Dozens of Peer Reviewed Papers….

In 1978, goes the legend, 40 of the world’s top scientists spent 120 continuous hours in Turin, studying the Shroud and taking thousands of photographs, which they worked on for years, leading to the publishing of dozens of peer reviewed papers in reputable scientific journals, all concluding that the image was not the work of an artist. Surely this is as solid a foundation on which to build a conviction that the Shroud is authentic that it is possible to imagine, and foolish indeed would be anybody who attempted to prevail against it.

Well, it would be, if any of it were true. But it isn’t. Any of it. Time to delve…

But before we do, a bit of disclaimer. Necessary because authenticists generally only see things in black and white, for or against, absolute proof or total rubbish, and will read this post convinced that its only intention is to denigrate STuRP and all it stood for. I can see them now, sharpening their quills and dipping them in vitriol: Agent of the Devil, Snake in the Grass, etc. etc. Well, stop it. This post is not anti-STuRP, but against the hagiography and hyperbole that has come to surround it. Truth and honesty has no need of excessive exaggeration, and is often damaged by it.

In truth the STuRP team were an indeterminate group of scientists, technicians and assistants (often family members) of whom several were among the most respected in their fields, such as Don Lynn and Ray Rogers.¹ But they were less well qualified to carry out the forensic investigation of an archaeological artwork. In 1977, Fr Peter Rinaldi had mocked the 1973 Italian Commission, quoting a Critical Study of it, because “Only a few of the disciplines involved in researching the Shroud were represented on the Commission. Biblical exegesis, theology, history, forensic medicine were just not there.”² In fact he was wrong about the last – three professors of Forensic Medicine were present – but the same list was equally lacking in 1978. And experts in Archaeology and Art were present in 1973, but not 1978.

The STuRP scientists worked as dispassionately as they could, and as scientists, not only vehemently rejected the supernatural as outside their field, but were prepared to expel anybody who violated that principle. As Christians they may have thought differently, but that’s outside our scope here. In Italy, most of them spent most of their time away from the Shroud. In spite of the most meticulous preparation, the Turin authorities held up all their kit for days, and when the Shroud was unrolled on their purpose-built rotating table, it was the wrong way round, making a nonsense of their carefully pre-planned grid. Most of the colour separated photos were worthless, and the tape-sampling procedure, which was rather randomly planned in the first place, was even more randomly executed. On their return, about a dozen of them published serious research papers in serious journals, and then about half had nothing more to do with it. Others took up the banner, and the 1984 proposals listed 39 members, 23 of them “new.” Jackson and Jumper, Heller and Adler, Sam Pellicori and later Ray Rogers were the real champions of authenticity; the others were largely ambivalent, although they did mostly think a dead body had something to do with it.

1). 40 of the world’s top scientists. Shroud.com has one list of the members of STuRP, with an asterisk by the names of those who went to Turin. There are 26 of them.³ Not 40. And would you believe the International Statistical Institute (ISI) actually published, in 1981, a list of the 1000 world’s most-cited contemporary scientists from 1965-1978, derived from the ‘Science Citation Index’ database?⁴ Not one of the STuRP Turin team features on it. Nor any of the non-Turin members for that matter: Heller, Adler, Bucklin; not even McCrone. Still, eight of the team were from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which was certainly among the most prestigious in the States.

2). 120 continuous hours. While it is true that the Shroud lay exposed on its display frame for about 120 hours, it is not true that all 26 scientists spent the entire time with it. The Test Plan⁵ provided for 96 hours of observation and photography, with an average of about 7 scientists around the Shroud at a time. No doubt there were one or two others quietly observing while the experiments were going on, although, according to the plan “Turin authorities have determined that only those necessary for
a given test will be allowed in the test room at any given time.”

3). Thousands of photographs. “If seven maids with seven mops…” If 10 scientists were present for 120 hours, and each took one photo every minute, that’s 10 x 120 x 60 = 72,000 photos. But did they? Some exposures took 15 minutes each.

It is well-nigh impossible to be precise about how many photos were actually taken, but not too difficult to count those which have reached the light of day. There were about 80 UV-photos,⁶ 36 X-rays,⁷ a small number of IR-photos⁸ and 32 micrographs,⁹ various sets of colour and black and white photos, various sets taken through different coloured filters, and Barrie Schwortz’s transmitted light compilation. If the numbers planned for in the Test Plan, and accounted for by Don Devan and Vern Miller,¹⁰ were actually processed, then most of them have never been published.

In the Test Plan, the three main ‘Photography’ projects were:
—(1) “Photomosaic coverage (5.6:1 reduction) will cover the entire Shroud with enough spatial detail to permit computer weave removal and detailed feature analysis. Filtration will be : (a) blue/green/red color separation; (b) UV-reflected for contrast enhancement; (c) UV-transmission over light sources/UV-blocking over lens for UV-fluorescence.”
—(2) “Photomacro/micrography. Photomacrography will provide approximately 3:1 enlargement of specific areas of interest so that details of fibers can be seen.”
—(3) “Spectrally-resolved quad-mosaic photography (≈22:1 reduction – each image will cover a 4′ x 4′ region on the Shroud). Filtration will be: (1) B/G/R color separation; (2) narrow band
(≈100 A°) spaced over visible spectrum; (3) unfiltered.”
— a fourth section mentions “Miscellaneous coverages,” and includes visual inspection, spectrometry, stereo imaging and fibre-optic photography of the back of the Shroud.

Devan and Miller describe the results of this as “the acquisition of approximately one thousand documented images of high photographic quality, many suitable for computer-oriented image analysis,” but whether through lack of time, lack of money or lack of interest, hardly anything about them was published, let alone the images themselves. With reference to the three projects outlined above, there were three sets of ‘mosaics.’ The first consisted of a 15 x 4 arrangement of 60 images, each covering about 30cm square, covering the whole Shroud and overlapping at the edges for registration. Each position was photographed four times, using red, green and blue filters, and a violet one of specifically 4398 A°, resulting in 240 photographs, not one of which has ever been referred to again. The second (‘Quad’) series consisted of four images covering the whole Shroud, each covering about 1.2m square. Each position was photographed eleven times, using different filters, making 44 photos in all. The result of all this was the set of four “blue quad mosaic” images which have so unnecessarily, and inaccurately, distracted radiocarbon dating detractors. Finally the ‘Octo’ series consisted of eight images in a row along just the centre of the Shroud, covering about 50cm square. Again, there were eleven passes using various filters, a total of 88 images, none of which have ever been heard of again. There was also a set of UV images, which has already been mentioned above.

As to more conventional photographs, there were two official photographers, one ‘scientific,’ Vernon Miller, and one ‘documentary,’ Barrie Schwortz. Miller took several sets of colour and black-and-white photos, mostly covering one third of the Shroud each, many of which were later combined into very detailed full length images. There is a selection at shroudphotos.com, but it is not easy to tell which were the immediate result of pointing a camera at the cloth, and which are subsequent copies, inversions or combinations. As far as I can tell there are about 30 to 40 direct exposures. Similarly it is difficult to estimate how many pictures Barrie Schwortz took of the Shroud surface itself. His overall colour composite became the standard image of the Shroud for many years, until the 2002 restoration, and his transmitted light photos are not only very useful in research, but also unique.

With the best will in the world it is hard to make ‘a thousand’ photos out of this assemblage, and, as mentioned, almost half have never been published. In fact, Bill Mottern, in a presentation for an American Society of Non-Destructive Testing Conference, wrote “the American team alone took almost 600 photographs, exposed and developed more than 60 pairs of x-ray film.”¹¹ As far as I can tell, the planned “stereo imaging and fibre-optic photography of the back of the Shroud” didn’t happen at all.

4) Dozens of peer reviewed papers. Although the term ‘peer review’ has not changed its definition in the years since 1978, it has been used more and more broadly, until unfortunately, by itself, it can longer be said to guarantee any kind of scientific literacy. Some journals, such as Science, Nature, Applied Optics and X-Ray Spectrometry, still maintain rigorous examination of prospective papers, and only publish those they approve of as enhancing their reputation as front-line research reporters, but from these heights there descends a series of diverging paths. Popular magazines and newspapers don’t ‘peer review,’ although the editorial board has to approve content, and various open forums, such as academia.edu, let people publish whatever they want. There’s nothing dishonest about any of that: these organs provide useful publicity for new ideas, and do not pretend that what they publish has any kind of “imprimatur” by the scientific community. On the other hand, there are so-called journals which claim rigorous peer-review, but will in fact publish anything on receipt of £200 or so. And that is dishonest. Another problem with peer-review, especially in rather niche subjects such as the Shroud, is that everybody who knows enough about it to be selected as a peer reviewer is well known to everybody else in the field, and may not be wholly impartial to views which either concur with or contradict his own.

Anyway, shroud.com has a section called ‘STURP’s Published Papers,’¹² which begins with 20 that Barrie Schwortz called “papers published in refereed scientific journals.” Of these, six were published in Applied Optics, six were given at the 1982 International Conference on Cybernetics and Society and published in its Proceedings, six were published in other scientific journals and two were magazine articles. Of these, most of the content of the IEEE conference papers had either already been published, or was subsequently published, in other places, so was essentially a duplicate.

Interestingly, 12 of the 33 listed members of STuRP, including 9 of the 26 who went to Turin, were not authors of any of these papers, but 8 people who are not listed as members were among the authors of the papers.

‘STURP’s Published Papers’ goes on to list a further 20 papers, articles and other documents written by various people who either are on the original list, subsequently became members of STuRP, or were closely associated with it. Some are undoubtedly bona fide scientific papers in recognised journals, but others have never been published outside shroud.com.

5). Not the work of an artist. Of the 40 documents, fewer than half even mention the words “artist,” “paint” or “forge,” and of those which do, only half a dozen discuss the possibility that the Shroud may be the work of a craftsman – although those all come to the conclusion that it isn’t. However, some of the ones which don’t mention artistry do nevertheless think that a real body lay under the cloth, implying a ‘natural’ or supernatural cause rather than an artwork. None of the papers come down on positively on the side of medieval manufacture. Sweeping statements, initiated by Ken Stevenson, that most or all of the STuRP team were convinced the Shroud is authentic are not borne out by their publications.

In his introductory address to the IEEE Conference, Eric Jumper referred to having: “two members of STuRP leave the group and begin reporting things which are not supported by the data and which the group as a whole does not believe. To these we may attribute the stories that the Shroud exhibits proof of the resurrection of Jesus; this is absolutely untrue. To another we may attribute the report that the Shroud is simply and obviously a painting; while many of us would have well preferred it to be so, the data does not allow this simple an explanation.” There’s a lot to unpack here. If Ken Stevenson was one of the members who left the group for proclaiming the Shroud’s authenticity, who was the other one? And if Walter McCrone was yet “another,” then Jumper, at least, must have thought he was a member of STuRP. And who were the “many of us” who “would have well preferred” the Shroud to be” simply and obviously a painting”?

6). ‘A Summary of STURP’s Conclusions.‘ Of all the material quoted regarding the STuRP team, the Press Release given out by John Heller at at the press conference held after STURP’s final meeting in October 1981 is the most common, and the most misleading. Although Heller was very far from declaring that the Shroud was miraculous, he was convinced that the Shroud had wrapped the dead body of Jesus, and paraphrased the rather less definite conclusions of his colleagues to fit his conviction. Two months previously, a considerably more nuanced ‘Summary’ had been written, with that word in the title, by Larry Schwalbe and Ray Rogers,¹³ and published in the eminent Analytica Chimica Acta; it is a great pity that Heller’s summary was not a more accurate précis.

All in all, the STuRP team collected a fair amount of data, drastically limited by the circumstances of its acquisition beyond their control, and not for want of pre-planning. From it, however, mountains of elaborate extrapolation have been erected, often with minimal justification. In particular, the adjustment of “we didn’t find…” to “there isn’t any…” has been a positive millstone around the necks of subsequent researchers and was both unfortunate and unscientific.

===================================================

1). There was never a comprehensive list of STuRP members. You can find lists in the Test Plan,⁵ in ‘Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: A Summary of the 1978 Investigation,’¹³ and in ‘Nondestructive Testing of the Shroud of Turin,’ (John Jackson, Bill Mottern and Eric Jumper, 1979, at shroud.com) and they’re all different. The last is the most authoritative, and Table 1, “Members of STURP” includes Walter McCrone, but not Alan Adler.

2). ‘1977 United States Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin, Workshop Proceedings,’ at shroud.com

3). ‘The 1978 STURP Team,’ at shroud.com

4). ‘The 1000 Contemporary Scientists Most-Cited 1965 to 1978. Part I. The Basic List and Introduction,’ Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol. 5, 1981-2

5). ‘Operations Test Plan for Investigating the Shroud of Turin by Electromagnetic Radiation at Various Wavelengths,’ at shroud.com.

6). The UV-photos were taken in three strips of eight along the length of the Shroud, so complete coverage was 24 photos, and the whole process seems to have been carried out three times on colour film, with half a dozen black-and-white photos as well. Eight photos (down the middle of the image) are published in ‘Ultraviolet Fluorescence Photography of the Shroud of Turin,’ Vernon Miller and Sam Pellicori, Journal of Biological Photography Vol 49, 1981, but shroudphotos.com, managed by the D’Muhala and Lavoie Trust, contains nearly all of them.

7). Robert Mottern, Ronald London, and Roger Morris, ‘Radiographic Examination of the Shroud of Turin – A Preliminary Report,’ Materials Evaluation, Vol. 38, 1981.

8). There are 7 Infra red thermographs in ‘Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy and Thermographic
Investigations of the Shroud of Turin,’ Joe Accetta and Stephen Baumgart, Applied Optics, Vol. 19, 1980, but they are representative of several more rather than a compete collection.

9). 32 of Mark Evans’s micrographs are reproduced at sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml

10). ‘Quantitative Photography Of The Shroud Of Turin,’ Don Devan and Vernon Miller, IEEE 1982 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, 1982

11). ‘The Testing of a Relic,’ Robert W. “Bill” Mottern, American Society of Nondestructive Testing 1979 Fall Conference Proceedings, 1979

12). It would be tedious to list all these papers here. They are all on the ‘STURP’s Published Papers’ page at shroud.com.

13). ‘Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: A Summary of the 1978 Investigation,’ Lawrence Schwalbe and Ray Rogers, Analytica Chimica Acta, 1982