The Shroud of Turin – Unraveling the Mystery

Various relics ascribed to have been in physical contact with Jesus have been evaluated for the presence of blood, including the Tunic of Argenteuil, the Sudarium of Oviedo, and most famously, the Shroud of Turin. Congruence was reported for certain bloodstain patterns that overlap between relics, suggesting that they may have been associated with the same person. Interestingly, in all cases the blood type was found to be AB, which has also been described for certain Eucharistic miracles. Here, we discuss the theological and scientific significance of shared blood type and comment on the scientific validity of these findings.

In 1988, the Shroud of Turin was carbon dated to 1260-1390 AD. This paper summarizes why this date should be rejected: 1) it would have been impossible to form such an image on cloth during the Middle Ages, and 2) a proper statistical analysis of the data from the carbon dating indicates that an unexpected factor had probably altered the Shroud samples. Also discussed are reasons why the Shroud could date to the first century based on traditions, historical evidence especially the Pray manuscript, and the many other date indicators for the Shroud.

This is the third of three recent papers related to the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin.  The first in this sequence, paper 24, is titled “Understanding the 1988 Carbon Dating of the Shroud.”  It contains 37 pages including two examples of how measurement errors can affect measurement results.  The second in this sequence, paper 28, is a shortened version, i.e. an abstract, of the first.  It contains 12 pages and is titled “The Carbon Dating of the Shroud is Explained by Neutron Absorption.”  The third in this sequence, which is this paper, is only two pages.  It was written to explain why the carbon dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390 should be rejected, and to do so in as brief and simple a manner as possible.  This is accomplished by use of an analogy with an hourglass.  Adding sand to the top of the hourglass would produce an apparent time younger than the true time since the hourglass was turned over.  This is similar to carbon dating of the Shroud, in that neutron absorption would produce new C-14 in the cloth which would shift the measured age to be younger than the true age.

British art historian Thomas de Wesselow, trained at Courtauld, claims that it was the image on the Turin Shroud that prompted Jesus' disciples to believe in the Resurrection. While appreciating the author's study of the relic, the review points out why exactly his point of view is wrong.

The following is a consolidation of important historical references of the Shroud through the early centuries found in multiple sources. I have gathered the most significant references here in one document. Together, they form a compelling argument for a historical trail that traces back a thousand years earlier than the 14 th century as promulgated by the carbon dating tests of 1988. These important references indicate the cloth was in Constantinople before it was stolen in 1204 and later revealed in Lirey, France in 1356. However, due to the silence of the "missing years," (1204-1356) critics allege there is no historical evidence of its existence prior to its emergence in France, a claim that is now seriously challenged by these documented references.

La Sindone è emblema della fede.
La fede è storia, e, in virtù di ciò, richiede che nei suoi confronti ci si rivolga con un approccio critico-scientifico.
Tuttavia la stessa fede rivela come tale appressamento risulti insufficiente e limitato, ovvero da compensare e corroborare, in quanto questa è considerazione del Signore Gesù Cristo a partire dalla sua comunione col Padre e con lo Spirito.

L’elaborato in questione parte da un’idea alquanto ardita: porre a raffronto, mantenendo sempre come fondale l’osservazione della Sindone, le risurrezioni presenti nel Nuovo Testamento, con la Risurrezione per antonomasia, ovvero quella di Gesù.

To explain the characteristics of the image on the Shroud of Turin, along with the 1988 carbon dating and the characteristics of the blood on the Shroud, it is hypothesized that an extremely brief intense burst of vertically collimated radiation was emitted within the body of the crucified man that was wrapped within the Shroud. This radiation, probably consisting primarily of charged particles, caused a static discharge from the top fibers facing the body, which caused heating in a very thin surface layer on the fibers, which caused molecular damage to the cellulose in this thin layer. With the passage of time and possibly ultraviolet exposure, this thin damaged cellulose layer on the fibers gradually became discolored to form the image of a man that was crucified exactly as Jesus was crucified. By this process, the radiation controlled the location of the discoloration, thus encoding into the image the information that defines the appearance of a crucified man, so that the image could have this appearance. The evidence for this hypothesis is its ability to explain the characteristics of the image, carbon date, and blood on the Shroud.

Dopo aver trasferito la propria capitale da Chambéry a Torino nell’anno 1563, «Era mente del duca di Savoia Emanuele Filiberto, ricuperati suoi stati […], di avere presso di sè la Sindone […] che ordinariamente lo teneva in Ciamberì». A Chambéry, infatti, «non pareva molto sicuro [il sacro Sindone] per li continui tumulti delli Hugonotti ne paesi vicini della Francia, et Delfinato».

The Turin Shroud bears an image of an apparent crucified man, chemically the result of some dehydrative, oxidative, and subsequent carbonyl conjugative process of cellulose [3] In the here described experiment the (lower) calyx side (bottom) part of an apple is imaged on a linen cloth with a special corona discharge mechanism. The calyx part of an apple can be compared in size and profile to approximately one eye on the Turin Shroud. The corona mechanism of this experiment is capable of approximately produce an image of objects that are between 0 and 10mm away from the object while maintaining sharpness. Corona imaging experiments had been previously done in 2014 by Giulio Fanti et al. [1] This experiment distinguishes itself from this previous experiment in that the setup and mechanism is substantially different. Energy considerations from this mechanism lead to the conclusion that the image on the shroud could have been formed with one single average lightning-bolt following the here described technique.

Eyewitnesses reported that the dead body of Jesus’ of Nazareth disappeared while wrapped in a cloth.  Today the only credible physical evidence of this amazing event is the Shroud of Turin, which many people believe was Jesus’ actual burial cloth.  This cloth contains front and back full length body images that many researchers agree are of a real man.  This report is a theoretical study of how the image on the Shroud of Turin might have been created.  Our present knowledge of science does not explain disappearance of a dead body, so this discussion accepts its disappearance as fact.  Once past this conundrum, a Free Electron Model of Image Formation is proposed to explain how an image of a man might have been created on linen cloth, assuming only that a body disappeared while wrapped in it.  This model proposes that an interface opened between our world and a higher dimensionality to swallow the body, while leaving behind void populated by electrons and photons that created an image on cloth.  This study concludes that the body’s disappearance is consistent with transfer to a higher dimensionality.

According to ancient tradition, the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.  To determine whether this could be true, more historical and scientific research has been done on the Shroud of Turin than on any other ancient artifact.  The purpose of this paper is to summarize the results of the scientific research on the Shroud of Turin.  This summary is based on the opinions of most Shroud researchers and on research by the author.  Research on the Shroud is summarized using nine summary statements.  A multi-step argument is given that the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus of Nazareth.  Two objections to these conclusions are considered – that they violate the laws of science and that the authenticity of the Shroud is disproven by the 1988 C14 dating of the Shroud, which concluded that the Shroud dates to 1260 to 1390 AD with a 95% probability.  Four reasons are discussed which indicate that this conclusion is not justified by the evidence.  This includes consideration of 14 indicators of the Shroud’s date and 6 indications that the 1988 statistical analysis of the C14 dating results was inadequate.  The neutron absorption hypothesis is used to explain the apparent C14 date to 1260 to 1390 AD.

More research has been done on the Shroud of Turin than any other ancient artifact. Many dedicated individuals and groups in many countries are doing this research, yet many controversies remain due to the small size of most samples and lack of access to the Shroud. This paper summarizes five areas related to this research. Regarding philosophy, research on the Shroud should be done by following the evidence where it leads, which is forensic science, while rejecting the requirements of naturalism so that the researcher can have a neutral mindset in the research. There is a continuous history of the Shroud back to about 1356, but there is convincing evidence that it was in Constantinople prior to 1204 AD, with copies of it in art and coins back to the 6 th and 7 th centuries. There is good evidence that the image was caused by radiation that altered the structure of the organic compounds in the linen fibers, perhaps by means of a static discharge from the fibers. This radiation must have been emitted from within the body to carry the information from the body to the cloth that was required to control the mechanism that discolored the fibers. The best explanation for the carbon dating of the Shroud to 1260 to 1390 AD is that neutrons were included in this radiation. These neutrons formed new C 14 in the fibers which could have shifted the C 14 date forward by up to thousands of years, depending on the location on the Shroud. The most reasonable conclusion is that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, and that the image resulted from a unique event involving Jesus' body as it was wrapped within the Shroud.

Scientists cut samples from the corner of the Shroud of Turin for carbon dating in 1988.  Carbon dating is done by measuring the C14/C12 ratio of the samples.  The average date obtained by the three laboratories was 1260 ± 31, which produced a range of 1260 to 1390 when corrected for the changing concentration of C14 in the atmosphere.  But analysis indicates there are problems in the data:  1) two of the three laboratories obtained statistically different dates,  2) the carbon date is different for different locations on the cloth.  The date increases about 91 years for every inch (about 36 years for every cm) that the sample location is moved further from the bottom of the cloth, and  3) if the carbon date is assumed to be the same for every location on the Shroud, then the probability of obtaining a variation of the date for the 1988 Shroud samples at least as large as was obtained is only 1.4% (Table 6 in Ref. 3 and Table 4 in Ref. 16).  This value is below the usual acceptance criteria of 5.0% so the possibility that the carbon date is the same at every location should be rejected.  Thus, to explain the variation of the measured dates requires there to have very likely been an unidentified factor that altered the measured dates from the true date for the Shroud.  The amount this unidentified factor altered the measured dates is unknown.  This means that the 1260-1390 date from Damon, et. al. should be rejected, that is, given no credibility.  According to the neutron absorption hypothesis, this unidentified factor is neutron absorption that would have created new C14 on the cloth.  According to this hypothesis, neutrons were included in the burst of radiation from the body that formed the image of the crucified man that can be seen on the Shroud.  To change the carbon date from the time of Jesus’ death, about 30 AD, to 1260 AD requires neutron absorption to increase the amount of C14 on the samples by only 16%.

In 1988, the C14 dating methodology was used (Damon, et al., Nature Feb. 16, 1989)) to date samples from the Shroud of Turin to 1260 to 1390 AD.  But research during the last 30 years has convinced leading Shroud researchers that the Shroud of Turin is much older than 1260 to 1390 AD, thus contradicting the results of the C14 dating.  To solve this carbon dating problem for the Shroud of Turin, a three-part series has been written that covers:  1) background,  2) statistical analysis, and  3) the neutron absorption hypothesis.  Part 1 on background information should be read and understood before this paper is attempted.  This paper is part 2 in the series and discusses the statistical analysis of the 1988 C14 date measurements.  To the extent possible, this paper is written for the layman, and uses only the Chi-squared statistical analysis technique that was used in Damon.  Part 3 in this series hypothesizes that neutron absorption in the Shroud explains the results found in the statistical analysis in this paper, as well as the C14 date to 1260 to 1390 AD.  In this paper, several indications are discussed that the range of the 1988 C14 date measurements is much too large in comparison to the measurement uncertainties.  This indicates that there is a serious problem with the data.  Most significantly, a Chi-squared statistical analysis of the measurement data indicates that the variation in the C14 date measurements has only a 1.4% probability of being consistent with the measurement uncertainties.  This indicates about a 98% probability that something other than random measurement error was also affecting the measured values, such as, in statistical analysis terminology, a systematic bias.  Plotting the three laboratory average values indicates that this systematic bias is a function of the distance of the sample from the bottom of the Shroud.  This means that each measured value Mi was the result of the actual age (A) of the Shroud plus the bias B(xi, yi), where the xi and yi are the prior position coordinates of each sample (i) on the Shroud, combined with the one sigma random measurement error Ri.  The equation for this is Mi = A + B(xi, yi) ± Ri.  This systematic bias could have been sufficient to shift the date for the Shroud forward by up to thousands of years.  Part 3 discusses the cause for this systematic bias.  Since the measured values listed in Damon are not corrected for the magnitude of the bias, the 1988 C14 date for the Shroud of 1260 to 1390 AD should not be accepted as necessarily valid, so that the conclusion that the Shroud dates it the Middle Ages is not proven.

This is an evaluation of a paper published July 10, 2018, in the Journal of Forensic Sciences.  The paper is titled “A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin” by Matteo Borrini, Ph.D., and Luigi Garlaschelli, M. Sc. (Ref. 1).  A “BPA” is a bloodstain pattern analysis.  This paper on BPA of the Shroud is evaluated to determine the soundness of its methods and conclusions.  Several elements are included in this evaluation.  The general problems with this type of analysis and the specific problems with the experimental procedures in Ref. 1 are considered first.  The main conclusions are then considered, including possible explanations of the alleged inconsistencies.  This is followed by a description and evaluation of the six experiments involved in the BPA.  The paper identifies two alleged inconsistencies between the results of the experiments and the blood on the Shroud:  1) the blood on the back of the left hand compared to the forearm, and  2) the blood on the lower back compared to the location of the side wound.  As concluded in the last paragraph of Ref. 1, the alleged contradictions point “against the authenticity of the Shroud itself, suggesting the Turin linen was an artistic or ‘didactic’ representation from the XIV century.”  There is nothing in their BPA analysis to indicate the century that the Shroud originated, so the authors evidently based this 14th-century date on their view of previous research on “the historical records, the radiocarbon dating, and the chemical analysis” of the Shroud.  As a result, this evaluation next considers the impact of presuppositions on the results of research, and a summary of previous research on the Shroud of Turin.  This research has led most Shroud researchers to reject the view that the Shroud originated in the 13th or 14th centuries, contrary to the conclusion in Ref. 1.  The conclusion also does not necessarily follow from the experimental results because the alleged inconsistencies are more likely to indicate our lack of understanding of the process before, during, and after crucifixion or result from inadequacies in the experimental procedures.  The conclusion of this evaluation is that the experimental results discussed in Ref. 1 do not constitute valid evidence that the Shroud originated in the 14th century or constitute valid evidence that the Shroud of Turin is not the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.

ICST-2017 - International Conference on the Shroud of Turin - July 19-22, 2017, TRAC Center, Pasco, Washington, USA

ABSTRACT

The Mandylion in Constantinople: Literary and Iconographic Sources

Alfonso Caccese1 - Emanuela Marinelli2 - Laura Provera3 - Domenico Repice4


1 In novitate radix, in.novitate.radix@gmail.com
2 Collegamento pro Sindone, sindone@fastwebnet.it
3 Pontificia Università Antonianum, proveralaura@libero.it
2 Amici Romani della Sindone, amiciromanidellasindone@gmail.com


The ancient Image of Edessa was moved to Constantinople in the year 944. This image, which is called Sindon in some sources, begins to be called Holy Mandylion right in the Byzantine capital. The solemn arrival in Constantinople is extensively described in the Narratio de Imagine Edessena attributed to the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (10th century). The Sermon of Gregory Referendarius and the Codex Vossianus, both of the 10th century, describe the Edessa Image as the image of a whole human body. The Edessa Image is described in the Acts of Thaddeus with the term tetrádiplon (folded four times). These testimonies contribute to validate the hypothesis that the Edessa Image is actually the Shroud, folded. The depictions of the Man of Sorrows that circulated in Constantinople during the period of the ascertained presence of the Edessa Image find the confirmation of their probable sindonic origin in the literary sources. The authors also investigate the relationship between the Holy Shroud and the new depictions of the suffering Christ that originate in Constantinople in the period of the presence of the Mandylion. The image of the dead Christ, emerging from a tomb with his arms crossed, begins to spread. The image of the crucifix is also transformed: the still-living Christ gives way to the dead Christ, who is also depicted when he has just been removed from the cross and put on a sheet. These depictions seem to be referring to a progressive knowledge of the true nature of the Mandylion: a cloth with the entire image of the dead Christ. The existence of the Throne of the Magnaura is well-known; we can hypothesize the existence of a similar mechanism to exhibit the Mandylion-Shroud with equal authority. To confirm what has been stated above, the authors present some significant iconographic testimonies.

The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth bearing the front and back body images of what appears to be a crucified man. Although it is considered one of the archaeological objects most studied in history, nobody has been able to replicate the microscopic complexity of the chemical and physical characteristics of its faint images. After countless attempts, the inability to replicate the image on the Shroud prevents formulating a reliable hypothesis on the process of the image formation.
In this paper we summarize the state-of-the art of the scientific research on the Shroud, from the multidisciplinary STuRP analyses (1978) to the radiocarbon dating (1988), from biological clues to the linen irradiation experiments at the ENEA, till the illusory perception of low contrast stains on the Shroud.
As detailed in this paper, despite huge scientific efforts, the Shroud is still “a challenge to our intelligence”, a remarkable object whose scientific analyses lead to many clues, but any proof.

The Shroud of Turin is an approximately 14 x 3.5 feet linen cloth of unknown origins bearing the faint frontal and dorsal images of a man with reddish areas corresponding to wounds at the head, hands, side, feet and back.  Previous studies have shown that the reddish areas contain various blood components including hemoglobin, heme breakdown products (bilirubin), albumin, and immunoglobulin (1-5).  For over thirty years, it has been accepted by many that the blood on the Shroud is of human (primate) origin, but new findings that indicate the validity of previous data must be reassessed.  As discussed, cross-reactivity precludes a definitive conclusion that the bloodstains on the Shroud are of human, even primate, origin.

In our search for absolute Reality, we cannot afford to leave any stone or atom unturned, there is no doubt that the Æther pervades every aspect of the universe and humanity, the animals, plants and minerals all owe their development to the vibrations of light radiating through the Ætherial flow of the Torus.  This paper contains the bare necessities, but there is so much more the material world cannot contain, just as John wrote that the world could not contain all the books that could be written of the actions and events surrounding the life of Yahshua Messiah.  Yet, is also seems that these anomalies and properties regarding how Yahveh transforms through Eloah (feminine form) (Aether) to manifest as the unified principles of Elohim (male) to create all that is, including the Resurrection through Light of the First Primordial Day, that is not subject to gravity.

The Shroud of Turin is purported to be the literal burial shroud of Jesus Christ, and its authenticity has thus aroused intense debate and sometimes hostile rhetoric between those who believe that the Shroud is authentic (or at least believe that it is the actual burial shroud of a crucified man who may or may not have been Jesus), and those who do not.  Many attempts have been made by skeptics to challenge its authenticity on various grounds, as well as to develop alternative theories to explain how the images on the Shroud could have been faked or generated by a variety of mechanisms.  The Shroud of Turin is therefore the most highly studied relic in the history of the world. This paper summarizes all of the known and significant attempts to debunk it.

To determine whether the Shroud of Turin could be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, the many mysteries related to the Shroud need to be explained with a logically consistent unbiased evidence-based approach that follows the evidence where it leads.  This is attempted in this paper based on information, radiation, and neutron absorption.  Why we can see the image on the Shroud is explained by the presence of information in the pattern of discolored fibers in the image.  Formation of the image is explained by radiation emitted from within the body that communicated the required information to the Shroud to form the image.  The carbon dating of the Shroud to 1260 to 1390 AD is explained by neutrons that were apparently included in this radiation.  A small fraction of these neutrons would have been absorbed in N14 in the Shroud to form new atoms of C14 in the Shroud.  This would have shifted the carbon date forward by up to thousands of years, depending on the location.  The man, who was crucified and whose body emitted radiation, is best understood to be Jesus.

In 1988, the C14 dating methodology was used (Damon, et al, Nature, Feb. 16, 1989.) to date samples from the Shroud of Turin to 1260 to 1390 AD.  But research during the last 30 years has convinced leading Shroud researchers that the Shroud is much older than 1260 to 1390 AD, thus contradicting the results of the C14 dating.  To solve this carbon dating problem for the Shroud, a three-part series has been written that covers:  1) background,  2) statistical analysis, and  3) the neutron absorption hypothesis, which is this paper.  A more thorough statistical analysis (Part 2) than that originally done in Damon indicates that something (technically called a systematic bias) probably affected the measurement values, in addition to the normal random measurement errors.  This systematic bias was neither identified nor quantified in Damon so that the resulting date of the measurements (1260 – 1390 AD) should not be used to date the Shroud.  There is much evidence to indicate that the image on the Shroud was caused by a burst of radiation from the body that was wrapped in it (Role of Radiation in Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin).  It is hypothesized in this paper that if neutrons were included in this burst of radiation, a small fraction of them would be absorbed in the trace amounts of N14 in the linen thus forming new C14 atoms by the (N14 + neutron --> C14 + proton) reaction.  This newly created C14 would be indistinguishable from the original C14 that was taken into the plant while it was alive, thus shifting the apparent C14 date in the positive direction by up to thousands of years.  Computer calculations were performed using the MCNP nuclear analysis computer code to determine that if 2 x 10^18 neutrons were emitted from the body it would have increased the C14 concentration at the sample location by 16%, which would have shifted the C14 date from 30 AD to 1260 AD.  This number of neutrons is only one in every ten billion that would have been in the body that was wrapped in the Shroud.  The MCNP nuclear analysis computer calculations were used to determine C14 dates for samples taken from anywhere on the Shroud.  It was found that most locations would date to the future, assuming the usual equations are used to determine the date from the C14 concentration.  Specifically, for material removed in 2002 from under the patches at the elbows, samples should date to about 3500 to 4500 AD.  This neutron absorption hypothesis is the only hypothesis that is consistent with the four things that are known about C14 dating as it relates to the Shroud of Turin:  1) the uncorrected date of 1260 AD at the 1988 sample location,  2) the slope of the dates from the three laboratories of about 36 years per cm,  3) the range of the dates for the 16 subsamples (1155 to 1410 AD), and  4) the C14 date of 700 AD for the Sudarium of Oviedo, which according to tradition is the face cloth of Jesus (John 20:7), and thus related to the Shroud.

In 1988, the C14 dating methodology was used to date samples from the Shroud of Turin to 1260 to 1390 AD (Ref. 1).  The problem with this date range is that it contradicts most other evidence which indicates that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus from the first century.  To solve this carbon dating problem for the Shroud of Turin, a three-part series has been written that covers:  1) background,  2) statistical analysis, and  3) the neutron absorption hypothesis.  This paper is part 1 in the series and covers background material that is needed to understand parts 2 and 3 in the series.  Basics of radiation and the C14 dating methodology are discussed to help people understand the neutron absorption hypothesis in Part 3.  An extensive list of evidence is given why the C14 dating of the Shroud to the Middle Ages is not correct.  A simplified example is given of measurements with and without a systematic bias, and the characteristics of the data analysis are explained that demonstrate when a systematic bias is present.  This is required to understand the statistical analysis in Part 2.

L’analisi esegetica e teologica della crocifissione di Gesù è momento assai complesso, nel quale si inseriscono varie tematiche in rapporto dinamico e dialogico fra loro, quali ad esempio l’ambientazione, l’attività presso la croce, gli ultimi eventi e la morte, gli avvenimenti dopo la morte, gli effetti esteriori e le reazioni dei presenti

The Shroud of Turin contains the image of a crucified man thought by many to have been Jesus of Nazareth.  After crucifixion, Jesus’ body was wrapped in cloth, sealed in a tomb, and then reported to have disappeared.  Both disappearance of his body and formation of an image on cloth appear impossible.  For this study disappearance of the body is accepted as fact, leaving only the image to be explained.  The assumption is made that an interface opened to a higher dimensionality to swallow the body, while leaving behind void populated by electrons and photons.  A Free Electron Model of Image Formation is proposed to explain how this image might have been created.  Free electrons are postulated to have created charged layers in front of interfaces that pushed electrons to high enough energy to create an image.  The image created by this theoretical reconstruction appears fully consistent with the actual image.  This leads to the conclusion that the body must really have disappeared.

What exactly did the Biblical writer mean when he wrote: “…the testimony of God is this: that He has borne witness concerning His Son” (1 John 5.9)?  He states that this “testimony” is greater than “the testimony of men” (i.e., the Apostles).  Could the Shroud of Turin be the answer to this puzzling passage with its perplexing questions?  Did the Heavenly Father leave behind a miraculous sign in the empty tomb testifying to the human Jesus being the Christ, His divine Son?  Is the Shroud’s incredible image the testimony of the Father down through the ages affirming the truth of the Gospel story?

To solve the mysteries of the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud has been researched more than on any other ancient artifact. These mysteries include the image, date, and blood. It would be very attractive if, by following the evidence where it leads, a single concept, referred to in the title as a "holistic solution", could be developed that could explain these mysteries. This paper presents such an explanation. Based on the scientific evidence, it is hypothesized that an extremely rapid intense burst of radiation was emitted from within the body that was wrapped in the Shroud. This hypothesis can explain why we can see the image, how the image was formed, why carbon dating produced a date of 1260-1390 AD for a cloth that is from the time of Jesus (about 30 to 33 AD), how the blood was thrust off the body onto the cloth, why there is no image under the blood, and why the blood has a reddish color. Methods to test this hypothesis are suggested, including measurement of the distribution of carbon dates across the Shroud and detection of long half-life isotopes on the threads and blood on the Shroud and in the proposed limestone tombs.

Rubens' Descent from the Cross (1612) contains a number of elements that are derived from an esoteric reading of the gospel of John. This gospel describes a twofold initiation of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved' and a corresponding double initiation of Mary Magdalene, on the day of the Ressurection and in connection with the burial shroud of Christ (Shroud of Turin). These initiations are represented on Rubens' Descent from the Cross. The two characters in the upper part of the painting are identified as James and John, the sons of Zebedee.

If you fail to act now, history will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." (King 1959) "Future planners assume that today's human behavior is normative, explaining it as adaptive to current conditions and part of a line of progress from prior Western or Euro-centric existence. There is a lack of awareness of how "worldview" has influenced the state of affairs in the world today." (Four Arrows and Narvaez 2016, p. 2) have on one's descendants. Interconnectedness fosters harmony by promoting responsibility and reciprocity, and harmony is considered the most powerful energy in the universe." (Methot 2012) "In Indigenous sciences, the world is often understood in terms of flows of energies (and sometimes entities) across a permeable boundary between manifest and unmanifest realities. Working relationships with forces deemed "superstitious" or "irrational" in modern science are significant aspects of social processes and healing practices. Maintaining these worldviews and practices is an uphill battle against the hegemony of modern scientific thought and the legacy of missionaries and educators who tried so hard to dismantle Indigenous knowledge systems. Even among scientists today, those who try to work outside the mechanistic paradigm in ways that approach Indigenous science are denounced as crackpots." (Herman 2008, p. 75) Returning to our discussion of , accepting that being 'realistic' means accepting the status quo is just fine if accepting the status quo is tenable for you in your seat of privilege, but it is not tenable if accepting the status quo means accepting the suffering and death of your homeland, nonhuman kin, family, friends, communities, etc. By not telling students how things fit together in the political, social, economic, etc. systems of Colonial Modernity or how we should think and feel about the oppressive ways that things fit together in colonial modernity teachers simply allow the exploitative, dominant culture of Colonial Modernity and its many and varied mythological rationalizations for oppression (which have been inscribed upon all those people who are socialized within Colonial Modernity) to go unproblematized (which is to say to retain their 'commonsensical', banal invisibility). By approaching education in a non-didactic manner authors like Cook implicitly support the hegemonic status quo and the many and varied forms of oppression therein. Obviously students will retain their ability to accept or reject didactic narrations, but the key is that didactic narrations which counter the dominant culture serve to problematize the banal invisibility of the dominant culture and its associated myths, ideas, logics, ontological assumptions, etc. (i.e. Worldview) that produce and legitimate the oppressive, hierarchical relations between things that typify Colonial Modernity.

With all of the attention from books such as "The Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?", "The DaVinci Code", and others, a hypothesis has been put forward to explain how the images on the Shroud of Turin are actually fakes that were produced by Leonardo DaVinci for the Savoy family, who owned the Shroud from the 1460s onward. The alleged mechanism for image generation was supposedly a medieval photographic process developed and perfected by Leonardo DaVinci, and it is thus alleged that the Shroud of Turin of today is a fake created during the period 1492–1506.

It will be demonstrated that this hypothesis and its alternative are not reasonable explanations for the images on the Shroud of Turin and therefore should be dismissed.

In 2010, the first laboratory demonstration of a Shroud-like coloration at the microscopic level by using very short and intense bursts of Vacuum Ultraviolet radiation attracted a worldwide attention from media. It is time to rewind the tape and put those experimental results in their proper context: namely, the motivations of the work, the search for the optimum (but difficult to achieve) working point, the photo-chemistry clues, the reliability of the results, the scaling up from coloration to image production, what our results have really shown from a strictly scientific point of view, what are the implications in other areas such as philosophy, religion and metaphysics, what journalists (and some scientists too) have misunderstood.
In this frame, the talk proposes a fascinating trip in 10 years of experimental efforts, intuitions, insights, accomplishments, disappointments, controversies. In three words, “the scientific method” …applied to a metaphysics question.

There are many concepts of science, discovered from a purely experiential conscious level which present solid evidence of a threefold foundation and structure that is the source of all operations of this vast expanse, we call our atmosphere of the living Heavens. Energy is not life, but is the result of Elohim who is the true Light and Power that gives birth to everything. Science due to its very pragmatic evolutionary artificial nature, is blindsided by its own inability to see the Unified field that vibrates and undulates through the undifferentiated AEther causing electrical charges to flash between the flesh sense and spirit essence, until each coalesce to form a spiritual and scientific knowledge based on a true spiritual encounter with redemption. This fiery electrical reality is first encountered in Genesis after the Cherubim are placed at the East of Eden to protect the Tree of Life's eternal power. Is there evidence of communication between the Father and the creation? Yes, and it begins with the Cherubim that were first assigned to governance of Adam and Eve after they are removed from the protection of the sacred place. Many authors realized the role of the cherubim two hundred years ago, yet how many people do you know that can tell you anything about the Cherubim now that isn't associated with alien technology, or fallen angel mythology that is now the trend of today's alternative belief systems. But before any of those authors were brought here to accomplish their purpose, the original witnesses not only wrote about the Cherubim, but experienced their power and energy transforming their minds to receive the Word of Yahveh. The Cherubim play a major role in the writings of not only Moses who sees the first introduction of the Cherubim in Eden, but Ezekiel, Isaiah and John also add more details that together present a very powerful mechanism that operates behind the scene of our Universe. How many people still remember that the Cherubim really symbolize a particular ministry of the pre-existent Word for the redemption of man? They are later seen in the chariot of Ezekiel 1:4, who Parkhurst declares as the same Chayyot 'turning every way' as properties of the fire enfolding itself in order to protect the path to Eternity. Ezekiel is also a witness to these living creatures that appear bearing the same hieroglyphic as the Cherubim Moses describes in Genesis. As their vast wheels come into view there are flashes of lightning and a whirlwind that is reminiscent of the astronomical events Enoch witnessed wherein, he sees fiery streams of fire that form columns, are these columns the axis that giant quasars revolve upon? Are there any authors that studied Ezekiel that can attest to the validity of Ezekiel's vision as proof of that the mysterious figure sitting upon the Chariot is the Son manifesting the depth and height of the Father throughout the Universe? Yes, there are several, we will look at a few of their concepts as we follow the trail of the Cloud and Fire that follows Israel during the process of migration. For instance, Rev. A.B. Simpson's work The Holy Spirit or Power From on High an Unfolding of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments does describe the process in such a way that we can begin to see the emergence of physics and meteorology of the aether operating throughout the Universe at the behest of the Son who is the aether's true Charioteer. Bear in mind that Aether forms vortices or circles that develop mass and density, this same Aether can then transform back into pure energy or Spirit. The Wind itself is the Spirit blowing upon us all this time, making contact with us, but is overlooked as just a material physical phenomenon. All these things are showing forth how Yahweh is with us every day all day every day, it is the mortal mind that cannot comprehend these things, only Spirit can beget spiritual wisdom. "In the midst of this whirlwind there is a fire enfolding itself; a sort of whirlwind of fire, turning upon its own axis, and sweeping on in majesty and glory. The whirlwind and the fire have already been made familiar as the symbols of God and His manifested presence and glory. Next, he beholds in the midst of the fiery whirlwind

Images of the front and back of a naked crucified man can be seen on the Shroud of Turin.  Evidence indicates these images were caused by radiation.  The cloth collapse hypothesis holds that the disappearance of the body from within the Shroud of Turin created the conditions for the cloth to rapidly collapse into the region previously occupied by the body, where it encountered radiation that discolored the fibers thus forming the high-resolution front and back images on the Shroud.  Potential problems with this hypothesis include:  1) difficulty in forming the front and back images without side images by collapse of the Shroud under the forces of gravity and air pressure difference,  2) the speed of radiation is so much faster than the speed of the cloth that cloth movement becomes irrelevant, and  3) the cloth would not start to collapse until about 99.9% of the radiation had already gone through the cloth, again making cloth movement irrelevant to the image formation.  The last two problems can be avoided by assuming that the body becomes mechanically transparent when it starts to disappear.  The vertical radiation hypothesis is preferred over the cloth collapse hypothesis due to the latter’s difficulty in explaining why there are no side images.  An equation is derived for the distance that the cloth collapses as a function of time after the disappearance of the body.

important statistical analysis of the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud which includes new data from the British Museum obtained by several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.  Unfortunately, people not familiar with the mathematics or terminology used in statistical analysis will probably not properly understand important concepts in these documents.  Perhaps of greatest importance, the authors of these statistical analyses agree that the samples sent to the three laboratories in 1988 were heterogeneous, which is also referred to as non-homogeneous, which means that:
• The samples were essentially different from each other relative to how they were measured.
• Which means the samples contained statistically different ratios of C14 relative to the other carbon isotopes (C12 and C13).
• Which means something had changed the ratio of C14 to C12 and C13, with the amount of this change being unknown for any sample.
• Which means each measurement, though presumably measuring the correct ratio of C14 to C12 and C13 in each sample, could have obtained dates that were different than the true date by an unknown amount.
• Which means that the uncorrected average value of 1260 ± 30 cannot be regarded as necessarily accurate.  More precisely, it can be wrong by an unknown amount.
• Which means the uncorrected date of 1260 ± 30 should be rejected as not valid.
• Which means the corrected date range of 1260 to 1390 AD has no basis, and thus should also be rejected, i.e. given no credibility.
Thus, the dates obtained during the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud ought to be rejected, i.e. given no credibility, because the samples were heterogeneous (non-homogeneous).  The date range of 1260 to 1390 AD was accepted for the Shroud due to an inadequate statistical analysis that failed to recognize the presence of a systematic error or bias affecting the measurements.

The 1988 carbon dating of samples from the Shroud of Turin produced a date a 1260-1390 AD. Those who believe the Shroud probably dates to the time of Jesus, i.e. about 33 AD, often explain this carbon date is due to normal contamination such as handling, intentional placing of materials such as wax on the Shroud, or carbon deposited on the Shroud from the fire in 1532. There are two reasons why these normal sources of contamination cannot explain a shift in the carbon date from about 33 to 1260-1390 AD: 1) A variety of cleaning methods, including acids, were used on the Shroud samples in 1988 but these various cleaning methods did not significantly alter the carbon dates. 2) To shift the carbon date from 33 to 1260 AD would require the carbon in the samples to be at least 60% due to the contamination which should be easily visible using a microscope. For carbon deposited by the 1532 fire to be the explanation, it would have to constitute 80% of the carbon in the sample. However, microscopic examination of the fibers indicates the contamination is minimal. The equations used to calculate these percentages are included. The best explanation for the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390 AD is not normal contamination but instead is new C 14 produced on the cloth by neutron absorption.

A response to the possible enveloping of the Man of the Turin Shroud results from the analysis of the three-dimensionality of the body image. The 3-D analysis is based on the correspondence between image luminance levels and body-sheet distance.

An insight in the Genealogy of the French and Normand Nobiliar Families of Outre- Mer who kept the famous Shroud of Turin, the way they conserved it and the transmission of the most famous of the Relic of the Christian World through the women of these Houses, history, anecdotes and myths: the Lusignan Family, cousins of the Royal House of Plantagenets and Anjou, the De La Roche Family, cousins of the Lusignan House and of the Royal Capetian House, the De Vergy Family, the De Ray Family, the Imperial House of the Comnenus of Byzantius, and the Royal House of Savoy in Italy.

This study supports the experimental finding in 2012 that VUV radiation was used to colorize Shroud-like linen using an ArF laser operating at 193 nm. In this present study the radiation is assumed to be coming from Turin Shroud Man's body, a biological image forming mechanism for the Shroud of Turin. The resonant wavelength 188 nm of a human chromosome, or chromatid, assumed to be a folded and coiled strand of double helix DNA 30 nm in diameter modeled as a loop antenna agrees to within 2.6% of the wavelength found using an Excimer ArF laser to produce coloration of Shroud-like linen. The number of photons s-1 per laser pulse in this case can be determined to be ~7.8 x 10 16. Where human skin cells are ~30 µm in diameter their number is of order 10 9 m-2. Assuming the observed resonance is indeed biologically based and not a numerical coincidence, the analytic problem becomes how can the strands of DNA of uncoiled length about 2 metres, having more than 10 9 bp be packed into a length of <1µm and give a magnification factor of the photon flux of about 10 16. Although the number of photons being emitted by each cell is not definitively known (perhaps 1-1000 cm-2 s-1) the physical situation is in part a question of topology; can the overall antenna structure be designed to involve 10 16 loops, enough to yield the power needed for coloration? It must be noted that each chromatid can act at its resonant frequency given by 2 ⁄ 2 as a loaded antenna, able to interact with its mutual chromatids. The chromosome is known to be a two-tiered fractal system of coils packed into nucleosomes, proteins and histones. The nucleotides are thought to have ~150-200 bp tightly wrapped around the histones. Given the structures are acting as loop antennas what packaging can yield the same power levels as the ArF laser? Calculations reveal that the characteristics of the ArF laser operating at λ=193 nm, duty cycle=12 ns, pulse energy=0.08 J, p-t-p time=1 sec match a chromosome of <10 5 loops corresponding to ~200 bases per internal loop that is interacting with one neighbour. In the very special case of Resurrection it seems all cells in Turin Shroud Man's Body were involved simultaneously. The EM field in a chromosome may have been amplified by its neighbors all acting as loop antennas in an array of size 8 x 8 cells. There is thus a wide range of compatible fractal solutions agreeing with a biophotonics hypothesis that UV from within Turin Shroud Man's body produced the image on the Shroud of Turin; a range of biological evidence also suggests 2 chromosomes act as antennas.

Every image that a person can see is based on information. For example, a person can be recognized in a photograph because the information that defines the person's appearance has been encoded into the colors, shades, and positions of the pixels that form the image on the photograph. The same is true for the Shroud. We can see the image on the Shroud because the information that defines the appearance of a crucified man has been encoded into the location of the discoloration on the fibers that make the image on the Shroud. When light carries this information to our eyes, our brains recognize this information as an image of a crucified man.

The carbon dating of the Shroud in 1988 concluded that it dates from 1260 to 1390 AD. This paper explains why this conclusion should be rejected. Two types of errors, random errors and systematic errors, can alter the results of every measurement by altering either the measurement process or the samples. Analysis of the values obtained in the 1988 carbon dating indicates a number of problems: 1) two of the three laboratories obtained statistically different dates, 2) the carbon date is different for different locations on the cloth increasing about 36 years per cm (91 years per inch) as the sample location moves further from the bottom of the cloth, and 3) the probability of obtaining a variation of the dates for the 1988 Shroud samples at least as large as was obtained is only 1.4%, which is below the usual acceptance criteria of 5.0%. To explain the variation of the measured dates most likely requires an unexpected factor to have altered the samples, thus causing a systematic error in all the measurements. According to the neutron absorption hypothesis, this unexpected factor is neutron absorption which would have created new C 14 on the cloth by the [N 14 + neutron → C 14 + proton] reaction. These neutrons were evidently included in the burst of radiation from the body that formed the image of the crucified man on the Shroud, so the two effects, image formation and the shift in the carbon date, are related. To change the carbon date from the time of Jesus' death, about 30 AD, to 1260 AD requires neutron absorption to increase the amount of C 14 on the samples by only 16%. This paper is an abridgment of a 37-page paper titled "Understanding the 1988 Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin", available at http://www.shroudresearch.net/research.html.

Stephen Toulmin, in an introductory text on the philosophy of science, once remarked that science entails a new way of looking at old or familiar phenomena. If this characterization is accurate and I think that it is, then NicholasAllen's text on what is traditionally referred to as the Shroud of Turin is an admirable account of doing science by dispensing with worn out, unsatisfactory explanations and taking a new look at the phenomenon in question.
And if this new look involves the application of something else, in this case the familiar principles of photography, then the latter may equally be illuminated in new, unexpected ways which invite a surprising rethinking of orthodox accounts of the history of art, science and technology.At the same time, ProfAllen's hypothesis, the elegant simplicity of which is matched only by the persuasiveness of its explanatory power, is a salutary reminder that Western science and technologymay not be all that we have traditionally been led to believe.
His work on the origin of the Shroud suggests, instead, that what most people have always regarded as the exclusive achievements ofWestern culture, may in fact have some of its important roots in some other knowledge tradition, from which it was appropriated by virtue of some set of historical circumstances.
In this respect Allen's research is related to the work of those scholars such as Sandra Harding who have put forward arguments and adduced evidence that (`Western') science may in fact be a multicultural phenomenon. Regardless of its contribution to the recovery of `lost' knowledge and technology, however,Allen's argument is a splendid instance of the structure of scientific research in the form of an interplay between what Popper called `conjecture and refutation' (and, of course, confirmation).

Every step of the way the reader witnesses the emergence of conjectural hypotheses that are continually subjected to scrutiny in the light of guiding theoretical assumptions as well as (corroborating or falsifying) evidence. ProfAllen's ability to formulate alternative, increasingly more accommodating explanations at every turn, bears witness to the breadth of his erudition and the depth of his insight.
I shall refrain from spoiling the fun of discovery on the part of prospective readers by letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak, concerning the specifics ofAllen's hypothesis on the way the Shroud of Turin was made. Suffice it to say that it provides the most tenable account to date, as may be gathered from the fact that ProfAllen has even succeeded in making a Port Elizabethan counterpart to the Turin artefact by implementing the scientific technological principles and procedures which he believes to have been used to create the original Shroud. I am convinced that open minded readers of his book will not be disappointed.
Prof Bert Olivier Department of Philosophy University of Port Elizabeth 1997