by Joe Nickell
An account of the cloth was penned in the twelfth century by a bishop of Oviedo named Pelayo, who claimed that the sudarium had been kept in Jerusalem from the time it was discovered in the tomb until the seventh century, when Christians fleeing the Persian invasion took it to Spain. However, relic mongers typically fabricated stories about their bogus productions, and there were many allegedly genuine sudaria, just as there were numerous “true shrouds”—at least 43 in medieval Europe alone (Humber 1978, 78). Furthermore, there is not the slightest hint in the Christian gospels, or anywhere else in the New Testament, that the burial wrappings of Jesus were actually preserved. Later, of course, certain apocryphal texts claimed otherwise. One fourth-century account mentioned a tradition that Peter had kept the sudarium, but what subsequently became of it was unknown (Wilson 1979, 92-95).
Those who would try to link the questionable Oviedo sudarium to the Turin “shroud”—and vice-versa, in the hopes of mutual authentication—face a problem: The sudarium lacks an image like that on the shroud. Had such a cloth indeed covered the face of Jesus, “this would have prevented the image from being formed on the shroud, and it would presumably have caused it to be formed on the sudarium” instead (Guscin 1998, 33, 34). Proponents now postulate that the sudarium was used only temporarily, in the period after crucifixion and before burial, and that it was put aside before the body was wrapped.
However clever this rationalization, John’s gospel states that Jesus was buried “as the manner of the Jews is to bury” (19:40), and the use of a kerchief to cover the face in burial is specifically mentioned in the Jewish Mishnah. Also, with regard to the burial of Lazarus (John 11:44), who was “bound hand and foot with graveclothes,” we are told that “his face was bound about with a napkin.”
Undaunted, shroud and sudarium advocates have joined forces and are now making the kind of outrageous and pseudoscientific claims that used to be made for the shroud alone, declaring that “blood” and pollen evidence link the two cloths. Unfortunately, the new claims come from many of the same dubious and discredited sources as before.
“Blood” Stains
At an international congress in Oviedo in October 1994, papers were presented focusing on the latest “investigations” of the supposed sudarium. One claimant was a Dr. Pierluigi Baima-Bollone, who purported to have established that the “blood” stains on the cloth were not only human blood but were also blood of type AB—“the same group,” according to Guscin (1998, 56), “as the blood on the shroud.”
Actually, the assertion that the shroud has type AB blood comes from the same source, and Bollone’s claims are baloney. Even one of the shroud’s most committed defenders, Ian Wilson (1998, 89), merely remarks in passing that Bollone “claimed to” have made such a determination. A zealous shroud partisan and chairman of a shroud center, Bollone is a professor of legal medicine.
In contrast, internationally known forensic serologists, employing the standard scientific tests used in crime laboratories, were unable to find any evidence of blood on several “blood”-stained threads from the Shroud of Turin. The substance, which was suspiciously still red, failed sensitive tests for hemoglobin and hemoglobin derivatives, blood corpuscles, or any other identifiable blood components. The “blood” could not be identified as such, let alone be identified as to species or typed, and it contained reddish granules that would not even dissolve in reagents that dissolve blood. Sophisticated further tests—including mi-crospectroscopic analysis, thin-layer chromatography, and neutron activation analysis—were also negative. Subsequently, famed microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the “blood” as tempera paint containing red ocher and vermilion along with traces of rose madder—pigments used by medieval artists to depict blood (Nickell 1998, 127-31).
Thus, when we are told that there is “human blood of the group AB” on the Oviedo “sudarium,” and that this claim originates with Dr. Bollone, there is cause for skepticism. (Operating even further beyond his field of expertise, Bollone “has also studied the fabric of the sudarium, and affirmed that it is typical of the first century” [Guscin 1998, 56]—never mind seeking the opinion of textile experts.)
Another alleged correspondence between the “shroud” and the “sudarium” is that the “blood” stains on the latter supposedly “coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud.” Dr. Alan Whanger claims to have found numerous “points of coincidence” between the Oviedo stains and the Turin image by employing a dubious overlay technique. Guscin (1998, 32) describes Whanger as a “highly respected scientist.” Be that as it may, he is a retired geriatric psychiatrist and former missionary who has taken up image analysis as a hobby.
Whanger’s judgment in such matters should perhaps be viewed in light of his studies of the Shroud of Turin. In photographs of that cloth’s mottled image and off-image areas, Whanger has perceived, Rorschach-like, such crucifixion-associated items as “a large nail,” “hammer,” “sponge on a reed,” “Roman thrusting spear,” “loose coil of rope,” pair of “sandals”, “Roman dice,” and numerous other imaginings. He and a botanist friend have also “identified” various “flower” images, as well as ancient Latin and Greek words such as “Jesus” and “Nazareth” (Nickell 2001).
Pollen “Evidence”
Still another purported link between the Turin and Oviedo cloths concerns pollen allegedly found on them. The shroud supposedly bears certain pollens characteristic of locales (Palestine, Constantinople, and ancient Edessa) that seemingly confirm a “theory” of the shroud’s missing early history. Similarly, pollens supposedly discovered on the Oviedo Cloth seem to confirm its purported historical route (from Jerusalem through north Africa to Toledo and Oviedo); indeed, according to Guscin (1998, 22), they “perfectly match” the route. But perhaps the match is too good to be true.
The shroud pollens were reported by a Swiss criminologist, Max Frei-Sulzer, who, unfortunately, suffered severe credibility problems. Before his death in 1983, he represented himself as a handwriting expert and pronounced the notorious “Hitler diaries” authentic; they were proven forgeries soon thereafter. Frei’s shroud pollen evidence was criticized on various grounds, especially when it was revealed that another shroud pollen sampling—taken at the same time as his—showed comparatively few pollen grains. As it turned out, so did Frei’s, when his tape-lifted samples became available a few years after his death in 1983.
Walter McCrone was asked to authenticate the samples as coming from the Shroud of Turin. This he found easy to do, but he also discovered that the reputed pollens were essentially missing. An exception was one particular microscope slide that bore dozens of them in one small area—an indication, McCrone concluded, that the lift-off tape may have been peeled back from the slide and the pollen surreptitiously introduced. McCrone added (1993) that he had subsequently learned that Frei had been “censured by the Police hierarchy in Switzerland for . . . overenthusiastic interpretation of his evidence.”
Unsurprisingly, the alleged pollen evidence that supposedly helps authenticate the Oviedo Cloth was also provided by Max Frei. In light of the suspicions raised about the shroud pollens, the Oviedo pollen claims should no longer be touted until an independent and impartial sampling is conducted.
Conclusions
As with the Shroud of Turin, the study of the Oviedo Cloth is obviously characterized by pseudoscience and possibly worse. The problems are symptomatic of the bias that can occur when analyses of a controversial object are conducted not by independent experts, chosen solely for their expertise, but instead by committed, self-selected partisans who begin with the desired answer and work backward to the evidence. As a result, science has once again been perverted in the interest of zealotry.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Mary Jo. 2000. Scientists: Relic authenticates Shroud of Turin, World Net Daily, 6 October. Last accessed 6 October 2000 from http://www.worldnetdaily.com
Guscin, Mark. 1998. The Oviedo Cloth. Cambridge, England: Lutterwor
th Press.
Humber, Thomas. 1978. The Sacred Shroud. New York: Pocket Books.
McCrone, Walter C. 1993. Letters to Joe Nickell, 11 June and 30 June.
———1996. Judgement Day for the Turin “Shroud/’ Chicago: Microscope Publications.
Nickell, Joe. 1998. Inquest on the Shroud of Turin. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
——— . 2001. Scandals and follies of the “Holy Shroud.” Skeptical Inquirer 25, no. 5: 17-20.
Whanger, Mary, and Alan Whanger. 1998. The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery. Franklin, Tenn.: Providence House.
Wilson, Ian. 1979. The Shroud of Turin. Rev. ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Image Books.
———1998. The Blood and the Shroud. New York: Free Press.
28
A Typical Aries?
One of America’s best-known astrologers was Linda Goodman. Reveal-ingly, her own death raised serious questions about the validity of astrology.
Astrology is a means of fortunetelling. Those who believe in it claim it is a science by which a person’s character, as well as his or her future, can be learned from the stars and planets. Depending on when one is born, a person supposedly comes under one of twelve astrological “signs.” These signs are listed in Table 28-1, along with the main personality traits typically attributed to them.
In fact, however, astrologers often assign contradictory traits to a sign. For example, we are told of Gemini people that they are “twins,” but that “the two sides of their character war with each other.” Taurians (Taurus people) are purportedly “agreeable” in their home life, yet we are warned: “It is never safe to wave the red flag in front of the bull!” In the same vein, Libras are called easygoing, yet “they have it in them to take a firm stand.”
TABLE 28-1. The 12 signs of the zodiac together with the traits typically ascribed to each. Date of birth Sign (and symbol) Traits
1. Mar. 22-Apr. 20 Aries (Ram) ambitious, idealistic, high-spirited, generous
2. Apr. 21-May 21 Taurus (Bull) home-loving, usually calm, fond of creature comforts
3. May 22-Jime 21 Gemini (Twins) brilliant, changeable, charming
4. June 22-July 23 Cancer (Crab) sensitive, nervous, home-loving
5. July 24-Aug. 23 Leo (Lion) big, strong, regal (kingly)
6. Aug. 24-Sept. 23 Virgo (Virgin) more intellectual than emotional,self-critical
7. Sept. 24-Oct. 23 Libra (Scales) sociable, talented, frequently artistic
8. Oct. 24-Nov. 22 Scorpio(Scorpion) passionate, whether temperamental or hard-working
9. Nov. 23-Dec. 22 Sagittarius (Archer) frank, fearless, loyal, unselfish
10. Dec 23-Jan. 20 Capricorn (Goat) tenacious, able to overcome obstacles
11. Jan. 21-Feb. 19 Aquarius(Waterbearer) interested in others, giving, loyal
12. Feb. 20-Mar. 21 Pisces (Fishes) generous, popular, tend to be dreamers
Conversely, similar characteristics are also assigned to different signs. For instance, both Cancers and Taurians are said to be fond of the home. Sagittarians are “loyal,” just like Aquarians, and both Sagittarians and Aries people are “idealists” (Adams 1931).
Actually, since the system of astrology was created in ancient times, the earth’s position in relation to the planets has shifted. Most astrologers ignore this fact. Also, astrologers treat the “influences” of the planets as equal, although the planets are at vastly different distances from earth. Putting aside these objections, one can still ask, as astrology critic Milbourne Christopher (1970, 101-14) did:
Why is someone born at a certain time, on a certain day, in a certain part of the world of a certain nature? Did the originators of astrology study the traits of millions of people and discover that all those born at a specific time had identical characteristics and futures? No! Nor has it been proven since that the early fictions are fact.
Linda Goodman was an arch-promoter of astrology. An itinerant newspaper and radio writer, she adopted her pseudonymous first name after a stint on radio reading “Letters from Linda.” Her surname was that of her second husband, Sam Goodman.
Goodman’s interest in astrology came from supermarket booklets, and her own books took advantage of the extreme popularity of the subject in America. In 1968, Goodman’s Sun Signs became the first book on the topic to make the New York Times best-seller list, and she received $2.3 million for the paperback rights alone. In time, she became even more mystical and incorporated both numerology and reincarnation concepts into her books.
When her 18-year-old daughter Sarah committed suicide in 1973, Goodman’s reaction was to refuse to believe that the body her husband had identified was actually Sarah’s, citing as “evidence” her daughter’s horoscope. Instead, she embarked on a search for the “missing” teenager, squandering her money, and (according to her obituary in the October 25,1995, New York Times), “living for several months on the steps of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.”
According to the Times, Goodman was born Mary Alice Kemery [sic] in Morgantown, West Virginia, “on a date she gave as April 19 in a year she would never disclose”—not even to her son. This secrecy prompted a minor investigation: I commissioned a professional genea logical record searcher to determine the facts relating to her birth. Actually, according to the Monongalia County, West Virginia, Register and Index of Births, she was Mary Alice Kenery, a daughter of Robert S. and Mazy A. (McBee) Kenery. She was born in 1925 (the Times guessed she was “about 70”) but not on the day she alleged. The register lists her birth as April 10, nine days earlier than Goodman always claimed. Therefore, from an astrological point of view, her horoscope would have been significantly different than she represented it (although it is not certain that this was a deliberate falsification on her part) (Nickell 1996).
In any case, her forecast for the day of her death (as given in Jeane Dixon’s syndicated Horoscope column) read, in part: “A change of scenery will help you put recent events in proper perspective.”
REFERENCES
Adams, Evangeline. 1931. Astrology for Everyone. New York: New Home Library.
Christopher, Milbourne. 1970. ESP, Seers & Psychics. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Nickell, Joe. 1996. A typical Aries? Skeptical Inquirer 20, no. 1 (January/February): 5.
29
The Case of the
Psychic Shamus
Do Psychics Really Help Solve Crimes?
Among the cases of alleged psychic sleuthing that I have investigated, some have seemed impressive at first sight, but all eventually succumbed to the light of inquiry. One example stemmed from my appearance on the Mark Walberg Show, televised 7 February 1996, with a self-proclaimed psychic named Ron Bard. He boasted that he had “solved over 110 murder cases”; when asked to name one, he cited the case of two girls in Harrison, New York. Bard claimed that a key on one girl’s body led him to the South Bronx where “the key worked in the lock and that’s how we found the murderer.” Actually, however, as the Harrison police chief later told me, Bard was not consulted by the police; the only key in the case was one that turned out to belong to one of the victims; and the case was solved by “diligent police work, not visions” (Nickell 2001, 210-13). (For another example of a case that collapsed under scrutiny, see chapter 9, “Remotely Viewed? The Charlie Jordan Case.”)
Hold on, though: What about repeated testimonials from experienced homicide detectives regarding a specific psychic—like Nutley, New Jersey’s Dorothy Allison? Was she indeed a psychic shamus, or just a psychic sham?
I included Allison in a book I edited called Psychic Sleuths, featuring her in an in-depth critical study by investigative writer Michael R. Dennett (1994). I later debunked her claims in such media venues as Dateline NBC, various radio shows, Internet postings, other articles and books, and newspaper interviews. For good measure, I was even quoted in her obituary in the New York Times, prompting one colleague to joke that I had hounded her to the grave.
Allison died December 1, 1999 (my fifty-fifth birthday).
In her obituary, the Times observed that Allison was unsuccessful in solving the Patty Hearst kidnapping, the “Son of Sam” killings, the Atlanta child murders, and the murder of JonBenet Ramsey—all cases into which Allison insinuated herself (Martin 1999).
JonBenet Ramsey was the child beauty princess whose tiny body was found bludgeoned and strangled in her parents’ Boulder, Colorado, home on Christmas night, 1996. In this instance, Allison made bold pronouncements on the 27 Aprill998, airing of LEEZA (the Leeza Gibbons show).
Such grandstanding is not surprising. Psychics thrive on the media attention they can get from high-profile cases. I was tipped to the show by a letter, written the following day, from my friend, the great entertainer and author, Steve Allen. “Dear Joe,” he began. “A quick note, while on the usual run.” Until his death in 2000, Steve was a dynamo, with numerous activities that included serving as co-chair of the Council for Media Integrity, which was a branch of my employer, the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). Although we corresponded about various things, Steve was obviously wearing his Council hat on this occasion, as he suggested that I obtain a transcript of the LEEZA show for study.