Home > Other Blogs > screw·y 1. crazy. 2. ludicrously odd, or inappropriate.

screw·y 1. crazy. 2. ludicrously odd, or inappropriate.

May 31, 2015

It seems a bit dishonest or it is extremely sloppy work to directly link to Ian Wilson’s
book in a sentence that reads, “Note the further evidence that
Arizona’s first "1350 AD" radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a fraud, perpetrated by a computer hacker, allegedly
Timothy W. Linick 

imageStephen Jones is writing what should be/could be a most helpful and interesting Turin Shroud Dictionary. Wonderful, right? 

It could be. I would like it to be. Here are a couple of samples from an entry for Geoffroy I under G (split in Ga to Gm). Despite being a bit op-ed-ish, there is some interesting stuff here with many hot links that should prove useful to many people:

Geoffroy I owned (or knew he was going to own) the Shroud by 1343. In1343 Geoffroy I applied to Philip VI for funds to build and operate a chapel in Lirey with five chaplains. Geoffroy himself would contribute his inheritance from an great-aunt Alix de Joinville (1256-1336), the mother of Bishop Pierre d’Arcis (c.1300-95), which further explains Bishop d’Arcis later hostility to the exhibition of the Shroud at that same Lirey church (see future). In June that same year, 1343, King Philip donated land with an annual rental value for financing the chapel. In 1349, in a petition to the French Pope at Avignon, Clement VI (1291–1352), Geoffroy advised that he had constructed a chapel at Lirey with five canons (priests), and requested that it be raised to collegiate church. For a tiny village of 50 houses, this is evidence that Geoffroy already had the Shroud in 1343 (or knew he was going to get it), and was planning to exhibit it at that Lirey church. However, due to Geoffroy I’s second imprisonment in England 1349-51, the collegiate status of the church was not proceeded with. Nevertheless, by 1353 the church had six canons, one of whom was Dean, as well as three other clerics. Moreover in that same year, 1353, King John II agreed to a further annual revenue increase. In 1354, Geoffroy renewed his petition to the new Avignon Pope Innocent IV (c. 1195-1254), renewing hisrequest that the Lirey church be raised to collegiate status, which was granted. So from a simple rural chapel in a village of 50 fifty houses,Geoffroy was preparing his Lirey church from 1343, to be a centre of pilgrimage! Clearly the pilgrimages would be to see the Shroud (as happened in c. 1355. So Geoffroy must have owned the Shroud from no later than 1343 (or knew he was going to). And King Phillip VI must have known that Geoffroy had (or was going to get) the Shroud from at least 1343, for him to agree to fund a church with such a disproportionately large number of clergy for such a tiny village. So too must his son King John II to agree to increase funding of the Lirey church in 1353, as well as the French Avignon Popes Clement VI and Innocent IV. This places a 1343 time constraint on theories of when and how Geoffroy I de Charny obtained the Shroud (see next).

More interesting stuff. It seems well researched.

[…] This is actually stated in a 1525 document which was posted at the entrance of the rebuilt Lirey church:

"King Philip of Valois … informed that the count of Charny had got out of prison [in 1342] … sent for him … and so that the church of Lirey would be more revered and honored, he gave him the holy shroud of Our Lord, Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ … to be put … in the church that he hoped and proposed to build …. And … gave him leave and permission to give the church, for an endowment, up to the sum of two hundred sixty livres tournois; and afterwards the king John, son of Philip of Valois, also gave the count of Charny power and permission to give and increase the foundation of the church, up to the sum of a hundred livres tournois besides the gift of his father; all in amortized rent without paying any tax, from which he released him by a special grace on account of the great and agreeable services that the count of Charny had done for them" (my emphasis)[10].

This was accepted as reliable by arch-Shroud critic Canon Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923), and by earlier Shroud pro-authenticists Beecher (1928), Barnes (1934) and Currer-Briggs (1987). But it was rejected on inadequate grounds by both Wilson (1979 & 1998) and Crispino (1988). A sufficient reason for Philip to give Geoffroy the Shroud would be if in the 1341 battle of Angers, Geoffroy saved the life of Philip’s son, the future King John II. That would fit Geoffroy II’s explanation that the Shroud was "freely given" to his father and Geoffroy II’s daughter Marguerite’s explanation that it was "conquis par feu" ("conquered by fire"), i.e. obtained by conquest in battle, by her grandfather Geoffroy I. But there are other plausible explanations of how King Philip VI obtained the Shroud and then gave it to Geoffroy I de Charny [see future "Besançon," "Jeanne de Vergy," and "Philip VI"].

BUT THEN the entry for Geoffroy I goes screwy on us:

Geoffroy I and the Shroud’s "1350 AD" first carbon-date. Note the further evidence that Arizona’s first "1350 AD" radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a fraud, perpetrated by a computer hacker, allegedlyTimothy W. Linick [see future "hacking" and "Linick"], because in 1350 the Shroud was owned (and had been since ~1341) by the "perfect knight," Geoffroy I de Charny, author of three works on chivalry, whowould rather die (and did die) than go back on his word. The implicit claim by the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, made explicit by Oxford’s Prof. Edward Hall (1924–2001):

"`There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century," he bluntly told a British Museum press conference. `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it.’"[12]

that Geoffroy de Charny, was a party to a fraud in either having "faked" the Shroud (while he was almost fully occupied in fighting battles or as a prisoner of war), or paying (despite the fact that he was poor) a forger who "flogged" it to him, is manifestly absurd!

It seems a bit dishonest or it is extremely sloppy work to directly link to Ian Wilson’s book in a sentence that reads, “Note the further evidence that Arizona’s first "1350 AD" radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a fraud, perpetrated by a computer hacker, allegedly Timothy W. Linick

  1. Hugh Farey
    May 31, 2015 at 6:28 am

    Dorothy Crispino has researched a number of documents regarding Charny / Lirey affairs before 1390 or so, but none of them mention the Shroud. If it was the reason for all the correspondence, it is curious that it is not mentioned. Even in his memorandum, Bishop d’Arcis says nothing of Geoffrey I de Charny having been connected with it all, claiming that the Dean of the church was the man who had procured it. Surely de Charny knew about it, so why didn’t d’Arcis mention him? The family only come in for their share of criticism for allowing the second series of expositions to which d’Arcis took exception, and even then, he grudgingly admits that they themselves do not claim the Shroud is anything more than a representation. The two versions of the pilgrim medallion, with the switched positions of their shields, certainly suggest a dynastic change such as the death of the first de Charny, so that dating the earlier to 1355 or before seems justified, and the very presence of the shields suggests a Charny imprimatur. It does not necessarily mean that he found, was given or inherited the Shroud himself. Geoffrey II, of whom d’Arcis is critical, seems to disappear from Shroud connections very soon after d’Arcis’ complaint. The effigy of him in the Wikipedia article about his father seems to stem from Ian Wilson’s discovery of it in “Monuments français inédits pour servir à l’histoire des arts” (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1087131/f4.image), Plate 125, captioned: “Tombe de messire Geoffroy de Charny, mort l’an 1398. (ancienne abbaye de Froidmont, près Beauvais).” However, Froidmont is nowhere near Troyes, Lirey or Savoie, and, in spite of Wilson’s identification, there is no way the shields dotted about his body can be interpreted as “Gules three escutcheons argent”, the arms attributed by Froissart to Geoffroi I de Charny. In short, I don’t think this Charny is closely related at all. Dorothy Crispino (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi18part6.pdf) notes that there is a town – and associated family – called Charny in Yonne, near Thory, but decides “There was no relationship between these and the Charny of the Côte d’Or, from which Geoffroy took his cognomen.”

  2. daveb of wellington nz
    May 31, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    There is so much here that is fascinating and yet seemingly peculiar.

    For instance, how reliable might the 1525 document be, posted in the Lirey church some 183 years after 1355, and only 134 years after D’Arcis drafted his memorandum denouncing it. It seems that Chevalier accepted the 1525 document as valid, so what motivated Chevalier to make so much of the D’Arcis memorandum, in a deceptive way according to Markwardt? The family connection between D’Arcis and Geoffroy I, via Alix de Joinville is intriguing, and so it would be surprising if D’Arcis did not know of King Philip’s donation of the Shroud to Geoffroy, so why did he denounce it, claiming it was painted by an artist? Was it jealousy, or did he consider that it would be more appropriately housed in his own cathedral in Troyes, rather than an insignificant collegiate church in a small village? The text of the bailli’s requisition of the Shroud from the De Charnay family, seemingly authored by D’Arcis, suggests that this would seem quite likely.

    Jones’ 1343 dating of the king’s intention to endow Geoffroy with the Shroud certainly seems plausible, and he gives reason for this bequest, the (possible?) saving of the king’s son John II at Angiers. The suggested involvement of the two Avignon popes Clement VI and Innocent IV, who Jones seems to imply knew of the plan to house the Shroud there, may explain the later Clement VII’s (another family connection) command of silence to D’Arcis.

    Hugh’s comments concerning the alleged effigy of Geoffroy II in Froidment is apt, and it may be that this effigy is not Geoffroy II at all, but conceivably another knight of the same name, I think I can now count up to four separate Geoffroy’s de Charnay, including the templar burnt at the stake in 1314. Why was this name so popular at this period of history, surely not the French equivalent of ‘John Smith’ ?

  3. June 3, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    Please google my many blogs on my families associations w/ the Shroud of Turin in this manner…I am directly descended from the Troyes Fraternity Families who had the Shroud thus…..GOOGLE : EUGENE RAY / VERGY ( by marriage to my de Gruy(ere) ancestors
    GOOGLE : EUGENE RAY / SAVOY-BRESSE ( by DNA to my Ray ancestors ) study these
    The Shroud was moved from the deRay Castle to Le Ray Chapel by Ray descended Vergy

  4. Hugh Farey
    June 3, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    As I replied in another post, I have tried. I find your website very difficult to follow. If you have any evidence for any of your claims, why not post it here?

  5. daveb of wellington nz
    June 3, 2015 at 9:54 pm

    Giving some little traction to Stephen Jones’ KGB conspiracy theory on computer hacking of the 1988 radiocarbon tests:

    Check out recent news items on KGB network of spreading false terror reports, using students and others enlisted as “Kremlin trolls”.

    Google on “Lyudmila Savchuk”, an activist who deliberately enrolled as a troll to expose these activities.
    Sample Spiegel interview: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-ex-russian-internet-troll-lyudmila-savchuk-a-1036539.html

    There are several other reports on Savchuk’s expose. She was dismissed in March after giving a local journalist an interview about these activities. She is now suing her former bosses, seeking damages and demanding closure of the company as employees did not have proper employment contracts. The group’s activities used various social media outlets to create panic in the United States including: a non-existent explosion at a chemical plant in Louisana; an ebola outbreak in Atlanta; a false video where Islamic State claimed credit for the attack on the chemical plant; a false report that an unarmed black woman had been shot in Atlanta: etc, etc.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: