors
noted, `that it is unlikely that the errors quoted by the laboratories for sample 1... fully reflect the
overall scatter'".(Walsh, B.J., "The 1988 Shroud of Turin Radiocarbon
Tests Reconsidered," in Walsh, B.J.,
ed., "Proceedings
of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia,"
Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, 2000, p.326. Emphasis original)
12/11/2007
"This paper has been written to reevaluate
the data collected in 1988 and offer alternative and statistically
significant
explanations for the 1988 measurements. ... Conclusion The statistical analysis techniques
employed in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin appear to have underestimated the potential
for a non-homogeneous distribution of radiocarbon in the Shroud linen. The statistical
approach employed
at that time relied upon weighed means to
evaluate measurements. Such a use may be warranted when the
scatter
of the overall data indicates there is no substantial difference in sub-sample statistical measurements
when compared to the statistics derived from the overall population. However, the
statistical characteristics
of the data from each radiocarbon
lab appear to indicate that, in the case of the Oxford lab measurements, its
observations were drawn from a statistically different population. Further, by using weighed means to
evaluate the Shroud sample measurements, the labs inadvertently masked an underlying
difference in the
data which appears to be significant in explaining
the different radiocarbon date measurements observed.
Using
a series of statistical evaluation techniques, it has been demonstrated that there were statistically
significant differences between the data reported by the labs involved in the 1988
testing in both the mean
values computed and the error terms
reported. A re-analysis of the data indicates that it is possible that the
location of the sample was directly related to the radiocarbon measurement observed. This finding is
supportive of the hypothesis that the exposure of the Shroud of Turin to a thermal
event in 1532 enhanced
the number of C-14 atoms in the linen,
possibly by thermally-induced isotopic fractionation, or by other
processes
which have yet to be identified. It may be that the three labs that performed the radiocarbon
measurements in 1988 actually measured the effects of this enhancement phenomenon." (Walsh, B.J., "The
1988 Shroud of Turin Radiocarbon Tests Reconsidered,"
in Walsh, B.J., ed., "Proceedings of the 1999
Shroud of
Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA,
2000, pp.326, 340. Emphasis original)
12/11/2007
"THEY CALL IT the Shroud of Turin. You may never have heard of it; few had,
until recent years, outside of
Italy. Yet this treasured strip
of linen cloth-an object of veneration by millions-is one of the most perplexing
enigmas of modern times. It is, in fact, the focus of an intensive scientific investigation that reads like a
mystery story. The curious blend of history and legend behind that story glitters
with kings and dukes,
crusaders and popes, and perhaps a consummately
clever charlatan. The modern detectives probing the
mystery
include art historians, pathologists, linguists, biblical scholars, textile experts, chemists, physicists,
and photographic specialists. Among the clues to the riddle are such bizarre items
as a Roman whip,
wizened specks of pollen, bones from a Jerusalem
cemetery, and photographs enhanced by space-age
instruments
designed to study the moon and Mars. But the clue that transcends all others is the remarkable
image on the shroud itself-a ghostly image, life-size, of an unclothed, bearded man with long hair. The face,
hauntingly serene in death, would grace a masterpiece of art. The body, anatomically
correct, bears the
frightful marks of scourging, crucifixion,
and piercing-perhaps by thorns and lance. It would appear to be a
portrait,
uncannily accurate when matched against the Gospel accounts, of Jesus of Nazareth. And, indeed,
some believe that this stretch of ivory-colored linen is the very cloth that Joseph of Arimathaea placed
under and over the body of Jesus in the rock-cut tomb near Golgotha nearly 2,000
years ago." (Weaver,
K.F., "Science Seeks to Solve...The
Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June 1980,
pp.730-753, pp.730,734. Emphasis original)
12/11/2007
"It would not be the shroud's first brush with science. That happened
eighty years before, in 1898, with the
first photographs of
the relic. Those pictures uncovered the most surprising of the shroud's many mysteries.
When the photographer, Secondo Pia, examined his first glass-plate negative as it emerged from the
developing bath, he almost dropped it in shocked excitement. He was looking not
at the usually unrealistic,
confusing photographic negative,
but at a clear positive image. Highlights and shadows were reversed
from those on the cloth and were far more lifelike and realistic. Moreover, they showed details never before
seen in the shroud, which was now revealed as a negative image. A negative
image? Hundreds of years
before the invention of photography?
The idea that the shroud was a hoax suddenly seemed less plausible,
for how could a medieval artist have produced a negative image, and why would he choose to do so?"
(Weaver, K.F., "Science Seeks to Solve...The Mystery of the Shroud,"
National Geographic, Vol. 157,
June 1980, pp.730-753,
743. Emphasis original)
12/11/2007
"PRIOR TO RELEASING OUR FINDINGS ON the Pantocrator icon and the Justinian
II solidus, we had read
about the work of Father Filas on the
identification of coins over the eyes of the Man of the Shroud. The
possibility of the presence of coins over the eyes was first raised when three scientists, John P Jackson, Eric
J. Jumper, and R. W (Bill) Mottern, the instigators of the 1978 Shroud of Turin
Research Project, put a
photograph of the Shroud face in a
VP-8 Image Analyzer (a specialized computer device which converts the
density of an image into height) and saw, to their astonishment, an accurate three-dimensional
representation rather than the irregular and distorted image resulting from all
ordinary photographs and
paintings. Two button-like objects,
one over each eye, were visible; it was suggested they might be coins
which had been used to keep the eyes of the dead closed, a practice common to many peoples for many
centuries [Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J. Mottern, B. & Stevenson, K.E., ed.,
"The Three Dimensional Image On
Jesus' Burial Cloth,"
in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research
on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.90-91]. British historian Ian Wilson
mentioned several coins from the time of Pontius Pilate which would correspond
to the size of the `buttons,'
about fifteen millimeters
or five-eighths of an inch in diameter. In 1979, more out of curiosity than anything
else, Filas re-photographed an enlargement of a photograph which had been made from a second-generation
1931 Enrie print of the face. To his surprise, he noticed something he had not
seen before-a sort of design
directly over the right eye. He
took this photograph to Michael Marx, a numismatist (coin expert) who had
earlier volunteered his professional expertise. Marx became excited as he scanned the photograph with a
magnifier, for he could identify four curving capital letters, UCAI. There also
was something that looked like
a shepherd's crook. Filas
next obtained a copy of Madden's History of Jewish Coinage,
and of Money in the Old and New Testament and a catalog of all
Pontius Pilate coins in the British Museum. He found only
the
Old and New Testament and a catalog of all Pontius Pilate coins in the British Museum. He found only
the Old and New Testament and a catalog of all Pontius Pilate coins in the British Museum. He found only
one coin which had as its main motif a `shepherd's crook,' actually an
astrologer's staff or lituus: this was a
lepton (small
coin) or `widow's mite' of Pontius Pilate, and it was the correct size. Then, also in 1979,
numismatist Bill Yarbrough obtained several Pontius Pilate lepta and gave one to each of several Shroud
researchers, including Filas, as a souvenir. Filas became convinced that there
are indeed images of coins
over the eyes. He identified the
one over the right eye definitely as a lituus lepton of Pontius Pilate; and on
very minimal evidence (three very short curving lines that seemed to spread away from each other from a
common source) suggested that the one over the left eye was likely also a Pontius
Pilate lepton but of a
different design, that of a sheaf of
barley, which is found on a Pontius Pilate lepton known as the Joulia
(Julia) lepton, which was struck only during a six-month period in A.D. 29 in honor of Julia the mother of
Tiberius Caesar. " (Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., "The Shroud of Turin:
An Adventure of Discovery,"
Providence House Publishers:
Franklin TN, 1998, pp.23-24. Emphasis original)
12/11/2007
"Detailed identification is not possible without further investigation, but
we propose that they may be some
kind of coins since: (1) they
are both nearly circular and approximately the same size, and (2) scriptural
accounts indicate that Joseph of Arimathaea, a wealthy man, was responsible for burying Jesus. He
obviously had money on his person at the time of Jesus' burial for he was able
to purchase a linen burial
cloth. Thus, if Joseph followed
Jewish burial custom to cover the eyes, then it is not unreasonable that the
most natural and convenient thing for him to use would have been coins rather than pottery fragments. If
our conjecture is true that these images are of coins, then we may have a truly
unique method of dating the
image. Computer enhancement of
high quality closeup photographs of the eye region followed by a
statistical
correlation with known coinage of a given era and locality may be able to: (1) identify the objects
as coins and (2) date and locate the probable time and place the image and not just the cloth was formed.
Indeed, we have some computer enhancements which, though lacking sufficient resolution
for positive
identification, indicate a possible structure
on the surface of the objects. In addition, Ian Wilson has
suggested
several Judean Bronze Lepton coins which are about the correct size as the buttonlike images. In
particular, a Lepton of Pontius Pilate coined in A.D. 30-31 seems to agree especially well. On the other hand,
a silver Denarius of Tiberius, coined in A.D. 14-37 was entirely too large. According
to Wilson, a Lepton
would probably be a likely candidate for
Joseph of Arimathaea, an orthodox Jew, to use since it was
acceptable
as a Temple offering. It should be noted in passing that the fact that objects are found on the
eyes indicates that the head of Jesus must have been in a nearly horizontal position, for otherwise they
would have fallen off the eyelids. It is interesting to note further that these
objects might have been
mistaken for open eyes at one time;
for example, Ian Wilson points out that the image on the Mandylion
cloth
(possibly the Shroud) was thought to be a face with the eyes open. If the identification of these
images as solid objects over the eyes is correct, then another significant aspect of the image forming
process comes to light: whatever process formed the image had to have acted the
same way not only over
the body and hair, but also over presumably
organically inert fragments situated atop the eyes. This
conclusion,
we believe, is of significance, for it places great restrictions on the possible image formation
processes. In short, three dimensionality implies that the image forming process, acted uniformly through
space over the body, front and back, and even seemed to act independently of the
type of surface, organic
and inorganic, from which the image
was generated. In addition, this identification of the `objects' seems to
strengthen the authenticity of the Shroud. For what artist or forger in the Fourteenth Century would have
thought to place objects on the eyes of Jesus?" (Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J.
Mottern, B. & Stevenson, K.E.,
ed., "The Three Dimensional
Image On Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the
1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977,
pp.90-91)
14/11/2007
"Most remarkable of all was the fact that Yves Delage took an active part
in the investigation. He was an
agnostic with a strong prejudice
against anything that savored of the miraculous or the supernatural, but he
was also a first-rate scientist of international reputation and a member of the French Academy of Sciences.
.... After a year and a half the investigation came to an end with a resounding
climax. These hard-headed
scientists were convinced of the
authenticity of the Shroud. ... They decided to bring their findings before
the Academy ... What was still more startling, it was Yves Delage who proposed to put the case before his
fellow Academicians. ... It was April 21, 1902 ... The Shroud is not a painting
at all, said Delage, either of the
fourteenth or of any other
century. No matter what the documents in question may say, that hypothesis is
absurd. Here is the proof before our eyes-the Shroud itself reproduced with perfect fidelity in these two
photographs. They show that the two figures are negatives. The idea of a negative
was unknown before the
era of photography, and se no artist
before that time could even have thought of painting a picture like that
on the Shroud. Not only that, but these two figures, though outlined by a rather faint stain on the cloth, are
as exact as a negative formed by light on a photographic plate. That is why the
positive version reveals
such a clear and natural portrait,
anatomically correct, with true perspective, and with an aesthetic character
that one would never have expected. ... In the hypothesis that this is a painting, continued Delage, you must
imagine an artist who conceived the idea of a negative centuries before the invention
of photography. Then
you must imagine that this incredible
genius knew how to place the lights and shades so that the
photographic
inversion of his hand- designed negative reveals this unrivaled portrait with its haunting,
complex expression. The artist himself could not have seen this positive image while he did his work, since
he would be doing everything in reverse. And he would have to do everything with
perfect precision ...
There would, of course, be no conceivable
reason why the hypothetical artist should want to do a negative.
Presumably,
he would be painting for his contemporaries, not for the Academy of Sciences or for the parties
of the present dispute; nor could he foresee the invention of photography, the only means that could
reverse his negative into a positive. He would be taking infinite pains to conceal
forever a masterful portrait
in an apparently crude sketch.
He would also have used materials and applied a technique unknown before
the photograph of the Shroud inspired some clumsy imitations. There is not the slightest trace of any
pigments here, nor the least sign of any preparation of the cloth to receive the
twofold image. There is
nothing but the delicate stain completely
absorbed by the fabric, and it is of this stain that that perfect
negative
is formed. Yes, the painting hypothesis is absurd, no matter what any written documents may say
to the contrary. In this conclusion the members of the Academy agreed with Delage. After examining the
two glass plates provided by Secondo Pia, they admitted that the images on the
Shroud could not be the
work of any artist." (Wuenschel,
E.A., "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," [1954], Holy
Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, pp.17-20)
20/11/2007
"The Shroud is in the form of a cloth
strip, yellowish-white in colour, 4.37 metres long, 1.11 metres wide
and 1.450 Kg in weight. It shows, close to each other at the head, the front and rear imprint of the body
of a man. From the archaeological standpoint, the Shroud is a burial-sheet, wrapped
round a corpse on
the table in the tomb where the body was
laid. To forensic medical examination, the image of the body
seems
to be stiffened by rigor mortis, and reveals a whole series of wounds and injuries corresponding
to those recounted in the Gospels as being inflicted on Jesus. Signs of flagellation over the whole
body, small wounds in the scalp caused by a helmet of thorns, two torn areas in
the left scapula zone
and the right super-scapular zone, holes
in the wrists and at the feet, which could be caused by the
penetration
of nails, and a wide injury caused by a steel weapon in the lower right rib region."
(Cassanelli, A., "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK, 2002, p.15)
20/11/2007
"A
LARGE piece of ancient linen, it apparently bears images of a bearded, naked, crucified man. That is the
Shroud of Turin. ... What is the Shroud like? It is a piece of ancient linen cloth,
presumably a burial shroud,
fourteen feet three inches long
by three feet seven inches wide. This sturdily woven cloth today would be a
`second' since the various batches of yarn were not matched for color and texture, and frequently the
weave-pattern from one day's work was not carefully blended into the next.
It was hand woven in a three-to-
one herringbone twill from
fairly heavy yarn made of Near East or Mediterranean-Basin flax, and the cloth is
in an excellent state of preservation." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the
Shroud of
Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN,
Second edition, 2006, pp.1,3-4. Emphasis original)
20/11/2007
"On the Shroud are indistinct images of the front and back views of a man.
The two views are nearly joined
at the head, as if the man's
body had been wrapped in the cloth lengthwise, foot to head to foot. Optimum
viewing distance is six to ten feet from the Shroud; closer or farther, the images fade out completely. Apart
from being indistinct, the body images are, in an undefinable sense, `not natural.'
They are of a faint sepia
color (light tan) on the off-white,
yellowing old cloth. Superimposed on these body images are darker
markings
resembling bloodstains, that are brownish red in color. These `bloodstains' are significantly seen
at the wrists and feet, which exactly correspond to the blood stigmata of a classical
Roman crucifixion. There
also appear to be wounds covering
the top of the head, the face, and one side of the body as well as several
dozen smaller wounds on the back, all of which dramatically conform to the biblical description of Jesus'
wounds. On the back, or dorsal, view, a narrow configuration extends for some eight
or ten inches from the
long hair of the head to a point midway
between the shoulder blades. Some experts feel this may be a pigtail
or ponytail hairstyle, as if the hair was caught and tied at the base of the skull-a common hairstyle among
Jewish males in Palestine during Jesus' time. The Man's beard seems to
show the twin points of the
Nazarene style of that day."
(Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin,"
Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, pp.4-5)
20/11/2007
"In 1453 the Shroud was purchased by
the Duke of Savoy, and the Savoy family owned it thereafter until
1983.
The Savoys ultimately ruled over all of Italy, which was unified in the nineteenth century. Umberto II
was deposed as king of Italy in June 1946 and lived in exile in Portugal until
his death in 1983. He was titular
head of the House of Savoy
during his lifetime and owner of the Shroud, and regularly consulted with the
archbishop of Turin, who was the Shroud's custodian. By his will, Umberto gave the Shroud to the pope of
the Roman Catholic Church and his successors; the bequest was accepted by Vatican
announcement of
October 18, 1983. On February 7, 1984, the
Vatican secretary of state announced that under the terms of
Umberto's
will, the Shroud was to remain in Turin, and that the archbishop of Turin would be the pope's
personal representative for all future Shroud matters." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated
Story
of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers:
St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, p.5)
20/11/2007
"The linen, although ivory-colored with age, was still surprisingly clean
looking, even to the extent of a
damasklike surface sheen.
It was possible to study closely the herringbone weave of the linen. In the areas
untouched by the ravages of history it was in remarkably good condition. Even when examined under a
magnifying glass, the fiber showed no signs of disintegration. The texture was
also surprising. Some writers
have described it as 'coarse.'
This is quite definitely not so. Although any handling was officially
disapproved, the temptation was too great not to touch the linen gently when at close range. It was light
and almost silky to the touch. The dimensions of the cloth are impressive: 14 feet
3 inches long by 3 feet 7
inches wide. It was created in a
single piece, apart from a strip approximately 3½ inches wide running the
length of the left-hand side and joined by a single seam." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial
Cloth
of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised
edition, 1979, p.21)
20/11/2007
"It is the imprint of the all-important `double image' that principally draws the eye. There, like a shadow
cast
on the cloth, is the faint imprint of the back and front
of a powerfully built man with beard and long hair, laid
out
in the attitude of death. To anyone who has not seen a photograph of the Shroud before, the two
figures could only appear most curious, until one understands the manner in which the image seems to have
been formed-that the body was first laid on one end of the cloth, with the remaining
half of the cloth then
drawn over the head and down to the
feet. The sixteenth-century Italian artist Clovio illustrated this
beautifully
in an aquatint of the Shroud in which, below the angel-borne cloth, he painted Joseph and
Nicodemus wrapping Jesus in just such a manner after the descent from the cross. The astonishing aspect
of seeing the Shroud itself rather than a photograph is discovering how pale and
subtle the image appears.
The color of the imprint can best
be described as a pure sepia monochrome, and the closer one tries to
examine it, the more it melts away like mist." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?,"
[1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, p.21)
20/11/2007
"The
`Holy Shroud' is a large, oblong linen cloth, of great but contested age, which is normally housed in a
chapel built especially for it in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in the
city of Turin, in northern Italy. It
is displayed only on rare
occasions, contained in a frame that shows the length of the cloth parallel to the
ground. The cloth, marked by various blemishes and stains, measures fourteen feet three inches long and
three feet seven inches wide - or, according to the measurement in use in the Middle
East in the first
century, eight cubits by two. [Wilson, I.,
"Holy Faces, Secret Places," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.181]
Experts in the field of textiles have determined that the threads were hand-spun and the fabric hand-woven
in what is known as a `three-to-one herringbone twill.' This was a type of
weaving practiced in the Middle
East at least as far back as
two thousand years ago. [Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., "The Enigma of the
Shroud," PEG: Malta, 1996, p.198]" (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis
of
All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic,"
Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, 1999, p.11)
20/11/2007
"The linen has a number of scratches and burn holes, as well as water stains.
The features most visible to
the naked eye are two dark blemishes,
one on each side of the fainter body image, running parallel to the
sides of the cloth. Along these streaks, on both front and back images, on either side of the shoulders and
on either side of the knee, are diamond-shaped patches. These are the result of
a fire that broke out in
December 1532, in the chapel in France
where it was housed. The patches cover holes that were burned
through
the folded cloth by hot metal. There some other burn marks on the fabric which are much less
obvious. There is a row of three small holes with burnt edges on either side of the crossed hands on the
frontal view, and similar configurations on each side of the posterior portions
of the figure on the back
image. No one knows the cause of
this damage, which seems to have been the result of a hot poker being
thrust three times through the center of the cloth. Because these holes are evident in a copy of the Shroud
which dates to 1516, it is clear that they predated the damage from the fire. A
second fire, during the night of
April 11-12, 1997, once again
menaced the Shroud, but through the courageous actions of the firefighters
from Turin's Twenty-First Brigade, who smashed the display case to rescue the celebrated artifact, a
conflagration that heavily damaged the Cathedral and the adjoining Royal Chapel
left the Shroud
untouched." (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud
of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding
the
Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, 1999, pp.11-12)
20/11/2007
"Less evident on the Shroud than the
sixteenth-century fire damage are the two faint head-to-head straw-
colored
images of an undressed man that appear in the center of the cloth, one of the front of the body, the
other of the back, with the feet of both images facing the outer margins of the fabric. There are only a few
inches between the front and back images of the head. It seems as though a body
had been laid on its back
at one end of the cloth, which was
then drawn over the front of the man, and that somehow an image was
made of him. If the viewer approaches too close, he (or she) is unable to see anything except stains.
Standing three to six feet away from the cloth, he will be able to discern some
detail. From the frontal image
the observer will be able to
make out the shape of a man with long hair and a beard, with his hands folded
over his pelvic area and his knees slightly drawn up. Around the head, wrists, and feet are what appear to be
bloodstains, especially on the back image. Viewing the cloth with the naked eye,
it is hard to make out
anything else - much less determine
whether the image is a painting." (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud of Turin:
The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday
Visitor: Huntington IN, 1999, pp.12-13)
20/11/2007
"In ancient times the word `sindon'
was used to indicate a cut of cloth for a particular use, such as a length
of woven cloth, a sheet, or a tunic. The Turin Shroud is, in fact, a rectangular sheet, strong and solid, made
of pure flax of a yellowish colour; it is sewn and stitched on to a white holland
cloth backing; this backing
was made by the Poor Clares of
Chambéry, to support the Shroud, in 1534, two years after the fire that had
damaged the relic. A blue satin hem surrounds the perimeter of the sheet. Along the top side of the Shroud,
disposed, according to tradition, with the frontal image of the body on the left-hand
side of the person who
looks at it, there is a length of red
satin, sewn on in 1868 by Princess Clotilde of Savoy, to protect the image
when the sheet is put back in the reliquary. The Shroud is 4.36 metres long and 1.10 metres wide. Originally it
was probably longer by about 30 centimetres; there are various reports of small
fragments having been cut
from the relic and then distributed
to churches and monasteries. One of these relics is to be found in the
Sainte Chapelle in Paris. Perhaps concessions of pieces from the Shroud continued for years and it proves
that the Shroud was an object of veneration even in much older times. The thickness
of the cloth, about one
third of a millimetre, is greater than
that of cloth usually used to make covers for mattresses; this does not
prevent the linen from being soft and easy to fold. The Shroud was woven in one whole piece in a diagonal
weave shape of `three to one': the transversal thread of weft passes alternatively
over three and under one
of the longitudinal threads of the
warp. This type of weave helps to guarantee its strength. The twill that
runs along its length varies its inclination at every centimetre, giving the cloth its characteristic `herring-
bone' aspect." (Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., "The Enigma of
the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri,
L.J., transl.,
Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, 1996, pp.161-162)
20/11/2007
"A nearly 8 centimetre wide strip, incomplete at its extremities, forms part
of the sheet on the topmost side.
The missing pieces were 14
and 36 centimetres long. This side strip is made from the same twilled cloth of
the Shroud, of which it originally formed part; in fact, the irregularities of the weave, clearly visible in the
principal section, extend exactly to the side strip, as can
be seen from the radiographies carried out in 1978
and published
by Schwalbe and Rogers. [Analytica Chimica Acta, 135, 1982, p.42]" (Petrosillo, O. &
Marinelli, E., "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri,
L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises
Group: Malta, 1996, p.162)
20/11/2007
"Along
these same lines has been a study of the shroud's dimensions as recently made by an expert in early
Syriac, Ian Dickinson, from Canterbury, England. [Dickinson, I., "Preliminary
Details of New Evidence for the
Authenticity of the Shroud:
Measurement by the Cubit," Shroud News, April 1990, pp. 4-8] Curious at the
shroud's, by British units of measurement, anomalous 14 foot 3 inch by 3 foot 7 inch overall size, Dickinson
wondered if these dimensions might make more sense if converted
to the cubit measure as prevailing in
Jesus's time. Establishing
that the first-century Jewish cubit was most likely to the Assyrian standard,
reliably calculated at between 21.4 and 21.6 inches, Dickinson found that if he chose the lower of these
measures there was an astonishing correlation, accurate to the nearest half-inch:
Length of Turin shroud 14 feet 3 inches
8 cubits at 21.4 inches 14 feet 3 inches
Width of Turin
shroud 3 feet 7 inches
2 cubits at 21.4 inches 3 feet 7 inches
Such conformity to an exact 8 by 2 Jewish cubits is yet another piece
of knowledge difficult to imagine of
any medieval forger. It
also correlates perfectly with the `doubled in four' arrangement by which we
hypothesized the shroud to have been once folded and mounted as the `holy face' of Edessa, for the
exposed facial area of this latter would have been an exact 1 by 2 Jewish cubits."
(Wilson, I., "Holy Faces,
Secret Places: The Quest for
Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.181)
20/11/2007
"In 1931, Virginio Timossi, a textile
expert, examined the Shroud, and observed that it was made of flax and
that it was of rudimentary manufacture. ... According to Pausinius (1st century AD), Palestinian linen had a
pleasing yellow colour. ... The threads used to weave the Shroud were handspun.
They are of varying
diameters and have a clockwise `Z'
twisting as against the anti-clockwise `S', which is common in Ancient
Egypt. This fact points to a Syro-Palestinian origin: linen with `Z' twisting were in fact discovered in Palmyra
(Syria) and in the Giuda Desert. Even the weaving of the cloth,
carried out on a rudimentary pedal-driven
loom, is irregular.
There are sudden changes in the beating and weaving mistakes. The three-to-one `herring-
bone' twill is made of `strips', each about 11 millimetres wide. The diagonal three-to-one weave was obtained
by passing the transverse thread of the weft alternately above
three and below one those longitudinal of the
warp. As a textile,
the Shroud could very well date back to the first century AD since pictures of looms that
could produce that kind of cloth have been found in ancient Egyptian tombs such as at Beni Assan, 3000
BC. Linen was woven by the Egyptians on large cloths. As for burial sheets, it
is normal that they were
rapidly destroyed by the decomposition
itself of the bodies. In Egypt, however, the mummification of the
body
and the use of many bindings and bandages have made possible the preservation of a few such
sheets. In the Egyptian Museum in Turin there is a perfectly preserved sheet dating back to 1696-1784 BC
which is seven metres long and as narrow as the Shroud. According to Curto, until
the third century AD,
flax cloth was the Egyptian textile par
excellence. It seems that during their Egyptian captivity the Jews
had mastered the art of weaving. Curto, however, distinguishes between the weaves of the textile. Egyptian
cloth is always orthogonal `plain woven'; the `herring-bone weave', on
the other hand, originated from
Mesopotamia or Syria. The herring-bone
weaves, which makes the cloth more close and resistant to use,
was
already known in the Middle East in the time of Christ and was commonly used in Syria. The cloth of
the Shroud must therefore have arrived in Palestine from a neighbouring country such as Syria or
Mesopotamia. Indeed, pieces of silk of the third century AD, with a three to one
weave, were discovered at
Palmyra, in modern Syria; other similar
cloths, dating back to the Greco-Roman period, were found at Dura
Europos,
also in Syria." (Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science,"
Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, 1996, pp.197-198)
21/11/2007
"The
body in the Shroud had to have been set at a slight angle, the head raised by some pillow-type
support, the arms drawn very stiffly over the pelvis - left hand over right- the right shoulder set lower than
the left, the legs decisively flexed at the knee and the left foot partly over
the right. As Wilson remarked, `If
the Shroud is a forgery,
the care with which even the post crucifixion lie of the body has been thought out is
quite remarkable.' [Wilson, I., "The Mysterious Shroud," Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY, 1986,
p.16] The
body is clearly laid out in an attitude of death.
It would appear, then, that the Man of the Shroud was of
Jewish
origin and that the bloodstains and wounds studied by forensic pathologists in their careful
examination of the Shroud are remarkably coordinated with the testimony of the Gospels relative to the
Roman crucifixion weapons and procedures regarding the passion, death and resurrection
of the historical
Jesus Christ. His burial is consistent with
Jewish burial practices of the day as outlined in the Mishnah
which
contains interpretations of scriptural ordinances as compiled by the Rabbis in the first and second
centuries. ... More recent investigations of the Shroud by Dr. Alan Whanger, Professor Emeritus of Duke
University in North Carolina, utilizing modern scientific instrumentation such
as the polarized image overlay
technique, appear to reveal
the presence of a tephillin- a Jewish phylactery or prayer box that contains a
portion of Scripture - attached to the forehead and the right arm. [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The
Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville
TN, 1990, pp.67, 165-166] In addition to the
possible phylactery,
previous investigations of the Shroud point to the presence of Roman coins over the eyes
(identified by some as leptons or widow's mites minted during the administration of Pontius Pilate),
pollen
from the ancient Near East, calcium carbonate (limestone)
dust from the cave-tombs of Jerusalem, mites from
the ancient
Near East as well as possible floral images around the head area. Such findings ... confirm the
longevity and antiquity of this cloth. As several authors point out, if the Shroud was the work of a forger, its creation would
be more `miraculous' than if it were the actual burial cloth of Jesus." (Iannone, J.C.,
its creation would be more `miraculous' than if it were the actual burial cloth
of Jesus." (Iannone, J.C.,
its creation would be more
`miraculous' than if it were the actual burial cloth of Jesus." (Iannone, J.C.,
"The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, pp.8-9.
Emphasis original)
21/11/2007
"Some consider the images to have been
formed by some as yet unknown `natural phenomena.' However, as
Stevenson
rightly points out, `If this type of body-on-cloth is natural, why are there so many burial
garments that have no images of the person buried in them?' [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The
Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville
TN, 1990, p.127] Sindonologist Robert Wilcox
states that `even
if (researchers) come up with some `natural' process, the failure, so far, to find anything like
the Shroud amongst the world's body cloths and artifacts leaves them with the further problem of why the
process occurred only once in the history of the world, so far as is yet known.'
[Wilcox, R.K., "Half of
Shroud Scientists Say Image Is
Authentic," The Voice, 5 Mar. 1982, p.13] The late Dr. John Heller, who
was a research scientist at the New England Institute and author of the book Report on the Shroud of Turin, commented: `We do know,
however, that there are thousands on thousands of pieces of funerary
Turin, commented: `We do know, however, that there are thousands on thousands of pieces of funerary
Turin, commented: `We do know, however, that there are thousands on thousands of
pieces of funerary
linens going back to millennia before Christ,
and another huge number of linens of Coptic Christian burials.
On
none of these is there any image of any kind.' [Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton
Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.220]" (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of
the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific
Evidence," St Pauls:
Staten Island NY, 1998, p.10)
21/11/2007
"From 1978 to 1988 the scorch hypothesis appeared to be most popular among
scientists who expressed
their views on the cause of the image.
However, it must be carefully noted that the question of whether the
Shroud provides evidence for Jesus' resurrection is not dependent on whether the image was caused by
a
scorch. The Shroud appears to be unique at this point, even
if a natural explanation for the image is found.
As Wilcox
pointed out: 'But even if [researchers] come up with some `natural' process, the failure, so far, to
find anything like the shroud amongst the world's body cloths and artifacts
leaves them with the further
problem of why the process occurred
only once in the history of the world, so far as is yet known.' [Wilcox,
R.K., "Half of Shroud Scientists Say Image Is Authentic," The Voice, 5 Mar. 1982, p.13] In fact,
Wilcox
even observed from his 1982 study that the thirteen
scientists who indicated their belief that the Shroud was
the
actual burial garment of Jesus also thought that a natural cause for the image would be consistent with
the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection: While all 13 indicated they thought
a `natural explanation'
(meaning one that can be explained
by science) for the cloth's images will eventually be found, they also
indicated they believe the shroud's uniqueness (nothing like it has yet been found on earth) will remain,
thus keeping it, in their view, consistent with the Christian belief in Jesus'
death and resurrection. [Wilcox,
R.K., "Shroud: Real or
Fake?" The Voice, 26 February, 1982, p.12] John Heller has also commented on the
Shroud's uniqueness: `We do know, however, that there are thousands on thousands of pieces of funerary
linen going back to millennia before Christ, and another huge number of linens
of Coptic Christian burials.
On none of these is there any
image of any kind.' [Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton
Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.220] Therefore, even if a natural hypothesis for the Shroud's image is
discovered, it would not discount the image as evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
In fact, a natural thesis
could even produce evidence for this
historical event, since scientific phenomena such as those described
later in this chapter still exist. Some of those who have studied the Shroud have related its revelations to
Jesus' resurrection. STURP pathologist Robert Bucklin, who did not support
the scorch theory, still believed
that the Shroud provided
evidence for the Resurrection: `It was inevitable that the question of the
resurrection would come up in relation to the Shroud studies.... While the majority of the scientists have
been reluctant to take a stand on this matter, a few of us have openly expressed
our opinions that there is
support for the resurrection in
the things we see on the Shroud of Turin.' [Bucklin, R., "Afterword," in
Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.190]"
(Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and
the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers:
Nashville
TN, 1990, pp.134-135. Emphasis original)
22/11/2007
"Throughout all our discussion of the so-called body image on the Shroud negative,
there was one point
which we quite deliberately ignored, rather
as if it was to be taken for granted. This was consideration of
whether
any genuine dead body has ever been known to make a similar imprint to the kind seen on the
Shroud. The blunt answer to this has to be no. If it were quite normal for dead bodies to make imprints of
themselves, then the Shroud's image would not retain the mystery it has. Which
does not mean to say that
dead bodies cannot and do not sometimes
leave strange stains. For instance, among the exhibits in the
British
Museum's `Byzantium' exhibition held in 1995 there was a pair of sixth-century Byzantine curtains
that had subsequently been used for an Egyptian's burial shroud. These unmistakably
bear brownish stains
from their contact with this Egyptian's
body. Likewise, in the wake of a UK television documentary on the
Shroud
transmitted in October 1988, retired London undertaker Ronald Warrior wrote to the programme's
producer remarking on indelible brownish stains that he used `frequently' to find in the white-painted
interiors of the wooden `shells' in which he and his fellow undertakers routinely
transported corpses. Also,
in 1981 a West Indian who died of
cancer of the pancreas in a Liverpool hospice left remarkable and equally
indelible outlines of his arm, hand and buttocks on a mattress cover ... The problem with these is that none
has exhibited images even remotely comparable to the Shroud's 'photographic'
body imprint. " (Wilson, I.,
"The Blood and the Shroud:
New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster:
New York NY, 1998, p.30)
21/11/2007
"In fairness to Dr Straiton ... he has justifiably alluded to one modern-day
Shroud-type phenomenon that is
undeniably intriguing, the so-called
Jospice Mattress. When in 1981 a West Indian died of cancer of the
pancreas
in a Jospice International hospice on the outskirts of Liverpool, to the astonishment of his carers
he left an indelible partial imprint of himself, predominantly his hand, buttocks, arm, shoulders and jaw, on
the synthetic mattress on which he had been lying ... . Yet enigmatic though this
imprint remains in its own
right, in the final analysis it
cannot be regarded as sufficient of a parallel to the Shroud to suit Straiton's
argument. The body features appear on it in the form of simple outlines and blocks of shadows. Even the
lines of the hand can be seen. And there is nothing special to its photographic
negative." (Wilson, I., "The
Blood and the Shroud:
New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New
York NY, 1998, p.209)
23/11/2007
"Later, in 1973, French scholar, Professor Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute
of Textile Technology in
Belgium, was permitted to join the
team to carefully examine two small linen samples (one 13 x 40 millimeters,
the other 10 x 40 millimeters) from the Shroud. Dr. Max Frei, a Swiss criminologist and botanist, also joined
the team to study pollen samples on the Shroud. Dr. Raes reported that the Shroud
was indeed woven of
linen with a three-to-one herringbone twill
with a Z-twist and that it is sewn with linen thread (all the warp,
weft and sewing threads of the Shroud are of linen). He noted that the yarn was indicative of a good-quality
workmanship and the weave density an average of a little over thirty-five threads
per centimeter,
corresponding favorably with the thirty thread
per centimeter average of the finest Egyptian mummy fabrics.
The
normal weave in Palestinian, Roman and Egyptian loom-technology was a one-over-one. The three-to-
one herringbone twill was a more refined weave. It would have been an expensive piece of cloth for the first
century. However, we know from the Gospels that Joseph of Arimathea was a rich
man and it was he who
provided the Shroud used to bury Jesus
(Mt 27:57-61). During the radiocarbon analysis done at Oxford in
1988,
cotton fibers were found on the Shroud. `The cotton,' according to Peter H. South, director of the
laboratory for textile analysis at Ambergate in Great Britain, `is a very fine
dark yellow color, probably of
Egyptian origin and very old.
Unfortunately, how it found its way into the Shroud is impossible to say.' Dr.
Raes, using polarized light for microscopic viewing, had also identified traces of cotton fibers (fibrils) that he
classified as of the Gossypium herbaceum type, a cotton
that existed in the Middle East of the first
century. [Raes,
G., "Rapport d'Analise," La S. Sindone, supplement to Rivisita Diocesana Torinese,
January 1976, pp.79-83] Professor Philip McNair of Birmingham University, England,
supports these finds
and points out that the occasional cotton
fibers in the Shroud were of the Gossypium herbaceum type
that
was cultivated in the Middle East during the first century, but was not known in Europe during the
period when possible faking of the Shroud could have occurred. The cotton traces indicated that the Shroud
was woven on a loom that had been used previously to weave cotton cloth. Paul Maloney,
a research
archaeologist and sindonologist from Pennsylvania,
notes that cotton was actually a part of the linen
thread.
Dr. Raes says that these findings support the contention that the Shroud linen was woven in the
Middle East, since raw cotton was unknown in Europe until the ninth century when it was first planted in
Spain by the Moors. Cotton was first woven in Venice and Milan in the fourteenth
century and cotton cloth
was not even seen in England until
the fifteenth century. Cotton was grown in China and India in antiquity
and was expertly woven in India several centuries before the Christian era. By the first century it was grown
extensively in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Wilson notes that cotton is also known to
have been introduced to
the Middle East by the monarch Sennacherib
during the seventh century B.C. By the time of Christ it would
certainly
have been established in the environs of Palestine, and therefore offers no difficulty to the
authenticity of the Shroud. Dr. Raes concluded that this piece of linen could have been manufactured in the
first century. He could not say with certainty that it was. The late John Tyrer,
a chartered textile technologist
who worked in the field for
twenty-five years as an associate of the Textile Institute of Manchester, England,
discovered that while Middle East linens similar to the Shroud exist as far back as 3600 B.C., not much
medieval linen has survived. He states that `it would be reasonable to conclude
that linen textiles with Z-
twist yarns and woven 3-1 reversing
twill similar to the Turin Shroud could have been produced in the first-
century Syria-Palestine.' [Tyrer, J., "Looking At the Turin Shroud as a Textile," Shroud Spectrum,
6, 1983,
pp.68-69]" (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery
of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten
Island NY, 1998, pp.13-14)
25/11/2007
"In 1978 the S.T.U.R.P. team with over 40 scientists conducted a thorough
scientific investigation of the
Shroud using the latest equipment.
The group determined that the actual image was created by a
phenomenon
(as yet unknown) or a momentous event that caused a rapid cellulose
degradation (aging) of the linen fibers, that is, an accelerated
dehydration and oxidation of the very top linen fibrils of the cellulose
fibers of the Shroud, thereby creating a sepia or straw -yellow colored image similar to that of a scorch.
the linen fibers, that is, an accelerated dehydration and oxidation of the very
top linen fibrils of the cellulose
fibers of the Shroud, thereby
creating a sepia or straw -yellow colored image similar to that of a scorch.
the linen fibers, that is, an accelerated dehydration and oxidation of the very top linen fibrils of the cellulose
fibers of the Shroud, thereby creating a sepia or straw -yellow
colored image similar to that of a scorch.
Whatever precipitated
this rapid aging affected only the very top fibrils of the fibers of the linen. As noted
previously, the images are a surface phenomenon. Most scientists compare it to a light scorch such as
might be created if an iron touched a handkerchief for too long a period. What
caused this to happen? This
is a central part of the mystery
of the Shroud. No one has yet been able to provide a comprehensive
explanation
... . Those who believe in the Resurrection of Jesus believe that something startling occurred at
the moment of the Resurrection - some phenomenon as yet not understood by science that left its mark on
the Shroud - a photo of the Resurrection for people of all eras to ponder. Many
call the Shroud the `silent
witness' for this reason and
claim that the Shroud is a modern witness to the Resurrection." (Iannone, J.C.,
"The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, p.15.
Emphasis original)
25/11/2007
"Ancient Pollen on the Shroud?
The late Protestant Swiss botanist and criminologist Dr. Max Frei was
permitted in 1973 and 1978 as part of the S.T.U.R.P. team to take sticky-tape samples of pollen grains directly
from the Shroud. Pollen grains are of special interest because they have an exceptionally
hard outer shell,
the exine, which can last literally millions
of years. Dr. Frei was highly respected in Europe, having founded
the
scientific department of the Zurich Police. He wrote his doctoral thesis on the flora of Sicily and
continued this study of the Shroud's pollen until his death in 1983. The entire Frei Collection, formerly in
the
possession of the Association of Scientists and Scholars
International for the Shroud of Turin, Inc.
(A.S.S.I.S.T.),
was transferred to the United States in 1988 and placed under the guardianship of Dr. Alan
Whanger of Duke University in North Carolina where further studies have been done under the aegis of
research archaeologist Paul C. Maloney. Before his death in 1983, Dr. Frei had
identified fifty-eight [57 - SEJ]
different types of pollen
on the sticky tapes and further demonstrated that some of this grouping came from
Jerusalem at the time of Jesus; some from Eastern Turkey and some from Europe, the final resting place of
the Shroud. With regard to Turkey, Dr. Frei was certain that the Shroud had been
in the area he describes as
the Anatolian steppe, which he
qualifies as a phytogeographical term for the region of the towns of Bitlis,
Diyarbakir, Mardin, Urfa, Gaziantep and Malatya. Urfa is the modern Turkish name for the former Byzantine
city of Edessa, believed to have been home to the Shroud until 944. [Wilson, I.,
"The Shroud of Turin,"
Doubleday & Co: Garden
City NY, 1979, p.293] At the time of his death, Frei was seeking to identify nineteen
other pollens which would have brought the number to seventy-seven. Maloney placed this work in the
hands of Aharon Horowitz, an illustrious Israeli palynologist, who noted that the
pollens found on the
Shroud can be compared to pollens found
in Palestine but not in North Africa. Avinoam Danin, the chief
expert
in Israeli desert flora, agrees with him and adds that it is possible to demonstrate, on the basis of the
pollens present on the Shroud, an itinerary across the Negev to the highlands of
Lebanon. [Marinelli, E., "La
Sindone: Un' Immagine
`Impossibile,'" Edizioni San Paolo: Milan, Italy, 1996, p.27] Some critics have
proposed that pollen could have been airborne from the Middle East to Europe and made their way to the
Shroud. However, Dr. Frei, responding to this claim stated: Groups A, B, and C
of plants on the Shroud from
Palestine and Anatolia are so
numerous, compared to the species from Europe, that a casual contamination
or a pollen-transport from the Near East by storms in different seasons cannot be responsible for their
presence... the predominance of these pollen must be the result of the Shroud's
stay in such countries.
Migrating birds or contamination with
desert plants by pilgrims can be excluded because they had no
possibility
of direct contact with the Shroud. It should also be noted that the prevailing winds in the region
move from Europe to the Middle East, not the reverse. [Frei, M., "Nine Years of Palynological Studies on the
Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, 1, June
1982, p.7]" (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud
of
Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, pp.19-21. Emphasis original)
25/11/2007
"The
Presence of Mites on the Shroud Dr. Frei concluded that many pollen matched species found
`almost exclusively' in halophyte fossils from the Dead Sea. To Frei's mind, the weight of evidence mitigated
against a medieval fraud. Stevenson further points out that
this was Dr. Frei's field of expertise and his work
has
been confirmed by Turin microbiologist Dr. Giovanni Riggi Di Numana, who also found samples of mites
or `minute animal forms extremely similar in their aspects and dimension to those from Egyptian burial
fabrics.' [Riggi Di Numana, G., "Rapporto Sindone 1978-1987," 3M
Edizioni: Milan, Italy, 1988] During Dr.
Riggi's analysis
of samples vacuumed from between the Shroud and its backing cloth in 1978, he isolated
and identified a mite peculiar to ancient burial linens, specifically Egyptian mummy wrappings. As
Stevenson points out: `If the Shroud was a creation of the Middle Ages, then its
forger must have ordered
the mites (and pollen) to go with
it.' [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy,"
Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1989, p.65] In addition, the work of Oswald Scheuermann and Dr. Alan
Whanger ... further confirms the work of Dr. Frei since the [images of] flowers
they identified are consistent
with the pollen identified by
Dr. Frei. Renowned archaeologist William Meacham further stated that `pollen...
is empirical data... ipso facto evidence of exposure to the air in those regions.' [Meacham, W., interview with
Rev. Kenneth Stevenson, Tarrytown NY, July 15, 1988]"
(Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud of
Turin: New
Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, p.21. Emphasis original)
25/11/2007
"Bulst further states: `Pollen grains
can come upon the Shroud only when it is exposed in the open. It would
have been a stupendous miracle if, precisely in the few days when the Shroud was being exposed, storms
would have brought pollen over a distance of 2,500 kilometers and - even more miraculous
- if those winds
were carrying many more pollen from the East
than from the European environment. Moreover, the pollen on
the
Shroud are from plants which bloom in different seasons of the year. Therefore the same improbable
accident must have happened repeatedly.' [Bulst, W., "The Pollen Grains On The Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International,
10, 1984, p.25] Stevenson points out that "pollen analysis is acceptable evidence in
Spectrum International, 10, 1984, p.25] Stevenson points out that "pollen analysis is acceptable evidence in
Spectrum International, 10, 1984, p.25] Stevenson points out
that "pollen analysis is acceptable evidence in
a court
of law and therefore certainly empirical data as to the Shroud's authenticity, antiquity and non-
European origin and the value of the presence of ancient pollen and mites on the Shroud should not be
underestimated." [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and
the Controversy," Thomas Nelson:
Nashville TN, 1990, p.65.]
Dreisbach advises that archaeologist and cave-tomb specialist James Strange of
Florida, with assistance from Dr. Giovanni Riggi, found pollen on the outside of the Shroud differing from
those of the inside. The
outside pollen were mineral coated, reflecting the likelihood that the outside of the cloth came in contact with the limestone ledge of the grave." (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud
of
cloth came in contact with the limestone ledge
of the grave." (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud of
cloth came in contact with the limestone ledge of the grave." (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud
of
Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island
NY, 1998, p.24. Emphasis original)
25/11/2007
"Floral Images on the Shroud? During his studies in 1983, Oswald
Scheuermann made an observation that
there seemed to be flowerlike
patterns around the face of the Man of the Shroud. Two years later, Dr. Alan
Whanger, while examining photographs of the Shroud with a magnifying lens, suddenly saw out of the
corner of his eye the image of a large chrysanthemum-like flower on the anatomic
left side about fifteen
centimeters lateral to and six centimeters
above the midline top of the head. [Whanger, A. & M., "Floral Coin
and Other Non-Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," Duke University: Durham NC, 1989] Dr. Whanger and
Oswald Scheuermann collaborated in further studies. Dr. Whanger utilized many life-size
second generation
photos of parts of the Shroud as well as
the full length images from the Giuseppe Enrie negatives of 1931.
These
were processed and enlarged by Gamma Photographic Laboratories of Chicago, Illinois. Some were
processed with the specific request to maximize the detail in the off-body area. By standing some distance
away from the photographs and looking at the off-body areas, definite patterns
became apparent to Dr.
Whanger. He secured the definitive set
of volumes of Flora Palaestina by Michael Zohary [Zohary, M.,
"Flora Palaestina," Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Jerusalem, 1966-1977] and reviewed
drawings of the 1,900 plants depicted therein. Whanger worked
with flowers, buds, stems, leaves and fruits
that are reasonably
clear. He did side-by-side comparisons of images - and polarized image overlay
comparisons in a number of instances - to show reasonable compatibility of the drawings of the plants from
Flora Palaestina with what is seen on the Shroud. While there are vague or partial
images of many flowers
with what is seen on the Shroud. While
there are vague or partial images of many flowers on the Shroud,
Dr. Whanger and Oswald Scheuermann believe that they have tentatively identified twenty-
eight plants whose images are sufficiently clear on the Shroud to make a good comparison and to be
compatible with the drawings in Flora Palaestina . Of the twenty-eight
plants identified on the Shroud,
twenty-three are flowers,
three are small bushes and two are thorns. All twenty-eight plants grow in Israel
and twenty grow in Jerusalem itself (i.e., the Judean mountains). The other eight plants grew either in the
Judean desert or the Dead Sea area or in both. Hence, these plants or flowers would
have been available in
Jerusalem's market in a fresh state.
[Whanger, ibid]. They noted that a rather high percentage of the flower
images identified have corresponding Pollen found on the Shroud by Dr. Max Frei. Of the twenty-eight
plants whose images they believe they have identified, Dr. Frei had already identified
the pollen of twenty-
five of them. In addition, they noted
with great interest that twenty-seven of the twenty-eight plants bloom
during March and April, which would correspond to the time of Passover and of the Crucifixion. Dr.
Whanger also states that the age of the flowers between the time they were picked
and the time that the
image was formed can be reasonably determined.
He notes that the evidence indicates that the image of the
body
was formed (mysteriously) in a very brief time by some type of high energy process sometime between
twenty-four and forty hours after death when decomposition (not seen on the Shroud image) would have
begun to be apparent. Whanger believes that most of the flowers whose images are
on the Shroud would be
between twenty-four and thirty-six hours
old after picking. He notes that the image formation of the flowers
and other non-body objects may not be from the same mechanism that formed the body image." (Iannone,
J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence,"
St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998,
pp.25-26. Emphasis original)
25/11/2007
"The
Vignon-Markings Wilson's theory linking the Image of Edessa with the Shroud receives strong
support from the work done previously by the famous sindonologist Paul Vignon in the 1930's. Vignon
pointed out that, among the family of post-sixth century portraits of Christ, there
was a recurrence of certain
unusual markings seemingly derived
from the Shroud. Tribbe notes that `in each of these cases, the artist,
wishing to be totally faithful to the original, incorporated these oddities even though they are irrelevant to
or detract from the naturalness of the face.' He goes on to say that `all these
artists must have copied from
the same original, and all of
them misunderstood the nature of these imperfections.' However, because of the
sacred status of the acheiropoietas it was very important that every detail, even if odd or unusual, be
faithfully duplicated by the Byzantine artists. [Tribbe, F.C.,
"Portrait of Jesus?," Stein & Day: New York NY,
1983,
p.239] Wilson, following Vignon, cites fifteen such oddities or anomalies which have come to be
known as the Vignon- Markings: Starkly geometric topless square (3-sided) visible between the eyebrows
on the Shroud image. 1. Starkly geometric topless square (3-sided) visible between
the eyebrows on the
Shroud image. 2. V-shape visible at the
bridge of the nose. 3. A transverse streak across the forehead. 4. A
second V-shape inside the topless square. 5. A raised right eyebrow. 6. An accentuated left cheek. 7. An
accentuated right cheek. 8. An enlarged left nostril. 9. An accentuated line between
the nose and upper lip.
10. A heavy line under the lower lip.
11. A hairless area between the lip and beard. 12. The fork in the beard.
13. A transverse line across the throat. 14. The heavily accentuated `owlish eyes.' 15. Two loose strands of
hair falling from the apex of the forehead.' [Wilson, I.,
"The Shroud of Turin," Doubleday & Co: New York
NY,
1979, pp.104-105]" (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St
Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, pp.151-152. Emphasis original. List numbers mine)
25/11/2007
"The
Polarized Image Overlay Former Professor of Psychiatry and long-time sindonologist Dr. Alan
Whanger of Duke University developed the technique, noted earlier, called the Polarized Image Over lay, to
point out these many oddities and anomalies relating the Shroud with post-sixth
century Christian art. The
technique basically utilized two
polarized filters at right angles to each other and enabled Whanger to
superimpose two images over each other and shift back and forth to discover similarities or anomalies. He
discovered that many
images of later (post-sixth century) art must have been made directly from the Shroud or a copy of it based on the high number of congruencies between the images. He studied many
Shroud or a copy of it based on the high number of congruencies between the images.
He studied many
Shroud or a copy of it based on the high number
of congruencies between the images. He studied many
portraits,
mosaics, frescoes and coins and compared them, via the Polarized Image Overlay, to the Shroud
images. He concludes that a consistent, shroud-like,
long-haired, fork-bearded, front facing likeness of Christ can
be traced back through numerous works in the Byzantine tradition dating many centuries before
the time of Geoffrey de Charny (1357). [Wilson, I., "The Mysterious Shroud," Doubleday & Co: New York
Christ can be traced back through numerous works in
the Byzantine tradition dating many centuries before
the time
of Geoffrey de Charny (1357). [Wilson, I., "The Mysterious Shroud," Doubleday & Co: New York
Christ can be traced back through numerous works in the Byzantine tradition dating
many centuries before
the time of Geoffrey de Charny (1357).
[Wilson, I., "The Mysterious Shroud," Doubleday & Co: New York
NY, 1986, p.105] Wilson had noted the same thing, citing as an example the Christ Pantocrator (meaning
having power over all the universe) from Cefalu, Sicily. He also notes, a century
earlier, the Pantocrator of
the Dome of the Church of Daphni,
near Athens (a city that once served as the temporary home of the
Shroud
from 1204-1207) ; the "Christ Enthroned" in the church of St. Angelo in Formis, near Capua, Italy in
the tenth century; and a similar Christ portrait from the eighth century found
in the depths of the Pontianus
Catacomb near Rome. In the sixth
century, the Christ portrait appears on a silver vase found at Homs, in
present-day Syria and on the beautiful icon of Christ Pantocrator from the Monastery of St. Catherine in the
Sinai desert. As Wilson states: "Despite stylistic variations, each of these
works seems inspired by the same
tradition of Jesus' earthly
appearance. And each has a strong resemblance to the face visible on the
Shroud." [Wilson, 1986, p.105] We can add to this list the seventh-century coins, the tremisses and
solidus coins, minted by Justinian II with shroud-like
images; the Spas Nereditsa fresco (Savior of
coins, minted
by Justinian II with shroud-like images; the Spas Nereditsa fresco (Savior of Neredica) in 1199 and the icon in the Church of St. Bartholomew of Armenia in Genoa, Italy." (Iannone, J.C.,
"The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence,"
St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, pp.153-
154. Emphasis original)
25/11/2007
"The
Epitaphioi - Embroidered Cloths In the tenth and eleventh centuries there developed the
epitaphioi in Byzantine art. These are large embroidered cloths used in the Good Friday liturgy explicitly
in Byzantine art. These are large embroidered cloths used in the Good Friday liturgy
explicitly symbolic of the Shroud. The body of Jesus is depicted
frontally with hands crossed such as the
epitaphioi of
King Uros Milutin. All of these seem to point to the rediscovery of the full-length of the
of King Uros Milutin. All of these seem to point to the rediscovery of the full-length of the Shroud in Constantinople in the tenth and eleventh centuries. The Image of Edessa, when brought to
Constantinople, was apparently removed from the board on which it was folded and
mounted, revealing its
full length and hence the full-body
images (front and rear) and bloodstains." (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery
of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, p.154. Emphasis original)
25/11/2007
"The
Hungarian Pray Manuscript: Four Fingers and Four Circles On the Shroud today one notes that,
in addition to the distinctive marks of the 1532 fire, there are four sets of triple burn holes that are the result
of some incident previous to the famous fire that damaged the
Shroud. This prior existence is known
because a painting of
1516 from the Church of Saint Gommaire, in Lierre, Belgium, clearly shows the four sets of triple holes. In 1986, the French Dominican
Father A.M. Dubarle, corresponding on the subject of
sets
of triple holes. In 1986, the French Dominican Father A.M. Dubarle, corresponding on the subject of
sets of triple holes. In 1986, the French Dominican Father A.M. Dubarle, corresponding on the subject of
the Shroud-like figure on the Hungarian Pray Manuscript (1192-1195), had
his attention drawn to some
curious holes noted on the Shroud
in the illustration. Wilson points out that "clearly visible on the
sarcophagus in the scene of the three Marys visiting the empty tomb was a line of three holes, with an extra
one offset to one side." [Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places,"
Doubleday: London, 1991, p.160] Even
more curious, though almost
vanishingly tiny, was a similar set of three holes to be seen on the Shroud or
napkin-like cloth depicted rolled up on the sarcophagus. It appears that the artist of 1192 who illustrated the
Hungarian Pray Manuscript was aware of the "burn-holes" on the
Shroud in his day. If correct, it would
set the Shroud's
date nearly a hundred years earlier than the very earliest date allowed by Carbon-14 dating.
Significantly, Jesus is depicted as naked and laid on a Shroud. His arms are crossed, with the right hand
placed over the left, and the hands show only four fingers. There is a
herring-bone weave in the lower
illustration. There is an imprint
of a body on the inside and not on the outside of the Shroud. However, on
the illustration there are four circles that appear to be burn holes on the Shroud. The othonia
(other
burial cloths) are rolled up separately. The appearance
of only four fingers and four circles on the illustration
and
matching the same on the Shroud is highly significant. Pathologists studying the Shroud noted that
only four fingers appear to the viewer, and the thumb is not seen, as we noted earlier. Moreover, the four
burn holes seen in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript correlate to four holes
found in the corresponding
area of the Shroud and predate the
fire of 1532." (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New
Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, pp.154-155. Emphasis original)
26/11/2007
"Mites
Another interesting aspect of the microscopic material found on the Shroud is the discovery of
mites by Professor Riggi During his analysis of samples vacuumed from between the Shroud and its backing
cloth in 1978, he isolated and identified a mite peculiar to ancient burial linens,
specifically Egyptian mummy
wrappings. If the Shroud was a
creation of the Middle Ages, then its forger must have ordered the mites to
go with it." (Stevenson, K.E., "Image of the Risen Christ: Remarkable New Evidence About the Shroud,"
Frontier Research Publications: Toronto ON, 1999, pp.129-130.
Emphasis original)
26/11/2007
"Artifacts Artifacts visible in the Shroud image areas are the next consideration. These include `coins'
over the eyes, a possible phylactery upon the forehead (which
logically should have a corresponding
`prayer box' on the
arm), and other `clothes:' such as a modesty cloth or `bands' at the head, hands, and feet.
In 1978 Eric Jumper, John Jackson, and I coauthored an article which appeared in The Numismatist and
postulated the theory that 3-D objects visible on the eyes might in fact be coins.
Working with Ian Wilson,
we suggested the lepton of Pontius
Pilate because the size, shape, and markings seemed uncannily accurate.
[Jumper, E., Stevenson, K.E., Jr. & Jackson, J.P., "Images of Coins on a Burial Cloth?" The Numismatist,
American Numismatic Association, July 1978, pp.1349-1357, 1356]"
(Stevenson, K.E., "Image of the Risen
Christ: Remarkable
New Evidence About the Shroud," Frontier Research Publications: Toronto ON, 1999,
p.130. Emphasis original)
26/11/2007
"First, the late Father Filas proceeded to find coins that matched the initial
lepton, right down to a peculiar
misspelling. The coin's
inscription contained the letter sequence UCAI. The correct spelling should have
been UKAI. Father Filas found several extant copies of the lepton with this spelling error. Apparently, the
dye used to make the coin was misstruck in the same way as a twentieth-century
three-legged buffalo nickel.
And it was used until the error
was finally detected. Josh McDowell and many others who were suspicious
of the Shroud's authenticity criticized Shroud supporters asserting that `the coin striker would have had to
be either drunk or ignorant' to mint a coin with such an
error.' [McDowell, J. & Stewart, D., "Answers to
Tough
Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith," Here's Life: San Bernardino, 1980, p.168] It
seems they forget that Romans, like the rest of us, made mistakes occasionally,
even honest ones. Second,
Father Filas submitted that research
to Dr. Haralick who independently confirmed the presence of the `coins'
... [Haralick, R., "Analysis of Digital Images of the Shroud of Turin," Virginia Polytechnic University,
1983,
p.34] Finally, a separate 3-D analysis also confirmed
the identification. It is most interesting to me that the 3-
D
photos of the `coins' actually reveal more clearly the letter shapes which match the Pilate coin inscription.
... I spent some time with Jewish scholars in an attempt to clarify the burial
custom controversy. Once again,
however, the results were inconclusive.
While some felt that nothing precluded the custom, others felt there
was relatively little to support it either. Though no clear custom can be established, coins have been found
in skulls in the Middle East dated in and around the first century A.D. For example,
the tomb and ossuary
holding the skeleton of the High Priest
Caiaphus, who presided at the trial of Jesus, was found with a coin
minted in A.D. 41 showing the head of King Herod Agrippa. Alternate theories can be advanced to explain
this archeological fact, but no one knows for certain in the absence of either
a written record or eyewitness
testimony. The primary significance
is that if the coin is in fact the Pilate lepton, it is strong corroborating
evidence that both the image and the cloth date to the first century. And with this form of dating, the margin
of error is substantially less than with C-14." (Stevenson, K.E., "Image
of the Risen Christ: Remarkable New
Evidence About the Shroud,"
Frontier Research Publications: Toronto ON, 1999, pp.130-132)
26/11/2007
"In addition, the overlay technique of the Whangers confirmed the presence
of not only coins but also
phylacteries. When the 3-D photographs
revealed that the `box' on the dead man's forehead was apparently
an artifact, Wilson and a Jewish cadet at the Air Force Academy both suggested a tephillin-a Jewish
phylactery or prayer box which contains a portion of Scripture. When I later discussed
this possibility with
Eleazor Erbach, an Orthodox Rabbi from
Denver, he not only confirmed its size and shape, but also
suggested
that the broken blood flow on the right arm might have been caused by the corresponding arm
phylactery. [Erbach, E., personal interview, April 1978] If indeed these artifacts are what they appear to be,
then not only do they add to the case for longevity, but they also mitigate strongly
against forgery."
(Stevenson, K.E., "Image of the
Risen Christ: Remarkable New Evidence About the Shroud," Frontier
Research Publications: Toronto ON, 1999, p.132)
26/11/2007
"Archeological Peculiarities One facet of age determination that
has been little developed is verification
of archeological
details and peculiarities. For example, researchers have often observed that all medieval
artists have depicted the nails in the hands of the crucified Jesus, not in His wrist. Meacham noted, `The nail
through the wrist is a solid historical indicator. After all, all of the evidence
says that this is a crucifixion
victim. So that puts the Shroud
in the years of crucifixion-a date from 150 B.C. to A.D. 350. You can't do
much better than that even with C14. " [Meacham, W., personal interview, 15 July 1988]" (Stevenson, K.E.,
"Image of the Risen Christ: Remarkable New Evidence About
the Shroud," Frontier Research Publications:
Toronto ON,
1999, p.132. Emphasis original)
26/11/2007
"Another indication that mediates against the medieval date is the length
of the dead man's hair. As Noel
Currer-Briggs pointed out,
`The fourteenth century was not alone in disapproving men with long hair....
[Medieval] contemporary inconography depicted Jesus with fairly short hair.' [Currer-Briggs, N., "The
Shroud and the Grail," Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London, 1987, p.241] He
even intimated that this may have
incited the medieval inquisitors
to attack the Templar Knights. The Templars were the same group art
historian Ian Wilson suggests became custodians of the Shroud after it disappeared from Constantinople.
What other indicators would a trained historical or scriptural expert come up with
given a detailed firsthand
study of the cloth?" (Stevenson,
K.E., "Image of the Risen Christ: Remarkable New Evidence About the
Shroud," Frontier Research Publications: Toronto ON, 1999, p.132)
26/11/2007
"Textile Studies Textile comparisons
also testify to the longevity of the Shroud. John Tyrer, a chartered
textile technologist who has worked in that field for twenty-five years, discovered in his research that while
Middle East linens similar to the Shroud exist that date as far back as 3600 B.C.,
not much medieval linen has
survived. Additionally he determined,
`It would be reasonable to conclude the linen textiles with 'Z' twist
yarns and woven 3/1 reversing twill similar to the Turin Shroud could have been produced in the first-
century Syria or Palestine.' [Tyrer, J., "Looking at the Turin Shroud
as a Textile," Shroud Spectrum, 6,
1983, p.38]
Tyrer even suggested that textile analysis alone would aid in dating the cloth. He also confirmed
what early Shroud researchers have suggested concerning the longevity of linen. Furthermore, he added
that textile analysis might offer important clues to the effects of yarn variations
on image-formation and to
cloth draping. Tyrer concluded, `The
Shroud is probably the most remarkable 'Standard Sample' for the
interpretation of the history of textiles that has come down to us.' [Ibid., 43]" (Stevenson, K.E., "Image
of the
Risen Christ: Remarkable New Evidence About the Shroud,"
Frontier Research Publications: Toronto ON,
1999, p.133. Emphasis
original)
26/11/2007
"Heller and Adler published their findings in an article titled `A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of
Turin,' in the Canadian Society for Forensic Science Journal, Vo1.
14, No. 3 (1981). For our purposes it is
important to take
note of the exhaustive studies the two chemists performed to answer the question of
whether or not the `blood' on the Shroud was real blood. ... Heller, in his 1983 book Report on the Shroud of Turin, takes note that any one
of these: the reflection scan, the microspectrophotometric scan, the
of Turin, takes note that any one of these: the reflection scan, the microspectrophotometric scan, the
of Turin, takes note that any one of these: the reflection scan, the microspectrophotometric
scan, the
positive hemochromogen test, the positive bile test,
the positive cyanomethemoglobin test, the heme
porphyrin fluorescence-is
forensic proof in a court of law that blood is present. Taken together, the proof is
irrefutable. The forensic evidence demonstrates the presence of about 120 scourge marks (some visible only
under ultraviolet light), primarily on the back and shoulders of the figure. There
is a mass of blood dripping
from the crown of the head, from
the puncture wounds in the hands and feet, and from a wound in the side.
All the forensic evidence conforms in detail to the Gospel renditions of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Reputable scientific -conclusion #1: THE BLOOD ON THE SHROUD IS REAL BLOOD."
(Case, T.W., "The
Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating
Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, 1996, pp.18-20. Emphasis
original)
26/11/2007
"The Image has been determined by the same two chemists-Heller and Adler-to be the result of chemical
degradation of the crowns of the top-most fibrils in the Image area. This degradation
fits most closely the
operation of acid on linen. It first
of all involves dehydration: a severe drying out process. Secondly it is
oxidation, the mild forms of which produce a yellowing or browning, the more severe forms of which
produce a scorch, a char, and finally a fire. Heller and Adler found that a piece
of linen soaked in sulfuric
acid for half an hour produced
the requisite straw-yellow color of the Image. Light sources, including
ultraviolet and infrared rays, gamma rays, and the other rays constituting the electromagnetic spectrum,
were applied to linen-none produced the color of the Image. Furthermore, there
was no evidence of any
foreign substance (in anything like
enough quantity) that could possibly be construed as being the result of
painting, or rubbing, or spraying, or any conceivable artistic procedure. Spectroscopic analysis as well
discovered no evidence of the metals which would have had to be present in any
sort of inorganic `paint'
that could make the image by
artifice. Reputable scientific conclusion #2: THE IMAGE WAS FORMED BY
DEHYDRATION AND OXIDATION OF THE FIBERS OF THE IMAGE AREA ITSELF, AND NOT BY ANY
ADDED COLORING AGENT." (Case, T.W., "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White
Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, 1996, pp.21-22. Emphasis original)
26/11/2007
"This
is, so far, only to describe the chemical properties of the Image. There are a couple of other odd
features which must be mentioned. The various shades of color in the Image are not caused by a deeper or
lighter coloring of any particular fibrils. They are caused rather by the density
of colored fibrils in a given
area. It is a lot like the half-tone
prints in newspaper photos, where `black' is made by black ink dots
bunched together, and `gray' is made by black ink dots interspersed with white areas. Suppose, then, that
some sudden light or heat radiation mildly `scorched' the Shroud to make the
Image. It is difficult to see how
such a radiation could selectively
produce the localized `on-off' coloring that produces the shading in the
Image. Nor could the Image be any sort of naturally produced oxidative scorch at all, since a scorch
fluoresces orange under ultraviolet light, while the Image does not fluoresce at
all. The only way the Image
resembles a mild scorch is in its
color and in its being the result of some kind of dehydration. We must also
recall that if the Image on the Shroud was somehow projected from the body by a kind of unknown
`radiation' from that body, nothing could be natural about the process. Dead
bodies do not radiate anything
like what is required for the
Image. Nor do they secrete any oils or vapors in any conceivable manner that
could produce the undistorted 3-D detail of the Image. The Image is a perfect three-dimensional rendition of
a crucified man. Assuming the Shroud was in contact with the body, any transference
of `something' from
that body onto the Shroud, would, when
the Shroud is straightened out, produce an utterly distorted Image.
This is a point brought out strongly by John Jackson and other scientists who investigated the typography
of transferring an image from a three dimensional object to a two dimensional object.
Imagine rubbing your
face with charcoal, and then pressing
a cloth to it so that an image of your face would be transferred to the
cloth. Then straighten out the cloth. Your nose, to take the most acutely three dimensional area as an
example, would show up on the flattened cloth several times too wide. The imprint
of your whole face would
bloat laterally and longitudinally,
making a comical distortion. The Shroud Image, on the other hand,
resembles
exactly a mirror image. It is like the image you see when you look into a mirror face on. The mirror
shows your whole frontal appearance in depth. It shows nothing of your sides, or the back side of your
arms or legs, or the back of your head, or any of your head past the top point.
If you turn your back to the
mirror, though you can't see
it, the image of your back would have the same characteristics. And in fact, this
is exactly the portrait of the Crucified Man, front and back on the Shroud of Turin. The most important thing
to understand is that, supposing a radiation of some type proceeding outwards from
every point on the
body, if the Shroud that covers the body
is draped or curved over it in any degree, the resulting image on
the
Shroud must necessarily be distorted. That holds especially if the source-points of the radiation throw
out their rays in all directions. It also holds if the radiation proceeds straight
outwards in single lines from
every point on the body. And
it also holds even if the `rays' were projected straight upwards to intersect the
draped Shroud at an angle. No matter: once the Shroud is straightened out, it will have inscribed on it an
image distorted to a degree that becomes more extreme as the curvature of the previously
draped cloth was
greater. It will be wider and a little longer
than the original, and all the features on it will be wider and a bit
longer. Most readers of this book have seen a reproduction of the Man on the Shroud. It is not the portrait
of a roly-poly fellow with a face twice as wide as it is long. It is the spitting
image of Near-Eastern Semitic
male possibly in his thirties
whose visage is serene and quietly majestic. The only way, according to the
optics of the situation, that the Image could be the mirror image that it is, is for the Shroud to have been stiff
as a board as it lay atop the body. Then if any `rays'
came straight upwards from the body, they would
impact the
Shroud so as to produce an undistorted image. Reputable scientific conclusion #3: NO ONE CAN
TELL HOW THE IMAGE GOT ONTO THE SHROUD IN ORDER TO PRODUCE AN UNDISTORTED
THREE-DIMENSIONAL COPY OF THE FRONT AND BACK OF THE BODY" (Case, T.W., "The Shroud of
Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, 1996,
pp.22-25. Emphasis original)
26/11/2007
"On the other hand, if we go back to the forgery thesis, we may say that of
course the artist painted on a flat
surface, producing an image
faithful to his own conception. It would not be distorted. One may then ask
how a medieval artist knew how to paint a pale, diffuse yellow image that disappears if you look at it
closeup, and paint it in such a manner that a photographer (after photography was
invented 600 years later),
could take a picture of the Shroud,
develop the negative, and watch as that negative suddenly and strikingly
formed into a perfectly clear three dimensional image-an image not at all apparent from the original? The
photographer was Secondo Pia, and the year was 1898. In his own time Pia was accused
of photographic
fakery. He was not vindicated until Giuseppe
Enrie duplicated his work in 1931, and again when Bill Mottern
and
John Jackson first produced their computerized image on a VP-8 Analyzer at Sandia Laboratory in
Albuquerque in 1976. John Heller, in the accompanying interview, tells us how this medieval magician would
have had to work in order to acid-paint each individual microscopically-sized fibril.
Recall that there is no
`direction' that would be present
even if a Pointillist applied tiny dots. Even a `dot' would betray a slight
directional movement. Rather the color comes from acid-like degradation of the very crowns of individual
micro-fibrils. And the microfibril next door might have no color. The `painting'
would have to be done under
a powerful microscope with an `enormous
focal length' (notes Dr. Heller); and painted so fast that the acid
would not destroy the artist's `brush'; and then immediately the artist would have to wash away the acid
before it ate away the cloth-which would smear the image. And
if he were to succeed in performing these
impossible tasks,
his `masterpiece' would look pale and flat and diffuse, only to come clear and distinct 600
years later in a photographic negative. The further conclusion ... is that what we have here is either a
Medieval miracle or a first century miracle. If the 1988 C 14 test dates are correct,
we have a Medieval
miracle, complete with human (or at least
primate) blood. This is extremely important to understand. ...
supposing
that after all the C-14 tests performed in 1988 gave the true date, the fact is that the Image on the
Shroud could not have been produced by any conceivable human agency-whatever the
true date of the
Shroud. If the Shroud were discovered today,
and it was determined somehow that it was `made' today, it
would
still fail every scientific test intending to show that it could have been made by the hand of man. If
there was something wrong about the C-14 test, and the correct date is around 33
A.D., we have
overwhelming indications that the Turin Shroud
is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ, with an
oxidation
Image faithfully reproducing his features-either as a by-product of the Resurrection, or as a
purposeful supernatural work done at the time of the Resurrection, for a sign and an aid to belief. In either
case, it is worth remarking that it was twentieth century science that first demonstrated
the detailed
chemistry and 3-D optics of the Shroud, and ruefully
declared it could not conceive of how the Image could
possibly
have gotten onto the cloth." (Case, T.W., "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco,"
White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, 1996, pp.26-27)
30/11/2007
"On October 11, 1965, Yale University
Press announced the publication of a scholarly book with the peculiar
title, The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation. (The odd title of the book referred to two medieval
documents-bound within one cover-that Yale University had purchased; the book itself
was a technical
analysis of the two.) The publisher had originally
planned to release the book on Saturday, October 9th, Leif
Erikson
Day, but had to change the publication date to the following Monday, the 11th. Little did they know
the furore that would greet that innocent decision. What was intended to be a modest academic celebration
turned into chaos, as the university and the authors of the book were vilified,
accused of a direct attack on
that cornerstone of American
history, Christopher Columbus's discovery of the New World on October 12,
1492. The Chicago Tribune called it `The Map That Spoiled Columbus Day.' Why the indignation? One of
the two medieval documents, the Vinland Map, portrayed the
world including Iceland, Greenland and
`Vinland,' a large
island that scholars were sure represented North America. The island was divided into
three by two deep inlets (possibly Hudson Strait and the St. Lawrence River); the three parts might well be
the Helluland, Markland and Vinland described by the Norse sagas dating back to
AD 1000. Not only that:
the experts agreed that the map had
been drawn around the year 1440. This map was the first ever found to
provide solid evidence that Norse explorers like Leif Erikson were actually the first people to `discover'
America, and they did it nearly five centuries before Columbus. No wonder there
were outraged headlines.
Of course that was 1965. There wouldn't
be nearly the same fuss now-the Norse settlement discovered since
at
L'Anse-aux-Meadows in Newfoundland proves that the Norse were here, map or no map ..." (Ingram, J.,
"The Vinland Map," in "The Barmaid's Brain: And Other Strange
Tales from Science," [2001], Aurum Press:
London, Reprinted,
2005, pp.150-151)
30/11/2007
"But while Americans and Canadians have largely forgotten the Vinland Map brouhaha, the experts haven't,
for they continue to fan the flames of a controversy of their
own: is the map a fake? The arguments on both
sides offer a
glimpse into two fascinating worlds: that of medieval historians trying to work from
circumstantial evidence and scientists trying to apply the highest technologies available, both groups
attempting to authenticate the map-or not. It might seem at first glance that the
scientific approach would be
more objective, but, as the evidence
is rolled out, the two have more in common than you would think.
When
it comes to science, it's not so much the technology that counts-it's who is using it. And while a
majority seems to have decided that the map is the real thing, there are still
nagging doubts. Doubts that,
maybe surprisingly, haven't
been resolved by the hard-nosed technological approach." (Ingram, J., "The
Vinland Map," in "The Barmaid's Brain: And Other Strange Tales from Science," [2001], Aurum Press:
London, Reprinted, 2005, pp.151-152. Emphasis original)
30/11/2007
"So
in February 1972, Yale turned to science for something more definitive. Had they known how many more
twists and turns lay ahead they might have had second thoughts. An independent scientist named Walter
McCrone was chosen to analyze the map. McCrone had built a reputation as a microscopist
supreme; his
six-volume work The Particle Atlas is a standard
reference on the identification and analysis of microscopic
particulate
matter of all kinds. McCrone assigned one of his colleagues to pick fifty-four extremely tiny
particles from the surface of the Vinland Map (tiny enough that all fifty-four together weighed less than a
millionth of a gram and if piled together would be barely visible to the naked
eye) and examined them with an
array of technologies: microscopes,
ion microprobes, X-rays and electron diffraction, all aimed at
determining
exactly what substances were present on the surface of the map. His conclusion wasn't long in
coming and it was a shocker: McCrone's analysis showed that the ink that had been used to draw the map
and write the inscriptions contained very large amounts of titanium-in some places
as much as 50 per cent."
(Ingram, J., "The Vinland
Map," in "The Barmaid's Brain: And Other Strange Tales from Science," [2001],
Aurum Press: London, Reprinted, 2005, pp.159-160)
30/11/2007
"Titanium is a metal that when combined with oxygen forms a titanium oxide
called anatase, used widely
today as a white pigment. It seemed
extremely unlikely that a fifteenth-century ink could contain as much as
50 per cent titanium. But the clincher came when these pigment particles (so small that it would take one
hundred thousand of them to span your little fingernail) were examined with the
electron microscope. It
revealed the crystals to be round and
regular, typical of those created in industrial processes first used to
manufacture titanium pigments in the 1920s. The only one who saw any humour in the results was McCrone
himself, who said that the chances of a five-hundred-year-old map containing such
pigment globules were
about the same as Admiral Nelson's
flagship at Trafalgar being a hovercraft. The one loose end was the fact
that the ink on the map was yellow, but anatase is a brilliant white. However, when anatase was first being
produced eighty years ago it was contaminated with iron, giving it a yellowish
hue, perfect for imitating
faded medieval ink. McCrone's
report was devastating. Most of the world at large and many of the experts
were convinced that the suspicions had been borne out, the chemistry didn't lie and the Vinland Map was a
brilliant, imaginative, scholarly and almost perfectly executed hoax." (Ingram,
J., "The Vinland Map," in "The
Barmaid's
Brain: And Other Strange Tales from Science," [2001], Aurum Press: London, Reprinted, 2005,
p.160)
30/11/2007
"However, a few insiders clung stubbornly to their belief that the map fit just too perfectly into the scenario
that had been created for it to be dismissed by the first science
that came along. And indeed there were
some puzzles in McCrone's
data. For one thing, there were places where there seemed to be ink but no
titanium. Some of the faithful-scientists among them-were uncomfortable with the idea of extrapolating from
a millionth of a gram of material to the entire map, an unavoidable consequence
of picking micro-particles
from the map's surface."
(Ingram, J., "The Vinland Map," in "The Barmaid's Brain: And Other Strange Tales
from Science," [2001], Aurum Press: London, Reprinted, 2005, pp.160-161)
30/11/2007
"Perhaps inevitably, a second scientific
analysis was performed on the Vinland Map in January 1985, at the
University
of California, Davis. There, a group led by Tom Cahill used particle-induced X-ray emission,
PIXE, to catalogue the chemicals present on the Vinland Map. Cahill's team at Davis has analysed more than
a thousand ancient documents, including a Gutenberg Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In PIXE, a high-speed
beam of protons, particles from atomic
nuclei, is aimed at the target-in this case the ink line on the map. The
protons dislodge electrons from the ink atoms, forcing these atoms to rearrange their remaining electrons. In
doing so all chemicals emit a unique set of X-rays. So you simply aim the beam
at the ink, read the X-rays
coming back and you have a list
of the chemicals present. The results were stunning. PIXE detected levels
of titanium tens to hundreds of thousands of times lower than those reported by McCrone. Cahill reported
seeing no crystals of any kind, let alone of the twentieth-century compound anatase,
and he and his
colleagues went even further. They drew fake
map lines using a modern titanium-based ink on a sixteenth-
century
piece of parchment. Then they erased those lines to the point where they were no longer visible to
the naked eye. Even so they still found levels of titanium twenty thousand times higher than they had
detected on the Vinland Map. The Davis group had even found more titanium in the
ink of their Gutenberg
Bible than they found on the Vinland
Map. If PIXE were capable of finding titanium in a fake ink even when
it can't be seen, yet detected none on the Vinland Map, how could McCrone have found so much? The two
results cannot be reconciled. Tom Cahill has put it well: `Let's say there's
a piece of ink and he [McCrone]
pulls a crystal off it, and
it's fifty per cent anatase. He extrapolates to say the whole ink is fifty per cent
anatase. Because we analyzed all the ink present, we have to extrapolate nothing. We found the ink was
highly variable across the map: some of it has titanium, some doesn't.'
McCrone contends that by surveying
broad areas, PIXE reduces
the concentrations of titanium to insignificant levels. As to how McCrone is able
even to find modern-looking crystals with so much titanium in them, Cahill raised the possibility of
contamination-a white painted room is full of such crystals, many of them airborne."
(Ingram, J., "The
Vinland Map," in "The Barmaid's
Brain: And Other Strange Tales from Science," [2001], Aurum Press:
London, Reprinted, 2005, pp.161-162)
30/11/2007
"That was the situation in the mid-1980s. Since then Walter McCrone's
analysis has taken some further hits.
Two of the new introductory
chapters in the rereleased version of The Vinland Map and the
Tartar Relation include thinly disguised or undisguised attacks
on McCrone. One is by George Painter, who
Relation
include thinly disguised or undisguised attacks on McCrone. One is by George Painter, who
Relation include thinly disguised or undisguised attacks on McCrone. One is by George Painter, who
attacks anyone and everyone who has questioned the map's authenticity and characterizes
McCrone's
theories of how a forger might have executed
the map as `absurd,' `pointless,' `incredible' and `preposterous.'
Two chapters later, Tom Cahill, the scientist behind PIXE, adds these comments about the validity of the
McCrone procedure: `we can find no evidence that the critical particle removal
process was guided on site
by manuscript experts as it was
being performed,' and goes on to lament the `lack of prior experience of the
McCrone investigators.' While Cahill suggests that the titanium that Walter McCrone found in crystals from
the Vinland Map might be a modern contaminant, a different explanation (and just
as convincing) has come
from Jacqueline Olin of the Smithsonian
Institution. She has shown that minute titanium crystals, of
approximately
the type seen under McCrone's microscope, can result from a typically medieval preparation
of ink, which involved roasting materials until they had been reduced to fine powders. Olin claims that some
anatase-like crystals, modern in appearance, could result from this process if
the furnaces used reached high
enough temperatures." (Ingram,
J., "The Vinland Map," in "The Barmaid's Brain: And Other Strange Tales
from Science," [2001], Aurum Press: London, Reprinted, 2005, p.162)
30/11/2007
"For his part, McCrone, on the McCrone
Research Institute website (www.mcri.org), scoffs at the idea that
the
necessary heat could have been generated in a furnace being used by a fifteenth-century ink-maker. He
also wonders why, if his method is so flawed, he and his colleagues found two hundred
times as much
titanium (in modern form) on the Vinland Map
as they did on either the Tartar Relation or the Speculum
Historiale. If all three documents were prepared at the same time
using similar or even identical inks, why is
Historiale.
If all three documents were prepared at the same time using similar or even identical inks, why is
Historiale. If all three documents were prepared at the same time using similar or even identical inks, why is
the map so much richer in titanium? And McCrone, too, can boast of support from
the Smithsonian.
Kenneth Towe, in that museum's department
of paleobiology, agrees with McCrone that the likelihood that a
fifteenth-century
ink-maker could produce true anatase crystals is exceedingly small and that in fact Olin's
crystals aren't like the ones on the map. He has also analyzed Cahill's data statistically and concluded
that
the amounts of titanium in the ink are significantly higher
than those from the parchment alone. If indeed the
titanium
in modern crystalline form has drifted onto the map from white-painted walls, why did those
particles land only on the inked portions of the map?" (Ingram, J., "The Vinland Map," in "The
Barmaid's
Brain: And Other Strange Tales from Science,"
[2001], Aurum Press: London, Reprinted, 2005, p.163)
30/11/2007
"There is an object lesson here for anyone out there who still believes that
science is an unbiased route to
the truth. In this case each
individual scientific approach leads to a version of the truth, but the two
independent approaches are diametrically opposed. Walter McCrone has a reputation for skepticism-he
performed a similar particle analysis on the Shroud of Turin and demonstrated (to
the satisfaction of many)
that the mysterious image on the
shroud had been painted. It's not surprising he concluded the map to be a
forgery. On the other hand, would Tom Cahill have gone to the trouble of retesting the Vinland Map if he
didn't believe there was still a good chance it was authentic? I'm not
suggesting that either scientist has
been dishonest, but it's
a very good bet they started with different preconceptions and after all, the answers
you get are constrained by the questions you ask. At any rate, in the case of the Vinland Map,
straightforward scientific approaches cannot, by themselves, answer the question
everyone is asking. Even
if McCrone had found no titanium,
or Cahill had found plenty of it, there would still be doubts. The map
could be radiocarbon dated, found to be five hundred years old and still be a forgery." (Ingram, J., "The
Vinland Map," in "The Barmaid's Brain: And Other
Strange Tales from Science," [2001], Aurum Press:
London,
Reprinted, 2005, pp.163-164)
30/11/2007
"After endless arguments over the heat of fifteenth-century furnaces or the
motives of a putative forger
choosing a 1920s house paint to
fake a fifteenth century map you can't help conclude that belief, not
science, is what is most important here. And in that sense the saga of the Vinland Map is no different from
any other kind of science. Until the data is overwhelmingly persuasive, belief
holds sway. As one last
thought, assume the Vinland Map is
real. Imagine the reaction of the man who laboured so carefully on its
precise coastlines and near-microscopic inscriptions, if he were told that five hundred years in the future,
scholars would be holding conferences, blowing up his images to thousands of times
their actual size and
bombarding the map with mysterious streams
of particles, all in an effort to determine if he really had drawn
it.
I think there might be a smile on his lips." (Ingram, J., "The Vinland Map," in "The Barmaid's Brain:
And
Other Strange Tales from Science," [2001], Aurum Press:
London, Reprinted, 2005, p.164)
