Friday, January 30, 2015

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (4)

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction. This is part #10, Summary (4), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. See the previous parts #10(1), #10(2) and #10(3). Other previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, part #3, part #4, part #5, part #6, part #7, part #8 and part #9, which posts this part #10 will summarise. It is my emphases below unless otherwise indicated. See the update of this post in my "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #3".

[Above (enlarge): Schematic of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating system at the University of Arizona in 2005[2]. Note the "Control Console" at bottom left next to the photograph of a computer [see enlargement right]. This presumably is not the actual system used to radiocarbon date the Shroud of Turin in 1988[3], but both then and now it is the control console computer which actually reports a sample's radiocarbon date.]

4. ARIZONA LABORATORY'S FIRST DATING OF THE SHROUD TO "1350 AD" [part #4] Here is the eyewitness account of Rochester University physicist, the late Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), of Arizona Laboratory's very first (of all the laboratories) radiocarbon dating of the Shroud on 6 May 1988:

"'The first sample run was OX1. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The age of the control sample could have been calculated on a small pocket calculator but was not-everyone was waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue. His face became instantly drawn and pale. At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first. It had taken me eleven years to arrange for a measurement that took only ten minutes to accomplish! Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began"[4].

Note the following from Gove's account above:

• "All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen". There was a computer (the AMS control console computer) between the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer which actually carbon- dated the Shroud sample and the humans in the laboratory reading the computer's screen. A computer is controlled by a program and a program is hackable. A hacker with access to the AMS control console computer (as Timothy W. Linick did), could run a program which would intercept the output of the AMS radiocarbon dating program, en route to the computer's screen and replace the Shroud's first (or early due to contamination) century date with a date which, when calibrated, would be "1350 AD," for this very first run of carbon dating of the Shroud. Thereafter for Arizona and the other two laboratories the hacker's program could replace the Shroud's date with random dates within limits which, after calibration, displayed dates clustered around 1325 ±65. Finally the hacker's program could automatically order its own deletion when the dating of the Shroud would have been completed (e.g. after 3 months), leaving no trace of its former existence[5].

• "The first sample run was OX1. Then followed one of the controls. ... the next sample-the Shroud of Turin" As with the "OX1" (oxalic acid 1 - see below) sample, each sample, including each of the two Shroud samples (see below) evidently had a unique identifier, since those reading the results on the computer screen knew which sample each was from. Earlier Gove had explained what the order of the samples dated were: "Eight of the ten samples in this first historic load were OX1, OX2, blank, two shroud and three controls. ... the remaining two ... may have been some duplicate controls and/or another OX ... standard samples made from oxalic acid ..."[6].

Table 1 in the 1989 Nature paper[7] lists the unique identifiers of each of the three laboratories' Shroud sample ("Sample 1") and the other control samples:

[Above (click to enlarge): Table 1 in the 1989 Nature paper showing the Shroud's unique identifying code as the first letter of each laboratories' name, a dot, and then the numeral "1". A note below the table explained: "* The identification code for each measurement shows, in order, the laboratory, sample, measurement run, pretreatment and any replication involved" [8].]

This code was allocated to each laboratory (e.g. A1, O1, Z1 for Arizona, Oxford and Zurich's Shroud samples respectively) by the

[Left: Oxford radiocarbon laboratories' Shroud sample identification code "O1," one of their control samples "O3," and their stainless steel cylinders and wax seal[9].]

British Museum's Dr Michael Tite who gave them their Shroud and control samples with those identification codes: "The representatives from the three laboratories left with their nine steel cylinders and a letter. The one to Zurich, for instance, read: `The containers labelled Z1, Z2, and Z3 ...' The Oxford samples were labelled O1, O2 and O3 and the Arizona samples T1, T2 and T3. ..."[10].

This unique identifier code for each sample was required so that there could be no confusion between the laboratories of which sample was from the Shroud and which were controls, and so that Dr Tite could collate their results[11]. But it also made it feasible for a hacker (whom I allege was Arizona physicist Timothy W. Linick) to be able to write a program which included a test of which sample was from the Shroud, so that once installed on the AMS computers at all three laboratories, it could run automatically at those laboratories without further human intervention. Linick's unauthorised program, according to my theory, when installed on all three laboratories' AMS computers, substituted the Shroud's radiocarbon dates with computer-generated dates, which when calibrated and averaged across all three laboratories, would produce a combined bogus radiocarbon date of the Shroud of around 1325, which was shortly before the Shroud appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in about 1355[12].

• "the year the flax had been harvested ... was 1350 AD ... the time its historic record began" Note how uncritical Gove, and indeed all present were, even by those who believed the Shroud was authentic, like Doug Donahue, a Roman Catholic[13]. Gove even wrote approvingly of Donahue, the co-founder of Arizona laboratory[14], changing his mind and believing on the basis of one dating run, at one laboratory, that "this was the shroud's age:":

"I remember Donahue saying that he did not care what results the other two laboratories got, this was the shroud's age. Although he was clearly disappointed in the result, he was justifiably confident that his AMS laboratory had produced the answer to the shroud's age"[15].

They all chose to ignore, what they must have known, that, according to Prof. Jacques Evin, then Director of the Radiocarbon Laboratory at the University of Lyon, it is not possible for radiocarbon dating to be "closer than a span of 200 years"[16] (see part #1).

And because they were all nuclear physicists[17] they did not realise how absurdly unlikely that date of 1350 was. Because since the Shroud is known to have existed from at least 1355[18], the flax would have had to have been harvested in 1350, retted under

[Right (click to enlarge): Pilgrim's badge from the Shroud's historical debut at Lirey, France in c.1355[19].]

water for several months[20], spun into linen fibre, woven into a linen cloth, and then the image imprinted on the cloth, all within 5 years! Not to mention stitching and edging the cloth to match that which was found only at the first-century Jewish fortress of Masada (see "Linen sheet"].

Moreover it would mean that the Arizona laboratory's pretreatment of their Shroud sample would have had to have been perfect, removing all non-original carbon. But that is highly unlikely because:

"In 1532 the Shroud was being kept inside a silver casket stored in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, when a fire nearly destroyed the building. The intense heat melted a corner of the casket, scorching the folded linen within, and producing the now familiar scorch marks on the Shroud. Since silver melts only at 960 degrees centigrade, the heat inside the casket must have been intense. In these circumstances moisture in the Shroud would turn to steam, probably at superheat, trapped in the folds and layers of the Shroud. Any contaminants on the cloth would be dissolved by the steam and forced not only into the weave and yarn, but also into the flax fibres' very lumen and molecular structure. ... contaminants would have become part of the chemistry of the flax fibres themselves and would be impossible to remove satisfactorily by surface actants and ultrasonic cleaning. More drastic treatments to destroy the contaminants would inevitably damage the flax fibres themselves"[21].

And being all nuclear physicists, they would probably have been unaware that in 1350 the Shroud was was owned by the most honourable knight in France, Geoffrey I de Charny (c. 1300-1356), "who "wore on his epaulettes the motto `honour conquers all' ... wrote deeply religious poetry ... was chosen by France's king to carry into battle his country's most sacred banner, the Oriflamme of St Denis, an honour accorded only to the very worthiest of individuals ... died a hero, defending his king with his own body in the ... battle of Poitiers" and "fourteen years after his death he was duly accorded a hero's tomb, at royal expense ..."[22]. So "It is extremely difficult to understand how such a man would have lent his name ... to ... fraud"[23].

So the 1350 date must be wrong. But if a hacker wanted to break down the minority pro-authenticity resistance, and reinforce the majority anti-authenticity prejudice, and create a climate of expectation that subsequent datings would confirm that the Shroud was medieval, then 1350 was the date he would have used for that very first dating !

• It was widely known that the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in the 1350s. Indeed the 1989 Nature paper stated that the Shroud "was first displayed at Lirey in France in the 1350s"[24]. Leading Shroud sceptic Denis Dutton (1944-2010) had in 1986, in a review of Ian Wilson's "Evidence of the Shroud" (1986), which stated that "the Shroud [was] exhibited at Lirey, ca. 1357"[25]), "predicted that if the cloth ever were to be carbon-dated it would come in at A.D. 1335, plus or minus 30 years." And after the 1988 dating Dutton noted that "the collated result was A.D. 1325, plus or minus 65 years," which meant that he was only "ten years off"[26]. Another leading Shroud sceptic, microscopist Walter McCrone (1916-2002), having read Ian Wilson's first book, "The Turin Shroud" (1978), and accepting from it that, "We can be reasonably sure of its [the Shroud's] existence ... since about 1356"[27], predicted in 1981 that "the image [on the Shroud] ... was painted on the cloth .. about 1355"[28]. McCrone had then added:

"Only a carbon-dating test can now resolve the question of authenticity of the 'Shroud' of Turin. A date significantly later than the first century would be conclusive evidence the `Shroud' is not genuine. A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ, would, no doubt, be so accepted by nearly everyone.'"[29].

So a hacker who (unlike McCrone who was "unschooled in carbon dating"[30]) was aware (as Linick would be) that radiocarbon dating could date only when the living flax plants died, that is, when they were harvested[31], would know what date to give the Shroud's linen for maximum plausibility - shortly before 1335 to 1355. And, as we shall see, there is evidence from McCrone's above quoted words that the alleged hacker, Timothy Linick, was familiar with McCrone's 1981, "about 1355" prediction of the eventual "carbon-dating" of the Shroud.

Continued in part #10 Summary (5).

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. "Basic Principles of AMS," NSF-Arizona AMS Facility, University of Arizona, 2005. [return]
3. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
4. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
5. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991, p.9. [return]
6. Gove, 1996, p.263. [return]
7. Damon, 1989, p.612. [return]
8. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
9. de Castella, T., 2010, "Unshrouding the science of the Shroud," BBC News, 12 April. [return]
10, Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.11. [return]
11. Wilson, I., 1986, "Trondheim Radiocarbon Dating Conference," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 13, April, pp.5-6. [return]
12. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
13. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.188. [return]
14. "Accelerator Mass Spectrometer Group: Our Team: Douglas J. Donahue," NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory, 17 August 2004. [return]
15. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
16. Evin, J., 1988, "In anticipation of carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 27, June. [return]
17. Wilson, I., 1990, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 26, September/October, p.18; Wilson, I., 1991, "From Professor Harry Gove," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 27, December 1990/January 1991, p.14. [return]
18. Wilson, 2010, p.222. [return]
19. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
20. Crispino, D.C., 1989, "Recently Published," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 30, March, p.17. [return]
21. Tyrer, J., in Wilson, I., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. [return]
22. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.21. [return]
23. Ibid. [return]
24. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
25. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.5. [return]
26. Dutton, D., 1984, "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review 23, pp.243-255. [return]
27. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.140. [return]
28. McCrone, 1999, p.138. [return]
29. Ibid. [return]
30. Gove, 1996, p.49. [return]
31. Meacham, W., 1986, "On carbon dating the Shroud," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 14, September, pp.4-16, p.14. [return]


Posted: 30 January 2015. Updated: 27 July 2017.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Problems of the forgery theory: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones

Problems of the forgery theory

[Index] [Previous: Linen sheet] [Next: Dimensions]


Introduction. As we saw in the previous entry, "Linen sheet," the central dilemma of the Shroud is that, either the Shroud of Turin is authentic, or it is a forgery. As author John E. Walsh put it in 1963,

[Right: The cover of Walsh's early, important, book on the Shroud.]

either the Shroud is a "relic of Jesus Christ" (i.e. it is authentic[1]), or it is "a product ... of the human mind and hand" (i.e. a forgery[2]), there being "no middle ground" (my emphasis):

"Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground"[3].

The following is a list of all the problems of the forgery theory that I encountered in writing this Encyclopedia. Since there is no plausible third alternative[4], evidence against the forgery theory is evidence for the Shroud's authenticity. The numbering is sequential, in order of posting, not in order of importance. For more details of each problem see the hyperlinked entries in square brackets.


§1. Forger had to obtain a first century Syrian or Palestinian fine linen ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre cloth. Since the only known examples of the same stitching as the Shroud's seam and its selvedge were found in the first century Jewish fortress of Masada [Linen sheet]. And the cloth's dimensions above were 8 by 2 Assyrian cubits [Dimensions].

Notes
1. A "relic usually consists of the physical remains of a saint or the personal effects of the saint or venerated person" ("Relic," Wikipedia). [return]
2. By "forgery" I include the theory that the Shroud was a work of an artist but not "with the intent to deceive" ("Forgery," Wikipedia). If the Shroud was the work of an artist, he did not sign his name to his work (as most artists do, but forgers don't) and he would in fact have deceived countless millions. And my evidence and arguments against the "medieval artist theory" will be the same. [return]
3. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.x-xii. [return]
4. See "Linen sheet." [return]

Created: 29 January, 2015. Updated: 10 February, 2015.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Linen sheet: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones

Linen sheet

[Index] [Previous: Shroud of Turin] [Next: Problems of the forgery theory]


Introduction. The Shroud of Turin is a rectangular linen sheet, ~4.4 metres long by ~1.1 metres wide (~14.3 x ~3.6 feet), and about a third of a millimetre (~0.34 mm) thick. The colour of the cloth was originally white (as found by cross-sectioning fibrils). But it

[Right: Top left hand corner of the Shroud showing the sidestrip (left side with piece missing), one set of two large burn holes, and one set of small L-shaped `poker holes' (see "previous"): Shroud University]

has darkened with age and today its colour is variously described as "honey," "straw yellow," "yellowish," "cream," "off white" and "ivory," (see right).

Linen. The cloth is fine linen, which in the first century ranked in value with gold, silver and silk. The use of a fine linen cloth as a burial shroud for a crucifixion victim therefore indicates a high degree of wealth, which is consistent with the Gospels that "a rich man," Joseph of Arimathea, bought and wrapped Jesus' body in "fine linen" (Mt 27:57-60; Mk 15:42-46; Lk 23:50-53; Jn 19:38-42 HCSB).

Flax. The linen had been hand-spun and hand-woven from the common domesticated flax plant, Linum usitatissimum, which is native to a region from the eastern Mediterranean to India. The flax yarn had been hand-spun with a "Z" twist. Flax has a natural "S" twist, which was more common in Egypt. However, flax yarn with a "Z" twist was more frequent in the linen of the Roman Empire. Linen with a "Z" twist has been discovered in Syria and Judea, which points to a Syro-Palestinian origin of the Shroud.

Selvedge. Around the edges of the Shroud is a selvedge, or weaver-finished edge. The purpose of a selvedge is to prevent the woven cloth from fraying or unravelling.

[Left: Bottom right hand corner of the Shroud showing part of the selvedge: Shroud Scope.]

Sidestrip. The sidestrip is the 8 to 9 (7.8 to 8.4) centimeter (~3½ inch) strip that runs the full length of the left hand side of the cloth, except for two pieces missing at each end (see above). The missing pieces were 14 and 36 cms long at the bottom and top left hand corners respectively. The sidestrip is also made of linen and the thread of the seam (see "Seam" below) joining it to the main body of the Shroud is also linen. Both the sidestrip and the main Shroud have the same herringbone three to one twill weave (see "Weave" below). Indeed, radiographs reveal that alternating high- and low-density banding structures continue from the main body of the Shroud, through the seam into the sidestrip (see below). This means that the side strip and the main body of the Shroud were part of the same larger linen sheet. But since it would make no sense to cut lengthwise an ~8.5 cm (~3½ in.) strip off a ~1.1 metre cloth and then sew the strip back on again, the most likely explanation is that of ancient textiles expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg that the bolt of linen which the Shroud was

[Above (click to enlarge): Illustration of Dr. Flury-Lemberg's explanation of how the cloth from which the Shroud came was originally woven much wider than the Shroud. Then the cloth was cut lengthwise and the two pieces bordered by the selvedge (shaded) were joined together by a seam (see "Seam" below) to form the Shroud cloth[1].]

cut from, was up to three times the Shroud's width (~3.3 m) and the cloth was then cut twice lengthwise, and the two sections with a side selvedge were joined by a seam to form the cloth which became the Shroud, with the central section without side selvedges being used for other purposes. Ancient Egyptian linen looms were even wider, up to 3.5 m (~11.5 m) but no medieval European looms were that wide. Even medieval European tapestries were woven on looms that were only between 3 and 6 feet (~0.9-1.8 metre) wide.

Seam. The sidestrip is joined to the main body of the Shroud by a professionally crafted, hand-stitched seam about 0.5 cms wide.

[Right (click to enlarge): Magnified radiograph of an area containing the Shroud's seam[2], showing that weft (widthwise) threads continue from the sidestrip (left) through the seam and into the Shroud's main body (right), proving that the sidestrip and main body were part of the same wider cloth and exactly joined.]

The stitching of the seam is unusual, being nearly invisible on the image side of the Shroud, and on the obverse (non-image) side, closely resembling the stitching of Jewish textiles found only at Masada, the Jewish fortress which was overthrown by the Romans in AD 73 and never reoccupied. Moreover, other Jewish textiles found at Masada had the same unusual selvedge as the Shroud's. This alone is powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud and against its 1988 radiocarbon dating as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[3]!

Weave. The weave of the Shroud is a three-to-one herringbone twill pattern, where the weft, or horizontal, thread passes alternately over three and under one of

[Left: The Shroud's weave, showing the twill (diagonal parallel ribs) combined with regular reversals, creating a herringbone ( zigzag) effect: Shroud Scope.]

the warp, or vertical, threads. This complex weave pattern givess strength and flexibility, but it would have been an expensive cloth in the first century, which again is consistent with the Gospels' account that Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, bought the Shroud to bury Jesus (see above). While there is no herringbone twill weave in linen yet known from the first century or earlier, there are examples of such weaves in silk and wool from third century Syria (Palmyra ~AD 276) and Roman Britain (Holborough, Kent ~AD 250). And fragments of herringbone twill weave in wool, similar to the Shroud's weave, have been found at the early second century (AD 100-120) Roman fort of Krokodilo, in Egypt's Eastern Desert. So there is no reason why 3:1 herringbone twill linen weaves could not have been produced in Syria and Egypt, countries bordering Palestine, or in Palestine itself, by the first century. Moreover, there is only one known example of a herringbone twill linen weave from the medieval period (see next).

Problems of the forgery theory. In 1963, writer John E. Walsh pointed out the central dilemma of the Shroud, that it is either authentic, or it is a forgery, there being "no middle ground" (my emphasis here and below):

"Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground"[4].

Leading Shroud anti-authenticists accept this dilemma. In 1903, Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939), admitted, "If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression":

"As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head, can still be clearly distinguished ... If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other person since the world began could these details be verified"[5].

Leading modern day Shroud sceptics, Steven D. Schafersman (1948-) and Joe Nickell (1944-) also accept this dilemma, "Either the shroud is authentic ... or it is a product of human artifice" (i.e. a forgery):

"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[6] and Stevenson and Habermas[7] 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 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)[8]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'"[9].

Therefore problems of the forgery theory are evidence for the Shroud's authenticity. I will begin recording, in my next Encyclopedia entry, "Problems of the forgery theory," each problem of the forgery theory that I encounter in the course of writing this Encyclopedia, and assigning each different problem with a sequential number (e.g. §1, §2, §3 ...).

§1. Forger had to acquire a first century (or earlier) Jewish fine linen ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre cloth. That the very unusual stitching of the Shroud's seam and its selvedge is the same as that of Jewish textiles no later than AD 73 found at Masada (as we saw above), is problem §1 (in number order, not necessarily the greatest) of the forgery theory. Because the unknown 14th century, or earlier, forger would have had to acquire a first century (or earlier) Jewish fine linen ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre cloth (the alternative is even more unlikely) and imprint on it by some unknown means, the front and back image of a naked, crucified Jesus. But (as mentioned above) medieval herringbone twill linen cloths are exceedingly rare, and in fact there is only one known example of a medieval herringbone twill linen weave: a fourteenth century, block-painted linen fragment with a 3:1 chevron (herringbone) twill weave, in the Victoria and Albert Museum,

[Above: The only known example of a herringbone twill weave from the mediaeval period. The grey part is a reconstruction. Victoria and Albert Museum ref. no. 8615-1863[10].]

London. The texture of this lone example is very much coarser than the Shroud's. Further evidence of the extreme rarity of medieval linen cloths with a Shroud-like herringbone twill weave, was the fact that the British Museum's Dr. Michael Tite was unable to find any medieval linen with a weave that resembled the Shroud, to use as blind control samples for the 1988 radiocarbon dating. So how could a medieval forger have obtained the ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre 3:1 herringbone twill weave Shroud cloth?

Conclusion. The Shroud's cloth is consistent with it being the "fine linen" cloth that the "rich man," Joseph of Arimathea, bought and wrapped Jesus' body in, according to the Gospels. The "Z" twist of its flax yarn is also consistent with the cloth having a Syrian or Palestinian origin. A previously puzzling feature of the Shroud, its lengthwise seam, has together with its selvedge, turned out to be evidence for the cloth's first century origin. The Shroud's selvedge, together with the stitching of the seam visible only on its non-image side, being the same as first century Jewish textiles found at Masada and nowhere else, is evidence that the Shroud is first century Syrian or Palestinian. And therefore, it adds to the evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as 1260-1390 was wrong.

This also poses a problem for the medieval (or earlier) forgery theory, because the unknown, hypothetical forger would have had to somehow acquire a first century Syrian or Jewish ~4.4 x 1.1 metre fine linen cloth with a 3:1 herringbone twill weave (despite there being only one known example of a much smaller medieval cloth). The even less plausible alternative is that the forger would have had to obtain a medieval ~14.3 ft (~4.4 m) long by ~6 ft (1.8 m.) wide fine linen sheet (the maximum width of known medieval looms), and then, to simulate a first century Syrian-Egyptian extra wide cloth (that he somehow knew about), the forger cut the sheet lengthwise and then rejoined it with stitching to match first century Jewish stitching like that at Masada (Masada itself was only discovered in 1838-42)[11]). And then, whichever implausible way the forger obtained the cloth which is the Shroud, the forger would have had to, after first applying real human blood (see "Shroud: Bloodstains"), somehow, by some unknown means, imprint the now bloodstained cloth with a front and back image of the naked, crucified Jesus. And as we shall see, this is just the start of the problems of the forgery theory!

Notes
1. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.72. [return]
2. Adler, A,D., Whanger, A. & Whanger, M., 1997, "Concerning the Side Strip on the Shroud of Turin," Shroud.com. [return]
3. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
4. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.x-xii. [return]
5. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19 in Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.52. [return]
6. Wilson, 1979, pp.51-53. [return]
7. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.121-129. [return]
8. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
9. 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 in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
10. Extract from, "Weaving, block printing: Techniques: Facets: V&A Spelunker by Good, Form & Spectacle." [return]
11. "Masada: Archaeology," Wikipedia, 7 January 2015. [return]

References
• Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.5.
• Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.36, 72, 115, 120, 212.
• Baima-Bollone, P. & Zaca, S., 1998, "The Shroud Under the Microscope: Forensic Examination," Neame, A., transl., St Pauls: London, p.6.
• Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, pp.67, 146.
• Cassanelli, A., 2002, "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK, p.15.
• Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, pp.3,5.
• de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.108-109.
• Dickinson, I., 1990, "The Shroud and the cubit measure," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 24, January, pp.8-11, pp.10-11.
• Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.11.
• Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.1.
• Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.138.
• Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.34.
• Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.1-2, 13.
• Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June.
• Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.169.
• Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.161-162, 197.
• Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "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, p.11.
• Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, pp.40-41.
• Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, p.77.
• Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.4, 110.
• Tyrer, J., 1983, "Looking at the Turin Shroud as a Textile," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 6, March, pp.35-46, pp.38,40.
• Vial, G., 1991, "The Shroud of Turin: A Technical Study," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 38/39, March/June, pp.7-20, p.9.
• Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.36.
• Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.41.
• Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.69.
• Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.31.
• Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.2.
• Wilson, I., 1990, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 26, September/October, pp.14-16.
• Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.67-73.
• Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June.
• Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.71-76, 315.

Created: 22 January 2015. Updated: 8 December 2015.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Shroud of Turin: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones

Shroud of Turin

[Index] [Previous: Index] [Next: Linen sheet]


Introduction. The Shroud of Turin is a linen sheet ~4.4 metres long by ~1.1 metres wide, which has since 1578 (apart from short periods due to wars) been held in Turin Cathedral.

Image. It bears the front and back, head to head, faint image of a naked man. The image is a photographic negative, three-dimensional, non-directional and extremely superficial. There is no paint, dye, stain or pigment on the cloth which forms the image.

Bloodstains. The bloodstains are real human blood, with intact clots and serum haloes visible only under ultraviolet light. The blood was on the cloth before the image was formed. The wounds and bloodflows are anatomically accurate, distinguishing between arterial and venous blood.

[Right: Full-length image of the Turin Shroud after the 2002 restoration: Shroud University.]

Other marks. Other marks include sets of burns parallel to the image from a fire in 1532 and water stains from dousing that fire. Also parallel to the image are four L-shaped groups of smaller `poker holes'.

Matches the Gospels. The man has been beaten, flogged, crowned with thorns, crucified and speared in the side, matching the Gospels' description of the suffering, death and burial of Jesus Christ (Mt 27:27-60; Mk 15:16-46; Lk 22:63-23:54; Jn 19:16-42), and indeed His resurrection (Mt 27:61-28:6; Mk 15:47-16:8; Lk 23:55-24:7; Jn 20:1-9)!

History. The Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in the 1350s, under the ownership of French knight Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300-56) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (c. 1332-1428). In 1453 their granddaughter, Marguerite de Charny (c.1390–1460), transferred the Shroud to the House of Savoy. In 1983, ex-king Umberto II of Savoy (1904–83), bequeathed the Shroud to the Pope and his successors.

Authenticity is overwhelming. There is overwhelming historical and artistic evidence of the Shroud's existence back to the first century.

Sudarium of Oviedo. Bloodstains on the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has been in Spain since the 7th century, match perfectly those on the head of the Shroud.

Science unable to explain. Modern science has been unable to explain away naturalistically the image on the Shroud, and attempts to reproduce it with all its major features have failed.

Anti-authenticity has failed. The three main items of evidence against the Shroud's authenticity: the 1389 memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis claiming the Shroud was a 14th century painting; the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud's linen to 1290-1360; and the claim that the Shroud man has anatomical errors; have all been discredited. Shroud anti-authenticist theories contradict each other.

Conclusion. The Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact ever, yet it has passed all its tests with flying colours. Philip Ball, a former editor of Nature, has admitted, "the shroud is a remarkable artefact ... It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made" (my emphasis here and below)[1] and "despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever ... the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling"[2] Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory and, as "C.R. Bronk," was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper which claimed that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[3] has conceded that, "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow..."[4] Barrie Schwortz, the owner of the world's largest Shroud pro-authenticity website, Shroud.com, is a non-Christian Jew[5]. So strong is the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity that a non-Christian agnostic art historian, Thomas de Wesselow, was compelled by it to accept that the Shroud is authentic[6].

Epilogue. Another agnostic, Yves Delage, Professor of Zoology at the Sorbonne, who was one of the first scientists to accept, on the basis of the scientific evidence, that the Shroud was authentic, pointed out in 1902 to his `free-thinking' colleagues who refused to accept his evidence:

"If, instead of Christ, there were a question of some person like a Sargon, an Achilles or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making any objection"[7].
That is, if it was anyone other than Jesus, the evidence would be readily accepted that the Shroud was His, "but because of the unique position that Jesus holds, such evidence is not enough"[8]. That is, they don't want the Shroud to be authentic because that would make Jesus authentic. But those who do that are unwittingly acting out their part in Jesus' "Parable of the Pounds" in Luke 19:11-27, where the King's rebellious subjects "hated him" and declared, "We do not want this man to reign over us" (verse 14). But then read in verse 27 what Jesus warned He will do, when He returns, to those "enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them"!


Notes
1. Ball, P., 2005, "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January. [return]
2. Ball, P., 2008, "Material witness: Shrouded in mystery," Nature Materials, Vol. 7, No. 5, May, p.349. [return]
3. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp. 611-615, p. 611. [return]
4. Ramsey, C.B. 2008, "Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March. [return]
5. "Barrie Schwortz," 2013, TEDx ViaDellaConciliazione, 19th April.
6. Stanford, P., 2012, "Mystery solved? Turin Shroud linked to Resurrection of Christ," The Telegraph, 24 March. [return]
7. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.106-107. [return]
8. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.219. [return]

References
• Adler, A.D., 2000, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Blood Stains," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, 2000, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," EffatĂ : Cantalupa, p.228.
• Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.6, 25-28, 213-214.
• Baima-Bollone, P. & Zaca, S., 1998, "The Shroud Under the Microscope: Forensic Examination," Neame, A., transl., St Pauls: London, pp.22-23.
• Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.35 & online genealogies.
• Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.8.
• de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.14, 16-17, 178-181, 191-192.
• Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.30-40, 105-106.
• Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, pp.14-15, 28-29.
• Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.215-216, 218-220.
• Habermas G.R., in Miethe T.L., ed. , 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, pp.119-120.
• Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.2, 33-46.
• Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June.
• Nickell, J., 1993, "Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, pp.25-28.
• Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.4, 169.
• Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.162, 164.
• Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.18, 22.
• Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.24.
• Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.47-48
• Wilson, I., 1991 "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.159-169.
• Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.10, 17-18, 66, 112, 152-157.
• Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.14, 220-223, 239-241.
• Wuenschel, E.A. 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, pp.51-52.
[return].

Created: 21 January, 2015. Updated: 26 January, 2015.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Index A-Z: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones

Index A-Z

This is the Index A-Z page of my new Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. It supersedes my old fully referenced Turin Shroud Encyclopedia which was too slow, and my non- referenced Turin Shroud Dictionary, which did not have a page to each topic.

[Right: Negative photograph of the face image on the Shroud of Turin: Shroud University.]

This new Encyclopedia will have less footnotes to statements within entries, but there will be hyperlinks to web pages (including other entries in this Encyclopedia) supporting them. There will also be a "References" section in which will be the sources of statements. I will list each posted topic on this index page and when it gets too long, I will split it into indexes "A-M" and "N-Z," and so on. My aim will be to post a topic every few days. The title of each topic post in this new Encyclopedia will appear in alphabetic order below and be hyperlinked to it. I have also added a number index of the order in which each entry appeared.

[Next: Shroud of Turin]


[Dimensions]
[Forgery, problems]
[Linen sheet] [Locations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
[Shroud of Turin]
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Created: 20 January 2015. Updated: 3 June 2015.

Monday, January 19, 2015

My de Charny family tree on Ancestry.com

I have created and am adding to, a "de Charny family tree" on Ancestry.com. Its Home Person (the root of the tree) is Marguerite de Charny (c. 1390–1460), a granddaughter of Geoffrey I de Charny

[Above: A screenshot of the base of my Ancestry.com "de Charny family tree."]

(c.1300-1356) and Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428), and the eldest child of Geoffroy II de Charny (c.1352–1398) and Marguerite de Poitiers (c.1362–1418).

The reason I chose Marguerite de Charny as the Home Person is that she was the last private person to own the Shroud, having given it to the House of Savoy in 1453 when she was aged about 60, widowed and childless. In my Tree Overview I wrote:

"My attempt to trace the owners of the Shroud of Turin, from its disappearance in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, to Marguerite de Charny (c. 1390-1460) who transferred the Shroud to the House of Savoy in 1453."

It is a public tree but (as far as I am aware) only those who have an active Ancestry.com account can access it. I started the tree based on the family trees and information in the books of genealogist, and Shroud pro-authenticist, Noel Currer-Briggs (1919-2004). But after that my tree `took off' as it began to intersect other Ancestry.com trees of 14th century and earlier French nobility.

I would like to hear from other Shroudies who also have an active Ancestry.com account (either through Ancestry.com's message facility, or by comments below this post), and who would like to help me improve this tree. I make no claim to infallibility and some of my dates are mere guesswork!

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

"S": Turin Shroud Dictionary

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

"S"

This my Turin Shroud Dictionary has been superseded by my new Turin Shroud Encyclopedia.

This is the page "S" of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. See the "Main index A-Z" page for links to other pages in, and information about, this dictionary. Entries below are in alphabetical order.

[Shroud of Turin]


Shroud of Turin. The Shroud of Turin is a linen sheet ~4.4 metres long by ~1.1 metres wide, which has since 1578 (apart from short periods due to wars) been held in Turin Cathedral. It bears the front and back, head to head, image of a naked man who has been beaten, flogged, crowned

[Right: Face image on the Shroud of Turin: Shroud University.]

with thorns, crucified and speared in the side, matching the Gospels' description of the suffering, death and burial of Jesus Christ (Mt 27:27-60; Mk 15:16-46; Lk 22:63-23:54; Jn 19:16-42), and indeed His resurrection (Mt 27:61-28:6; Mk 15:47-16:8; Lk 23:55-24:7; Jn 20:1-9)! The Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in the 1350s under the ownership of French knight Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300-56) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (c. 1332-1428). There is overwhelming historical and artistic evidence of the Shroud's existence back to the first century. Bloodstains on the Sudarium of Oviedo match those on the head of the Shroud. Modern science has been unable to explain away naturalistically the image on the Shroud, and attempts reproduce the Shroud have all failed. The two main items of evidence against the Shroud's authenticity, the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud's linen to 1290-1360, and the 1389 memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, have been discredited. Shroud anti-authenticist theories contradict each other. So strong is the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity that agnostic art historian, Thomas de Wesselow, accepts that the Shroud is authentic. [return].


Notes:
1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Shroud of Turin," not the whole page "S"), provided a link and/or reference is provided back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return].

Created: 13 January, 2015. Updated: 20 January, 2015.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Main index A-Z: Turin Shroud Dictionary #1

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Main index A-Z

I have re-started this my Turin Shroud Dictionary, because I discovered that Google searches do find words deep in my posts. I will re-start posting entry pages normally in alphabetical order.


This is the main index of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. It will complement my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia, but each entry in this dictionary will normally be only a few lines, so I will add entries much faster, as they occur to me. There will also be multiple entries per page, and there will

[Left: Negative photograph of the face image on the Shroud of Turin: Shroud University.]

eventually be one page for each letter of the alphabet. If a page gets too long I will split it (e.g. "A" into "Aa-Am" and "An-Az"). As with most dictionaries there won't normally be references to elements within entries but where possible there will be hyperlinks (including to other entries in this dictionary) supporting them. Each letter below, when hyperlinked, will access a page in this dictionary.


[A][B][C][D][E][Fa-Fm][Fn-Fz][Ga-Gm][Gn-Gq][Gr-Gz][H][I][J][K][L][M][N][O][P][Q][R][S][T][U][V][W][X][Y][Z]


Notes:
1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Shroud of Turin," not the whole page "S"), provided that a link and/or reference is included back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return].

Created: 13 January, 2015. Updated: 27 August, 2015.