Friday, August 22, 2014

Lynne Milne's "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice" (2005)

I am up to "pollen" in my references for the "Shroud of Turin" entry in my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia, when I came again across what I had almost forgotten, this

[Right: "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice" (2005) by Lynne Milne.]

amazing pro-Shroud authenticity, pro-Max Frei's pollen findings, pro-Whangers and Danin's flower images on the Shroud, and anti-the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, four pages in a 2005 book, "A Grain of Truth" by respected Australian forensic palynologist, Dr. Lynne Milne. My comments are in bold.


One of the most famous and fascinating cases that involved analysing pollen from woven fabric to determine where something came from is the investigation into the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.

[Above: Dr. Lynne Milne, Australia's only forensic palynologist: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.]

The Shroud of Turin is a 4.3 x 1.1-metre piece of linen cloth on which a faint image of a man's face and body can be seen. There are various lines of evidence, including blood samples, that suggest that the image is of a man who was crucified. Many believe this is the shroud that was wrapped around the body of Christ after his crucifixion; others believe it's a medieval forgery. Scientists first examined the Shroud at the end of the nineteenth century, and research and debate on its authenticity continue today. Historically, it is alleged that the Shroud was taken from the Holy Land to Constantinople in Turkey and then, in the 1350s it was taken from Turkey to France. The first documented history of the Shroud is from 1357 AD, when it arrived in France. But pollen from the Shroud indicates an earlier history in the Middle East. This summary already shows that Dr. Milne has, unusually, `done her homework' on the Shroud's history.

Pollen was first collected from the Shroud in 1973 by Dr Max Frei,17 [Palenik, S., 1982, "Microscopic trace evidence-the overlooked clue: Part II, Max Frei-Sherlock Holmes with a microscope", Microscope Vol. 30, pp.163-168] then head of the Scientific Service of the Criminal Commission of Investigation [1973] that photographs of the Shroud taken some years before were authentic, he asked for permission to collect dust samples from the Shroud. Shroud sceptics have tried to discredit Max Frei, but while he was not a trained palynologist, he did have a PhD in Botany, and the title of the above paper cited by Milne, "Max Frei-Sherlock Holmes with a microscope," shows that Frei was respected in the forensic science community as a pioneer in the use of pollen to solve crimes.

Frei pressed 5-centimetre sections of transparent sticky tape onto the Shroud, lifted them off and mounted them onto glass microscope slides Police of Zurich, Switzerland. Some of his previous police work was based on pollen and, while testifying at the Turin

[Left: Max Frei taking sticky tape samples of dust and pollen from the Shroud in 1978, with STURP's Ray Rogers looking on: "The 1978 Scientific Examination": Shroud.com.]

for microscopic examination. He found hundreds of pollen grains on the tapes and compared them with reference pollen collected from plants in Israel, Turkey, Cyprus, France and Italy. Only a few pollen grains were from typical European plants found in Italy and France. Most of the pollen was from plants that grow in different parts of Israel, in nearby Turkey, and the western Mediterranean. Thirty-three per cent of the pollen grains were from Gundelia tournefortii, a prickly tumbleweed (thorn) restricted to the

[Above: Middle-East Gundelia tournefortii thorn showing its abundant flowers (and pollen inferred): Flora in Israel.]

Middle East. Among other pollen types, Frei also reported pollen from Rock Rose [Cistus creticus] and a bean caper plant, Zygophyllum dumosum, that would later help other investigations of the Shroud. From the natural distribution of plants represented in the pollen assemblage Frei concluded that the Shroud originated in the Middle East in an area near the Dead Sea and Palestine, and that it had travelled through Turkey to France and Italy. He collected further tapes from the Shroud in 1978 but didn't finish examining them before his death in 1983. It is refreshing to read that forensic palynologist Milne sees no reason to doubt Frei's identification of pollen on the Shroud as having come from the Middle East. This contrasts with the circular argument of extreme Shroud anti-authenticists Steven Schafersman (and Walter McCrone), that: 1) the Shroud is not authentic; 2) Frei's claimed Middle Eastern distribution of Shroud pollen would be strong evidence that the Shroud is authentic; 3) therefore Frei's Shroud pollen distribution must be fraudulent and Frei must be a fraud:

"In a similar fashion, I will show that Max Frei's pollen data can be most reasonably explained by human fraud because the only other possible explanations are that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, that a miracle occurred, or both. Since we are pretty certain as scientists that the Shroud is not authentic and that miracles don't occur, human deception is the only explanation remaining. Proof is not necessary in this method, the scientific method, at all." (Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," p.302).

In 1988 radiocarbon dating, commonly expressed as carbon-14 or 14C, of linen strands from the Shroud produced a date of 1325 AD, strangely coincident with the first documented history of the Shroud. Sceptics declared the Shroud a thirteenth-fourteenth century forgery; and because Max Frei wasn't a recognised palynologist, his research and findings were not taken seriously. It is significant that Milne also realised that the midpoint of the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dates of the Shroud is 1325 ±65, which is "strangely coincident with the first documented history of the Shroud" (see "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #2") that this `too good to be true' date is evidence of fraud, i.e. computer hacking. It is also significant that Milne does not include herself among the Shroud "Sceptics".

In the year that Max Frei died, a German physicist, Oswald Scheuermann, noticed flower-like images in enhanced photographs of

[Above: One of Scheuermann's corona discharge images of a Chrysanthemum coronarium flower (left), a Chrysanthemum coronarium flower image visible on the Shroud (centre) and a drawing of a Chrysanthemum coronarium flower in Flora Palaestina (right): Whanger, A.D., Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin, Still Image Gallery.]

the Shroud. He conducted experiments and concluded that these images were made by corona discharge-the discharge of radiation from a surface charged with static electricity. That is, where the plant material touched the cloth it lost electrons to the cloth and left faint halo-like images of the outline of the plant material on the cloth. Scheuermann reported his findings to Professor Alan Whanger of Duke University in North Carolina and his wife Mary Whanger. Milne shows an unusual depth of knowledge of Shroud science. As in the previous post, the Whangers are less well known than (say) Ian Wilson. It does not necessarily follow that whatever caused the body image to be imprinted on the cloth was the same as Scheuermann's static electricity discharge but it must also have been able to imprint the images of flowers (and coins).

The Whangers saw these faint images of plant material for themselves on the Shroud in 1985. Over the following decade they enhanced black

[Above (click to enlarge): Chrysanthemum coronarium flower image near the head of the man on the Shroud: ShroudScope: Enrie Negative Vertical. This is the clearest flower image on the Shroud and was the first to be seen by Dr. Alan Whanger. The species C. coronarium is native to the Mediterranean and East Asia. See also below.]

and white photographs of the Shroud taken in 1931 and detected hundreds of images of flowers, buds, leaves, fruit and stems around the head and on the chest area of the image of the figure of a man on the Shroud. Tentatively, they identified 28 of the plant images as being from plants that grew in Israel. Milne does not say that she agrees with Whanger's findings but neither does she say that she doesn't. And it it is very unusual, if not unique, that someone who is not a Shroud pro-authenticist (although see below) states the pro-authenticist case so objectively and fairly. Personally I assume that Milne is a closet Shroud pro-authenticist (again see below).

In 1995 the Whangers enlisted the help of a well-respected Israeli botanist, Dr Avinoam Danin, to confirm their identifications of plants in the Shroud images. Danin was impressed. He verified their work and

[Above: Drawings of the location of other flower images around the Man on the Shroud's face: Prof. Avinoam Danin: "`Holes' in the 3D-Image of the Body on the Shroud."]

identified other plants represented by the images. Of particular interest was the image of a flower of the thorn Gundelia tournefortii near the right shoulder of the figure on the Shroud, the same place from which Frei had taken a tape that contained numerous G. tournefortii pollen grains. This is very important that Frei (like STURP members which he wasn't) was apparently oblivious to the plant images on the Shroud, had reported that he found a concentration of G. tournefortii pollen at the very same place on the Shroud that this G. tournefortii image is. This `two-step authentication' is confirmation that both Frei's pollen identification and Danin's plant images identification are correct. And needless to say a medieval forger, and his target audience, would not have known about pollen grains (which can only be seen with a microscope), let alone obscure Middle Eastern plants.

[Above: "An image of Gundelia tournefortii on the right shoulder of the man of the Shroud (marked by a red ellipse); on the right, enlargement of the G. tournefortii inflorescence displaying a long thorn, from below the inflorescence, and large spots at the tips of the short thorns tips." (Danin, A., 2011, "Plant Stories: My studies on the Botany of the Shroud of Turin," February 20th.]

The Whangers had acquired Max Frei's pollen tapes and Danin took them back to Israel in the hope that Dr Uri Baruch, an expert on Israeli palynology, would examine them. Baruch had publicly taken a stand against Frei's findings, but on examining the tapes he changed his opinion. Like Frei, Baruch found that almost one-third of the pollen grains on the tapes were from the thorn Gundelia tournefortii. This is also important because the claim that Frei could only have identified his pollen down to the genus level, not the species level, fails in the case of G. tournefortii because Gundelia is "a monotypic genus," i.e. a genus with only one species, G. tournefortii":

"The two plant species identified as part of the Shroud, beyond any reasonable doubt, are Gundelia tournefortii and Zygophyllum dumosum. Their presence on the Shroud, with the former confirmed by its pollen grains and both identified by presumed imaging, indicate that the Shroud originated in the spring season (March-April) in the Jerusalem area. The high indicative value of Gundelia tournefortii's pollen grains derives from the fact that it is a monotypic genus (Feinbrun-Dothan, 1978). For the Near East, its pollen morphology is unique for the family and for the entire flora. Zygophyllum dumosum is an endemic plant with unusual leaf morphology. Leaves of the present year are produced at the beginning of winter as paired leaflets on a terete petiole while those of previous years can be seen to lack this leaflet pair. The cooccurrence of these two species on the Shroud suggests that they were placed with the body prior to the process that caused the formation of images on the cloth." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," p.23. Bold emphasis mine-see below).

During another visit to the Whangers, Danin identified leaves and flowers of bean caper plants, Zygophyllum dumosum, in the image of a bouquet on the chest area of the figure of a man on the Shroud. At that

[Above: On the chest area, "Zygophyllum dumosum leaflets (L), petioles (P) and flower (F) images shown with a black overlay. On the right an illustration of the plant from Flora Palaestina": Danin, A., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin].

time Danin didn't know that Frei had reported pollen of Z. dumosum on the Shroud tapes. Similarly, an image of a bouquet of Rock Roses was found near the left cheek of the figure. Frei had found Rock Rose pollen on the tapes too. Presumably Milne means that Frei found both Bean Caper (Z. dumosum) and Rock Rose (Cistus creticus) pollen in the same places, that Danin found images of those two different species. If so, these would be two more, separate, `two-step authentication' confirmations that Frei's pollen, and Danin's plant image, identifications are correct.

Although pollen and images from many other plants that grow in the Middle East have been recognised on the Shroud, the independent identification of both pollen and images of Gundelia tournefortii and Zygophyllum dumosum are the most significant. The thorn G. tournefortii is insect pollinated and flowers from February to May.

[Above: Distribution map of the only place on earth where Gundelia tournefortii, Zygophyllum dumosum and Cistus creticus are all found growing together (Danin, A., 2010, "Botany of the Shroud: The Story of Floral Images on the Shroud of Turin," p.52), the area around Jerusalem (green circle superimposed by me).].

Such great numbers of pollen from this species could only have arrived on the Shroud from a flower being placed on it. Zygophyllum dumosum is restricted to Israel, western Jordan and Sinai, and its northernmost distribution occurs between Jerusalem and Jericho.18 [Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic indicators for the origin of the Shroud of Turin," in Minor, M., et. al., eds., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the mystery," Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium, pp.202-214.] The natural distributions of G. tournefortii and Z. dumosum overlap in two small areas, both in the Holy Land. From studying distribution grids of all the plants identified by pollen or images, Danin reported that the area the Shroud may have originated from is 10-20 kilometres east and west of Jerusalem. What Milne is clearly implying is what others have stated:

"So for Gundelia pollen to be so strongly represented has to mean either that a whole swarm of insects flew from Gundelia plants to land on the Shroud - highly unlikely - or that at some time some person or persons unknown deliberately laid flowering Gundelia tournefortii plants on it. ... it is quite definite that whoever did this has to have done so somewhere within the Middle Eastern geographical area where the plant is known to grow, an area specifically including Jerusalem. They also have to have done so at a time of the year when Gundelia is known to bloom, and therefore produce pollen, a time that botanists ... can narrow to between March and May. So is it mere coincidence that this was the very period of the year within which Jesus' Passover-linked crucifixion occurred?" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," p.91).

That is, the abundance of G. tournefortii pollen and plant images (together with those of Z. dumosum and C. creticus) must mean these flowers were placed on the body of the Man, and then covered with the Shroud, in or around Jerusalem between March and May, the same time and place that Jesus was crucified (see below)!

The Whangers, Danin, Baruch and others have plenty of ammunition for the sceptics. The documented history of the Shroud shows that since 1352 AD it hasn't left Europe. If the similar carbon-14 date for the age of the Shroud is correct, how did so many pollen grains and images of plants from the Middle East come to be on the Shroud? The carbon-14 dating has since been discounted. The linen threads that were dated are chemically different from most of the' Shroud linen. Was this younger thread used for mending the Shroud when it first arrived in France, or before it was taken from Constantinople? Milne has `come out of the closet' and is clearly a Shroud pro-authenticist (whether she realises it or not), differentiating herself from Shroud sceptics, pointing out that the Shroud must have had an undocumented history outside of Europe before 1352, in the Middle East, the carbon-14 date for the age of the Shroud cannot be correct and indeed has been "discounted"!

However, she is wrong that, "The linen threads [sic] that were dated are chemically different from most of the' Shroud linen." That is Benford and Marino's claim but as I pointed out in Benford and Marino admit that to shift the carbon-date of 1st century linen shroud to the 14th century would require that the Shroud sample was 60% 16th century, when it clearly isn't. The same 60% contamination requirement refutes all contamination theories. The only theory which satisfactorily explains how the 1st century Shroud has a 14th century carbon date, 1352 ± 65 years, is my computer hacker theory.My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #1,"

Are the images of plant material on the Shroud artefacts or 'faces in the clouds' as one sceptic put it? They could be, but it's unlikely. After examining the pollen and image evidence, even the aforementioned sceptic agreed the images may be authentic. Some images can be seen on the Shroud without the aid of photographic enhancement, and the same images can be seen in photographs of the Shroud taken in 1898 and 1978-eighty years apart and with different cameras, films and developing methods. In this instance the "sceptic" is the pro-authenticist Ian Wilson:

"For such reasons Barrie Schwortz and I, along with many others who favour the Shroud's authenticity, dismissed Alan Whanger's insights as having too much of a `faces in clouds' character to be considered in the same scientific league as the pollen evidence. Yet, in fairness to him, in the case of the flower images in particular there are some very good reasons to be wary of too readily dismissing his insights. ... at the March 2000 viewing of the Shroud I was very close to Danin as we were ushered into the Cathedral sacristy. ... Then, as we were able to get within touching distance of the Shroud, the spontaneity of his reaction was quite infectious. As his eyes focused on the shoulder area, in almost childlike delight he recognized, as only one of his so specialized botanical expertise could, the Gundelia inflorescence's presence on this. ... Quite obvious was that for Danin, the world's leading expert on the flora of Israel, here, on this piece of cloth displayed in a northern Italian Cathedral side-room, was utterly unqualified recognition of a plant that he positively knew to come from the environs of his own Jerusalem. And in my observing this recognition, I could only bow to his very special `eye' for such things - as he subsequently explained to me, a `gift' from his childhood. The natural daylight lighting Turin Cathedral's sacristy was clear and even, and as, during the two hours allotted to us, my eyes continued to rove the Shroud's surface, quite apparent was that flower images are not just an aberration of black-and-white photographs. Faint flower-like shapes are quite definitely there on the cloth itself, and while no doubt many can deservedly be dismissed as merely of the `faces in clouds' variety, the `hard' evidence of the pollens, combined with my first-hand observation of Danin's very special eye at work, now persuades me to believe that some at least are `real'. (Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.84,91-92. Emphasis original).

who indeed, as can be seen above, after examining the plant images on the Shroud, agreed that at least some of them are authentic. Not only can some of the plant images be seen on the Shroud directly by the naked eye, as pointed out by Danin, the same images can be seen in photographs of the Shroud taken over 80 years apart, by different photographers, cameras, films and developing methods:

"Confirmation that the plant images are not a result of artifacts of photographic enhancement of Enrie's (1931) negatives is provided by the identical images discovered on photos taken by other photographers. A few of the most significant images were discovered and confirmed (by Danin) in several additional sources (Table 5). There are differences of 80 and 45 years between the three photographic intervals, all by different investigators, by different cameras, with different optical qualities, with different film emulsions and spectral characteristics, as well as film development under different darkroom conditions. Yet, many significant images were consistently observed in the photos of different generations. These similarities establish that the images are not artifacts of photography, but are part of the nature of the Shroud." (Danin, A., et al., 1999, p.21).

The two independent botanical methods, palynology and the analysis of the halo-like images left by coronal discharge, show that plants were placed on the Shroud. Pollen analysis narrowed down the area from which the Shroud originated and determined the time of year when the pollen arrived on it. None of this proves that the Shroud was used to cover the body of Christ. I'm not an adherent of traditional religion, but the abundant presence of pollen from the thorn Gundelia tournefortii and its image near the shoulder of the figure oil the Shroud does provoke thought. This species is not an ornamental and is unlikely to have been used in a floral tribute. That Milne is "not an adherent of traditional religion" makes her fairness and objectivity in considering the pollen and plant image evidence on the Shroud that much more impressive. She cannot be dismissed as being biased in favour of the Shroud by her prior Christian beliefs, as leading Shroud anti-authenticist Joe Nickell and his ilk routinely (and ad hominem fallaciously) do. Milne is correct that the pollen and plant image evidence, although it does narrow down the area from which the Shroud originated (in and around Jerusalem), and the time of year when the pollen arrived on the Shroud (from February to May - and Jesus was crucified just outside the then wall of Jerusalem in April AD 30) does not itself in isolation, "prove... that the Shroud was used to cover the body of Christ."

But then the other evidence that the Man on the Shroud "was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on" had already narrowed it down so that, as leading Shroud anti-authenticists Steven Schafersman and Joe Nickell agreed, "Either the shroud is authentic ... produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice," and there is no "possible third hypothesis":

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: [Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," "The Skeptical Inquirer," Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42] Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson [Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin," pp.51-53.] and Stevenson and Habermas [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud," pp.121-129] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas [Ibid., p.128] even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate). I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus." (Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," p.141. Emphasis original).

And Schafersman "and so on" could have included that the Man on the Shroud's body did not decompose (which is why we have his burial shroud at all), his body and the Shroud separated without breaking the blood clots attached to both, his image (including that of flowers and coins over his eyes) was imprinted on the cloth, in photographic negative and three-dimensional, anatomically accurate detail, his teeth and some bones are visible under his skin, some of the pollen (including G. tournefortii) and AB blood type matches that of the Sudarium of Oviedo which has been in Spain since the 7th century, etc, etc, narrows it down still further so that beyond any reasonable doubt the image of the Man on the Shroud can only be of Jesus, since the only other possibility that is a product of 14th century or earlier "human artifice" is excluded by Frei's pollen and Danin plant image evidence alone, not to mention historical, archaeological and artistic evidence that the Shroud existed well before the 14th century and indeed all the way back to the 1st century.

After all, Milne herself has provided pollen and plant evidence, which combined with far less other evidence than that on and of the Shroud, has secured convictions in courts of law, on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the theme of her book:

"In 1996 Samantha Hall, a young mother of two, was brutally murdered and her body dumped in parkland near Noosa in the heart of Queensland's Sunshine Coast. Despite suspicions, evidence was thin until the police called in a forensic palynologist - a pollen specialist. Forensic palynology is the use of pollen and spores to help solve crimes. It is another investigative tool, like fingerprint analysis and DNA profiling which is increasingly used by police to solve crimes. Interwoven with the unfolding story of how Samantha's killer was brought to justice, A Grain of Truth opens the door on a new forensic tool that is being used to solve crimes and other mysteries." (Milne, 2005, inside front cover).


(Milne, L., 2005, "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, pp.92-95).

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Is N.T. Wright a Shroud pro-authenticist?

I bought Bishop N.T. Wright's monumental, ~838 page, "The Resurrection of the Son of God" (2003), several years ago but had never found the time to read it. I started last night to read a few pages of it at night as a `bedtime story,' to switch my mind off from whatever I had been doing, to help me get to sleep.

[Right: "The Resurrection of the Son of God: (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3)" by N.T. Wright. Amazon.com.]

Much to my surprise, on the third page of the book, I read:

"Just as the book could have grown considerably if I had entered into debate with, or even simply cited, all the writers from whom I have learned, whether in agreement or disagreement, it could easily have doubled in length if I had explored all the interesting-looking secondary roads that lead off this particular highway. There are lots of side-issues that get a cursory mention, if that. Those who continue to work on the Turin Shroud, for instance, may be disappointed to find no further mention of it here.1" (Wright, N.T., "The Resurrection of the Son of God," Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3, Fortress Press: Minneapolis MN, 2003, p.xvii. My emphasis.)

The reference is: "1See e.g. Whanger and Whanger 1998." That is Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN.

That Wright, a former Anglican Bishop of Durham, and a leading New Testament scholar, even mentioned the Shroud at all is amazing, given that Christian academics tend to ignore it, for fear of

[Left: "N.T. Wright, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, St Mary's College, The School of Divinity, University of St Andrews," Scotland.]

being thought of as belonging to the so-called `lunatic fringe'.

And that Wright referenced not a more well-known Shroud book, like one of Ian Wilson's, but one that is less well known, by the Whangers, argues for Wright not only being a Shroud pro-authenticist, but having read widely in Shroud literature.

If anyone has any more information on Wright's position on the Shroud, I would appreciate a comment below detailing it, preferably with a link or reference to the source. It would also be interesting to know how many other leading Christian scholars have quietly been persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is authentic.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

My reply to the anti-authenticist editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, Hugh Farey

I have only just realised that Hugh Farey, the Editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, who by his own admission believes the Shroud had "an accidental 14th century origin":

"Unlike my predecessors, whom I think are more or less committed to a pro-authenticity point of view, I myself currently incline more towards an accidental 14th century origin for the cloth now preserved in Turin." ("Editorial - by Hugh Farey," Newsletter No. 78 - December 2013).

[Above: Hugh Farey's admission in the December 2013 issue of the BSTS Newsletter that he believes the Shroud had "an accidental 14th century origin."]

and therefore is a Shroud anti-authenticist, had in last June's issue of the BSTS Newsletter, launched a "poisoning the well":

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864). The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength." (Poisoning the well," Wikipedia, 10 December 2013).
attack on me:
"Over at theshroudofturin.blogspot.co.uk, Stephen E. Jones, to whom we are all grateful for his indefatigable efforts at scanning the pages of Shroud Spectrum International for online publication, is nevertheless working on a theory that the radiocarbon dates are wrong because one of the University of Arizona team, Timothy Linick, was a Soviet spy who hacked into the AMS dating machine in order to discredit the Shroud, before being murdered by the KGB! Jones discourages comments, so his hypothesis has been an ongoing topic of discussion at Dan Porter’s shroudstory.com. His arguments are rooted in two fundamental beliefs - that the Shroud is incontrovertibly authentic, and that the chances of it radiocarbon dating to the 14th century in the absence of fraud are astronomically small. At least one of these is disputed by almost every contributor." ("Around the Internet," BSTS Newsletter, No. 79, June 2014).

Here is my reply to Farey (his words in bold):

"Over at theshroudofturin.blogspot.co.uk, Stephen E. Jones," Thanks to Farey for the free publicity. I agree with P.T. Barnum's reputed dictum:

"All publicity is good publicity" or "There is no such thing as bad publicity"!

"we are all grateful for his indefatigable efforts at scanning the pages of Shroud Spectrum International for online publication" Interestingly (if not significantly), Farey fails to inform his BSTS readers that I also scanned and word-processed Ian Wilson's BSTS Newsletter issues #1 to #42, so that they could be put online by Barrie Schwortz, as acknowledged by him:

"In 2011, Stephen Jones, another BSTS member who lives in Australia, began the very major task of scanning and optical character recognition of all so the earlier issues (working his way backwards from issues #42 through #1), which we completed in November 2012" ("British Society for the Turin Shroud BSTS Newsletter and Monograph Archive," Shroud.com)

"is nevertheless" What is the "nevertheless" for unless it is to poison the well against me? I am a committed Shroud pro-authenticist and I have proposed a pro-authenticist theory "that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" which explains: 1) how the first-century Shroud (which the overwhelming weight of the evidence points to it being); `just happened' to radiocarbon-date to 1325 ±65, about 25-30 years before the Shroud appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in about 1355.

"working on a theory that the radiocarbon dates are wrong" The last time I checked (I have not read Porter's blog since the 8th May, apart from once by accident about the 2015 Shroud exhibition and the first few lines of Google searches) even Dan Porter on his blog's front page states:

"The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it [the Shroud] was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless" (my emphasis)

But what Porter, and others, including leading pro-authenticists have failed to grasp, is that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" was not just any date, but its midpoint, 1325 ±65, `just happens' to be (as previously pointed out) only 25-30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in ~1355. And as the late Harry Gove, the co-inventor of the AMS method used to radiocarbon date the Shroud stated, the improbability that the Shroud is first century but its radiocarbon date is "AD 1260-1390" is "about one in a thousand trillion":

"The other question that has been asked is: if the statistical probability that the shroud dates between 1260 and 1390 is 95%, what is the probability that it could date to the first century? The answer is about one in a thousand trillion, i.e. vanishingly small." (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," p.303).

That is the equivalent of finding by chance, at the first attempt, a particular grain of sand, 1mm in diameter, among a thousand trillion (1,000,000,000,000 = 1012) similar grains of sand, on a strip of beach 1 metre wide and 785.4 kilometers long! Or on a strip of beach ~5.4 metres wide by 145 kilometres long, which is about the length of the Ninety Mile (145 kms) Beach in Victoria, Australia, below!

[Above: Part of Victoria, Australia's Ninety Mile Beach: Holidayz.com.au. Ninety miles is 145 kms. Best of luck finding at the first try a particular grain of sand, of 1 mm diameter, on this beach in a strip 145 kms x ~5.4 metres wide. Because that is about the probability of the Shroud being first century yet its radiocarbon date is 1260-1390! So if the Shroud is authentic (as the preponderance of the evidence overwhelmingly points to), then there HAD to have been fraud of some kind in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of it to 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years.]

The agnostic art historian, but Shroud pro-authenticist, Thomas de Wesselow, is one who has grasped the problem, that the radiocarbon date of the Shroud being "1325 +/- 65 years" is such "a remarkable coincidence" because it "tallies so well with the date [of] ...the Shroud's historical debut" that it suggests the "possibility ...that a fraud was perpetrated":

"The third possibility is that a fraud was perpetrated ... Most sindonologists regard these fraud theories as plainly incredible ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with the date always claimed by sceptics as the Shroud's historical debut. But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve." (de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," p.170).

It is Farey's "accidental 14th century origin for the cloth now preserved in Turin" explanation which is decidedly in the minority. It is not only against all the evidence for the Shroud having existed well before the 14th century, and indeed all the way back to the first century; even leading anti-authenticists like Joe Nickell and Steven Schafersman would reject it. Because as Schafersman, quoted approvingly by Nickell pointed out, "Either the shroud is authentic ... or it is a product of human artifice":

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic ... produced by the body of Jesus ... or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson [Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin," pp.51-53.] and Stevenson and Habermas [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud," pp.121-129] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas [Ibid., p.128] even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate). I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.' [Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42]" (Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," p.141. My emphasis).

"because one of the University of Arizona team, Timothy Linick, was a Soviet spy who hacked into the AMS dating machine in order to discredit the Shroud, before being murdered by the KGB!" I agree that this sounds hard to believe.

[Above: Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory staff and Rochester radiocarbon dating laboratory's Prof. Harry Gove (second from right) around the AMS control console computer terminal after it had, on 6 May 1988 displayed the alleged hacker's bogus radiocarbon age of the Shroud, which was then calibrated to "1350 AD" (Gove, 1996, p.176H, 264. The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is the one in a black shirt standing the most prominently in the foreground.]

And from the first few lines of Google searches I am aware that Porter is fond of trying to discredit my theory, and me, by the pejorative term, "conspiracy theory." But as Sherlock Holmes pointed out to Watson, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth":
"`How came he, then?' I reiterated. `The door is locked, the window is inaccessible. Was it through the chimney?' The grate is much too small,' he answered. `I had already considered that possibility.' `How then?' I persisted. `You will not apply my precept,' he said, shaking his head. `How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. Whence, then, did he come?' `He came through the hole in the roof,' I cried. `Of course he did. He must have done so. If you will have the kindness to hold the lamp for me, we shall now extend our researches to the room above, - the secret room in which the treasure was found.'" (Doyle, A.C., 2001, "The Sign of Four," Penguin: London, pp.42-43. My emphasis).

And, as I document in my series, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker," there is evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dates of the Shroud, as presented in the 1988 Nature paper's "Table 2 Summary of mean radiocarbon dates and assessment of interlaboratory scatter" (see below) are not real dates, but computer-generated. The Nature paper itself admits that:
"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 [the non-Shroud control samples] is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted" (my emphasis).

And Linick is surprisingly quoted in anti-authenticist David Sox's August 1988 book, as being anti-authenticist and presumably in direct contact with Sox (breaching his signed undertaking "not to communicate the results to anyone ... until that time when results are generally available to the public" - Gove, 1996, p.262):

"Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'" (Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," p.147).
And Sox in turn leaked Arizona's "1350" first dating of the Shroud to the media, as publicly stated by Ian Wilson in a 23 September 1988 special letter to all BSTS members:
"As members can scarcely fail to have been aware, ever since early July there have been a spate of press rumours that the Shroud has been carbon-dated to sometime in the mediaeval period. The rumours have chiefly come from this country ... Towards the end of July the rumours were rekindled as a result of pre-publicity surrounding the BBC Timewatch television programme `Shreds of Evidence'. ... transmitted 27 July ... The programme had just one 'expert' consultant, the Revd. David Sox. ...on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran as its front-page lead story `Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake'. Accompanying this was a seemingly authoritative article by librarian Dr. Richard Luckett of Magdalene College, Cambridge, cryptically remarking that `laboratories are rather leaky institutions' and `a probable date of about 1350 looks likely' ... yet both the Oxford laboratory and Dr. Michael Tite of the British Museum insisted that they knew nothing of how Dr. Luckett had come by his information, and had had no dealings with him. When in a telephone enquiry to Dr. Luckett I asked whether the Revd. David Sox had been his source, he hastily changed the subject. ... On 18 September the Sunday Times carried the front page headline `Official: Turin Shroud is a Fake' ... the Science Correspondent ... admitted that his source had been the Revd. David Sox. ... It seems clear that ... the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman whose identity will now be self-evident. This individual's means of obtaining his `inside' information (which can only have come from Arizona or Zurich) ... can only be guessed at" (Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September.

Linick died on 4 June 1989. His obituary in the Arizona journal "Radiocarbon" described his death as "untimely":

"Timothy Weiler Linick died on June 4th, 1989. He was a dedicated researcher, and an important part of the NSF Accelerator Facility for Radioisotope Analysis at the University of Arizona. He will be remembered for his care and attention to details, especially in the calculation and reporting of radiocarbon dates. ... Tim is survived by his wife, Constance and his eight-year old son Gregor. His untimely death is a great loss to them and to his co-workers, both in Tucson and around the world. AJT Jull. Timothy was my graduate student and later was a co-worker in my laboratory, mainly involved in data reduction and the interpretation of the results. He was an extremely mathematically gifted and careful worker. His death is a loss, not only to my personal research interests, but also to the whole radiocarbon research community. Hans E Suess" (Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2).

It was reported in the Italian press at the time that Linick had committed "suicide in mysterious circumstances" (Galeazzi, G., 2013. "Never solved: The enigma that still divides the Church: The Shroud," Vatican Insider).

[Right: Photograph of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances, shortly after the campaign of the Italian press reporting our accusations (my emphasis)" (Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus," The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century.]".

Shortly before Linick's suicide, between 23 and 30 May 1989, Karl Koch, a hacker who had confessed that he had worked for the KGB, was also found dead, probably murdered by the KGB:

"Koch was found burned to death with gasoline in a forest near Celle, Germany. The death was officially claimed to be a suicide. However, some believe there is little evidence supporting suicide and many believe that Koch was killed in order to keep him from confessing more to the authorities. Why Koch would be targeted, and not Pengo [Hans Hübner] and Urmel [Markus Hess], is unknown. Koch left his workplace in his car to go for lunch; he had not returned by late afternoon and so his employer reported him as a missing person. Meanwhile, German police were alerted of an abandoned car in a forest near Celle. When they went to investigate, they found an abandoned car, that looked like it had been there for years, as it was covered in dust. Near to the car they found a burned corpse (Koch). His shoes were missing and have never been found. There was a patch of burned ground around him, which although it had not rained in some time and the grass was perfectly dry, was controlled in a small circle around the corpse. It is thought to be highly unlikely that this type of controlled burning could have been achieved by Koch himself which leads many to believe that his death was not suicide." ("Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 30 May 2014. My emphasis. Notes omitted).

My theory that Linick was the primary hacker, aided by Koch, explains much that previously was inexplicable, which is the mark of a good theory. I am quietly confident that I am on the right track and that further information will eventually come to light which will support, if not confirm it.

I will in the near future post a part #9 of my series which will support the KGB's role in Linick's and Koch's hacking of the three laboratories' AMS computers and their `suicides'. I will then conclude my series with a part #10, in which I will summarise my theory.

"Jones discourages comments," This is misleading. I don't discourage comments, per se. Anyone can comment on my blog, as long as their comments are not "off-topic, offensive or sub-standard" and Farey himself has commented on it. But what I do not allow is the interminable, time-wasting, getting nowhere, debating which is a feature of Porter's, and most Internet forums in my experience. Anyone can comment, normally once, under any one of my posts and I will normally reply only once to that comment. As I have stated previously, I regard comments on my blog as analogous to letters to the editor of a newspaper, where a reader can comment only once per newspaper issue, but can comment in future issues.

"so his hypothesis has been an ongoing topic of discussion at Dan Porter’s shroudstory.com." I am pleased to hear that! But I left Porter's blog in April because of his allowing commenters (including Farey) to continually make defamatory comments about me, without Porter doing anything to protect me, as stated in my post of 18 April 18, "Okay, we will need to wait several weeks": My response to Dan Porter":

"Following numerous instances of Dan Porter on his blog allowing defamatory comments to be made about me by some of his members, without him lifting a finger to protect me or moderate the defamers, I left Porter's blog with the final comment that I would no longer post comments under his posts, or even read those comments."
and as already stated, apart from one accident, I have not read any of Porter's posts or comments for over 3 months. In a recent church service the video "Luggage" by Rob Bell was played. And one of Bell's points about "toxic" persons who will continually hurt you and it is best to cut them out of your life completely, made me think of Porter and his blog and that I had done the right thing in cutting Porter and his fellow character assassins like Farey out of my life.

"His arguments are rooted in two fundamental beliefs - that the Shroud is incontrovertibly authentic," This is FALSE and just more "poisoning the well" by Farey. I don't regard the Shroud as "incontrovertibly authentic." As I state on the masthead of my blog, "I am persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus Christ and bears His crucified and resurrected image." I am open to the evidence that the Shroud is not authentic, which is more than I can say for anti-authenticists like Farey and Porter being open to the evidence that the Shroud is authentic.

"and that the chances of it radiocarbon dating to the 14th century in the absence of fraud are astronomically small." Well that's what Prof. Harry Gove said (see above). Moreover, "astronomical" is the very word that Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall used to dismiss the Shroud being first century yet carbon-dating to "1260-1390":

"... on Thursday, 13 October [1988] in the British Museum's Press Room ... were ... Dr Michael Tite, with the Oxford radiocarbon-dating laboratory's Professor Edward Hall and Hall's chief technician, Dr Robert Hedges. ... their only `prop' was a blackboard behind them on which someone had rather crudely scrawled: `1260-1390!' ... as Dr Tite explained, these numbers represented radiocarbon dating's calculation, to a ninety-five per cent degree of probability, of the upper and lower dates of when the Shroud's flax had been harvested. Representing an average of the laboratories' findings ... they indicated that the Shroud's raw flax had most likely been made into linen on or about the year AD 1325, give or take sixty-five years either way ... The Shroud simply could not possibly be any true shroud of the historical Jesus. For as those on the platform collectively insisted, the odds against this were now `astronomical'" (Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud," pp.6-7. My emphasis).
"At least one of these is disputed by almost every contributor." So what? Farey claims to be a science teacher yet by that comment he seems to think that scientific truth is decided by majority opinion-and that of commenters to a blog! In my experience, most of the active commenters on Porter's blog are just "empty vessels which make the most noise"!

In my opinion the British Society for the Turin Shroud should remove the anti-authenticist Hugh Farey from being the Editor of its Newsletter, or else he will use it as a vehicle to promote his anti-authenticism, as he is doing in this attack on me. The BSTS has always been open to having non-Christians in its membership, and even its leadership, like the late Rodney Hoare, a BSTS past Chairman, who believed the Shroud was authentic but that it shows that Jesus was taken down alive from the cross. But the BSTS has in the past rejected anti-authenticists like David Sox from having a leadership role. It is a contradiction, which I predict will prove fatal to the BSTS if it continues having an ANTI-authenticist Editor of the British Society FOR the Turin Shroud!

Monday, August 4, 2014

Shroud of Turin: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Shroud of Turin

This is the "Shroud of Turin" entry, being part #3, of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." This is an overview. Supporting evidence and arguments will be added in the future by way of a linked entry page for each of the key points.The references are incomplete but I will add those missing over the coming days.

[Main index] [Index "S"] [Next].


Introduction The Shroud of Turin (also known as "The Holy Shroud"[2] or as "Le Saint Suaire" in France[3] and "La Santa Sindone" in Italy[4]), is a 437 x 111 cms[5] (~14.3 x 3.6 ft) rectangular linen sheet[6]. Included in this width is a ~3½ inch (~8 cms) side-strip with selvedge which originally ran the full length of the cloth[7]. The Shroud's weave is a 3:1 herringbone twill pattern[8].

The Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history was at Lirey, France in about 1355[9], when it was owned by a French knight Geoffroi de Charny (c. 1300-1356)[10] and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (1339-1428)[11].

[Right: "Full-length image of the Turin Shroud before the 2002 restoration"[12].]

The Shroud was owned by the House of Savoy from 1453, when Marguerite de Charny (1390-1460), the granddaughter of Geoffroi and Jeanne de Charny[13], and the last of the de Charny line[14], transferred the Shroud to Duke Louis of Savoy[15]. From 1502 the Shroud was kept by the Savoys in Chambéry, France, in a specially built royal chapel, the Sainte Chapelle[16]. In 1532 the Sainte Chapelle caught fire and the Shroud was nearly destroyed[17].

Then in 1578 Duke Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy moved the Shroud to Turin, Italy[18], where, apart from brief periods in times of war, it has remained ever since[19]. In 1694 the Shroud was installed in a purpose-built Royal Chapel attached to the Turin Cathedral of St John the Baptist, Italy[20].

In 1983 the ex-King of Italy, Umberto II, the last of the Savoys, died and in his will he bequeathed the Shroud to the Pope and his successors[21], on the condition that the Shroud remain in Turin under the custodianship of the Archbishop of Turin[22].

Image of a man The cloth bears the faint image[23], full-length[24], front and back[25], head to head[26], of a naked[27] man[28].

Matches Gospels' description of Jesus The man has wounds[29] and bloodstains[30] which match the Gospels' description[31] of the scourging[32], beatings[33], crowned with thorns[34], nailed to a cross[35], death[36], legs not broken[37], speared in the side[38], enfolded in a linen shroud[39], buried in a rock tomb[40] and resurrection[41] of Jesus Christ[42].

Major features of the image These include: photographic negativity[43]; three-dimensionality[44]; extreme superficiality[45]; lack of paint, pigment, stain or dye[46]; uniform colour[47]; lack of outline[48], lack of directionality[49], lack of artistic style[50] and x-rays of bones and teeth[51].

Major features of the wounds and bloodstains These include: non-traditional[52]; anatomical accuracy[53]; distinction between arterial and venous blood[54]; blood is real[55]; blood clots are intact[56]; blood has serum halos [57]; and blood was before the image[58].

Other features These include: burn and water marks from the 1532 fire[59] (see above); `poker holes'[60], pollen[61], flower and plant images[62]; coins over the eyes[63]; dirt on the feet[64], foldmarks[65], creases and wrinkles[66] and pieces missing[67].

Evidence for the Shroud's authenticity There is overwhelming[68] Biblical[69], historical[70], archeological[71], artistic[72] and scientific[73] evidence that the Shroud is authentic[74] and existed (between at least the ~6th[75] and 10th[76] centuries as the Image of Edessa/Mandylion[77]) all the way back to the first century[78]. There is no viable naturalistic explanation of all the major features of the Shroud[79]. Modern science has been unable to explain how the image was imprinted on the cloth[80]. Shroud sceptics have been unable to replicate the Shroud's image[81]. There is no consensus among anti-authenticists of how the Shroud's image was faked[82].

Evidence against the Shroud's authenticity This consists of only three items: a 1389 draft, unsigned memorandum by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (†1377–1395) claiming that the Shroud was painted[83]; a 1988 radiocarbon dating by three laboratories of the same tiny sample of the Shroud to 1260-1390[84]; and claims that the Shroud's image has anatomical errors[85]. However, each of these three items of evidence against the Shroud's authenticity have been discredited[86], leaving no credible evidence that the Shroud is not authentic[87].

Conclusion Since there is overwhelming evidence that the Shroud is authentic, and no credible evidence that it is not, then the Shroud of Turin is the very burial sheet of Jesus Christ![88]

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from it or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one graphic) of any of my posts, provided that they include a reference to the title of, and a hyperlink to, that post from which it came. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1974, "The Shroud in history," The Tablet, 13th April, p.12. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.160. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.13. [return]
5. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.18. [return]
6. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.161. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.72. [return]
8. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.28-29. [return]
9. Wilson, 2010, p.222. [return]
10. Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.63. [return]
11. Ruffin, 1999, pp.62-63. [return]
12. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 13 July 2014. [return]
13. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.3. [return]
14. Cassanelli, A., 2002, "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK, p.14. [return]
15. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.32. [return]
16. Wilson, 1979, p.218. [return]
17. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.3-4. [return]
18. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.18. [return]
19. Cassanelli, 2002, p.14. [return]
20. Guerrera, 2001, p.20. [return]
21. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.112. [return]
22. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.125. [return]
23. Wilson, 1998, p.4. [return]
24. Danin, A., et al., 1999, p.3. [return]
25. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.5. [return]
26. McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.23. [return]
27. Guerrera, 2001, p.1. [return]
28. Ibid. [return]
29. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, pp.40-41. [return]
30. Wilson, 1986, p.44. [return]
31. Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, 1978, pp.69-81. [return]
32. Guerrera, 2001, pp.37-38. [return]
33. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.40. [return]
34. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R. , 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.44, 122. [return]
35. Guerrera, 2001, p.39. [return]
36. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.87. [return]
37. Ibid. [return]
38. Guerrera, 2001, pp.39-40. [return]
39. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.47-48. [return]
40. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.120-121. [return]
41. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.155-157. [return]
42. Wilson, 1979, pp.52-53. [return]
43. Wilson, 1979, pp.26-31. [return]
44. Wilson, 1986, pp.47,49. [return]
45. Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, p.332. [return]
46. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, pp.30-31. [return]
47. Adler, A.D., "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.14-15. [return]
48. Wilson, 1979, p.22. [return]
49. Wilson, 1979, pp.230-232. [return]
50. Bulst, 1957, pp.31-33. [return]
51. Antonacci, 2000, pp.213-214. [return]
52. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.92-93. [return]
53. Antonacci, 2000, pp.24-26. [return]
54. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.99. [return]
55. Iannone, 1998, pp.65-68. [return]
56. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.51-52. [return]
57. Antonacci, 2000, pp.26-28. [return]
58. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.203. [return]
59. Wilson, 1998, pp.64-65. [return]
60. Wilson, 1998, pp.66-67. [return]
61. Wilson, 2010, pp.62-65. [return]
62. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.82-87. [return]
63. Antonacci, 2000, pp.102-108. [return]
64. Wilson, 1998, pp.104-106. [return]
65. Wilson, 1998, pp.154-157. [return]
66. [return]
67. [return]
68. [return]
69. [return]
70. [return]
71. [return]
72. [return]
73. [return]
74. [return]
75. [return]
76. [return]
77. [return]
78. [return]
79. [return]
80. [return]
81. [return]
82. [return]
83. [return]
84. [return]
85. [return]
86. [return]
87. [return]
88. [return]


Updated: 23 August, 2014.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Index "S": Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Index "S"

This is the index page, "S", part #2, of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." See part #1, the Main Index "A-Z" for information about this series.

[Main index] [Previous] [Next].

[Right: Shroud face, positive. As one sees the Shroud[2].]

Click on an entry's hyperlink below to go to that entry. If an entry is not hyperlinked, it is a planned future entry in this encyclopedia.


[Saint Pontianus catacomb] [Savoy, House of] [sceptics] [Schwortz, Barrie] [scorch theories] [scourging] [Schafersman, Steven] [shroud] [Shroud of Turin] [Scheuermann, Oswald] [soudarion] [sovev] [Sox, H. David] [speared in side] [spices] [statue theory] [Stephen III, Pope] [Stevenson, Kenneth] [sticky tape] [STURP] [Sudarium of Oviedo] [superficial]


Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from it or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one graphic) of any of my posts, provided that they include a reference to the title of, and a hyperlink to, that post from which it came. [return]
2. "Durante 2002: Face Only Vertical," Shroud Scope: Sindonology.org. [return]

Updated: 23 August, 2014.

Monday, July 21, 2014

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #8

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Continuing from part #7 of my series, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" with this part #8. Other previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, part #3, part #4, part #5 and part #6.

[Above: "The hacker Karl Koch was only 23 years old. On 1 June 1989 they found his burnt corpse in a forest near Gifhorn (Lower Saxony)."[2]. As summarised by Wikipedia:

"Karl Werner Lothar Koch (July 22, 1965 – ca. May 23, 1989) was a German hacker in the 1980s, who called himself `hagbard', after Hagbard Celine...Koch was born in Hanover... Koch was loosely affiliated with the Chaos Computer Club. He worked with the hackers known as DOB (Dirk-Otto Brezinski), Pengo (Hans Heinrich Hübner), and Urmel (Markus Hess), and was involved in selling hacked information from United States military computers to the KGB. Clifford Stoll's book The Cuckoo's Egg gives a first-person account of the hunt and eventual identification of Hess. Pengo and Koch subsequently came forward and confessed to the authorities under the espionage amnesty, which protected them from being prosecuted. Koch was found burned to death with gasoline in a forest near Celle, Germany. The death was officially claimed to be a suicide. However, some believe there is little evidence supporting suicide and many believe that Koch was killed in order to keep him from confessing more to the authorities. Why Koch would be targeted, and not Pengo and Urmel, is unknown. Koch left his workplace in his car to go for lunch; he had not returned by late afternoon and so his employer reported him as a missing person. Meanwhile, German police were alerted of an abandoned car in a forest near Celle. When they went to investigate, they found an abandoned car, that looked like it had been there for years, as it was covered in dust. Near to the car they found a burned corpse (Koch). His shoes were missing and have never been found. There was a patch of burned ground around him, which although it had not rained in some time and the grass was perfectly dry, was controlled in a small circle around the corpse. It is thought to be highly unlikely that this type of controlled burning could have been achieved by Koch himself which leads many to believe that his death was not suicide" (my emphasis)[3].]

7. EVIDENCE THAT KARL KOCH INSTALLED LINICK'S PROGRAM ON ZURICH AND OXFORD LABORATORIES' AMS COMPUTERS

• Koch is not essential to my theory First, as I have previously stated, Karl Koch is not essential to my theory:

"... Koch's role is not essential to my theory. If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have personally travelled to Zurich and Oxford to access their radiocarbon laboratories computers, it would not falsify my theory. My theory includes Koch because of the striking coincidence that they were both allegedly hackers working for the KGB and both allegedly committed suicide within days of each other"[4] (but not on the day-see below)
"...Karl Koch is not essential to my theory, as Linick could have hacked Zurich and Oxford's AMS computer some other way, e.g. by issuing them with a program `update', or one of the KGB's own operatives could have entered those two laboratories clandestinely and installed Linick's program on their AMS control console computers"[5]

If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have been involved, either directly or indirectly, in installing Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford laboratories' AMS control console computers, then my theory would not be falsified. In that case I would have to maintain that Linick's program was installed on those laboratories' computers by some other way. For example, Linick himself could have flown over to Zurich and Oxford, installed his program cladestinely on their computers, and returned to Arizona, in a few days. This is why my theory always has been "that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" (singular).

Also, as I have also previously stated, it is not essential to my theory that Linick knew Koch, or even about Koch (and vice-versa):

"... I don't claim that the laboratories, or even Linick, knew about Koch"[6]

I have included Karl Koch in my theory, despite there being as yet no known link between Koch and Linick, nor between Koch and the Shroud, because of: 1) the striking coincidence of both Koch and Linick dying of suspected suicide within days of each other (but not on the same day-see below); 2) Koch's death being almost certainly the work of the KGB; 3) the KGB having no known reason to kill Koch unless he had been involved in an entirely different type of hacking for them which they did not want to become public knowledge; 4) Koch's expertise would have been useful in hacking into Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers; and 5) Koch's living in Germany would have made it comparatively easy for him to travel to Zurich and Oxford to install Linick's program on their computers (although that too is not necessary to my theory as Koch may have only provided expert advice on how to hack into those computers and a KGB operative may have entered the laboratories clandestinely and installed Linick's program on their AMS computers, or Linick himself could have installed it).

• Koch's background Karl Werner Lothar Koch was born in Hanover, West Germany, on 22 July 1965[7]. Both his parents were dead by the time he was 16 and Koch's inheritance supported his expensive drug habit[8].

• Koch was a German computer hacker in the 1980s Koch began computer hacking in Hannover, then West Germany, in the early 1980s[9]. Koch's adopted name was "Hagbard Celine" after the hero of the The Illuminatus! Trilogy[10] novels, who fights against The Illuminati, a fictitious, but to Koch real, all-powerful secret society[11]. Unlike other hackers, Koch was no programmer but was expert at guessing logins and passwords[12]. However what Koch lacked in programming skills he more than made up for by his deep intuition, fertile imagination[13], unusual insight, infinite patience, single-mindedness[14] and persistence[15]. Other hackers were part-time but Koch, supported by his inheritance, devoted every waking moment to hacking[16].

• Koch was a hacker paid by the KGB In 1985, at a hacker meeting in Hannover, Koch was recruited by a Peter Carl as a the first member of a ring of hackers to break into Western computer systems, particularly those on military or defence industry sites, and sell the information and programs to the KGB[17]. Others who joined Koch in the Hannover KGB hacker circle[18] included Hans Heinrich Hübner (Pengo)[19], Dirk-Otto Brzezinski (Dob)[20] and Markus Hess[21]. In September 1986 Peter Carl went to the Soviet trade mission in East Berlin with a proposition to sell them secret information from USA military computers[22]. A KGB agent, Sergei Markov, agreed to Carl's hacking proposition[23]. At subsequent meetings in East Berlin with Carl and Brzezinski, from 1986 through 1988, Sergei paid for information and software the hackers provided[24].

• Koch allegedly installed Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers By early 1987, Koch had spent his inheritance and his drug dependency had become acute[25]. It is in this 7 month period between October 1987, after the Archbishop of Turin announced that only three AMS laboratories, Arizona, Oxford and Zurich, would date the Shroud[26] and April 1988 when samples were cut from the Shroud and given to the three laboratories for dating[27], that according to my theory, the KGB's Sergei Markov secretly approached Koch, with an offer of drugs[28] and/or money in return for Koch installing Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford AMS computers. How exactly it was done is not essential to my theory. Except that since Arizona's and Oxford's (and presumably Zurich's) AMS control console computers were never online[29] Linick's program would have had to be installed manually and locally, either by Koch alone, or by a KGB operative following Koch's instructions, or by both Koch and a KGB operative.

The hacking itself would have been easy for the very experienced Koch, . In 1987 it was known by hackers (including Koch[30]) that VMS, the operating system for the "DEC computer system" that the AMS control console computer at Arizona[31] (and presumably also at Zurich and Oxford) was, had a major security flaw, in that if an unauthorised user entered any login and password and ignored the error messages, he could gain access to the system:

"Two ... Hamburg students. ... had exploited a devastatingly simple flaw in the VMS operating system used on VAX. The machines, like most computer systems, required users to log in their ID and then type their password to gain access. If the ID or the password was wrong, the VMS system had been designed to show an 'error' message and bar entry. But ... if they simply ignored all the 'error' messages, they could walk straight into the system - provided they continued with the log-on as though everything was in order. When confronted with the 'error' message after keying in a fake ID, they would press `enter', which would take them to the password prompt. They would then type in a phoney password, bringing up a second, equally ineffectual 'error' message. By ignoring it and pressing enter again, they were permitted access to the system. It was breathtakingly easy, and left the VAX open to any hacker, no matter how untalented. ... The VAX operating system, VMS, had been subjected to stringent tests ... It beggared belief that VMS could have gone through such testing without the back door being discovered. [Later, it would be established that although early versions of VMS had been fully tested, later ones hadn't. It was these newer versions that contained the back door. (Users update their computers with the latest versions of the operating systems almost as a matter of course, so nearly all VAXen became insecure for a time.)]"[32].

And even when "Digital issued a 'mandatory patch' ... in May 1987. ... many users didn't bother to install it"

"Responding to complaints from its users, Digital issued a 'mandatory patch', a small program designed specifically to close the back door, in May 1987. Despite the 'mandatory' tag, many users didn't bother to install it. So, at least for a time, VAX computers across the world provided hackers with an open house ..."[33].

And a good reason why many system managers did not install DEC's `mandatory patch" is that DEC were: "being real quiet about it. They don't want their customers to panic" (see below).

Indeed, in the "NASA hack," in which both Hess and Koch were involved[34], it was found that "DEC's [VMS] installation procedure works only" for a "SYSTEM account" but "most system managers do not change the preset default password MANAGER" and those who did change it used easy-to-guess passwords:

"In Hess' apartment, public prosecutors found (on March 3, 1989) password lists from other hacks. On Monday, March 6, 1989, the Panorama team (who had disclosed the NASA hack and basically the KGB connection) asked Klaus Brunnstein to examine some of the password lists; the material which he saw (for 30 minutes) consisted of about 100 photocopied protocols of a hack during the night of July 27 to 28, 1987; it was the famous `NASA hack.' From a VAX 750 (with VMS 4.3) ... to log-into other VAXes in remote institutes. They always used SYSTEM account and the `proper' password (invisible). ... DEC's installation procedure works only if a SYSTEM account is available; evidently, most system managers do not change the preset default password MANAGER; since Version 4.7, MANAGER is excluded, but on previous VMS versions, this hole probably exists in many systems! ... the hackers, in more than 40% of the cases, succeeded to login, their first activities were to ... to install ... the Trojan horse. With the Trojan horse ... they copied the password lists to their PCs. When looking through the password list, Klaus observed the well-known facts: More than 25% female or male first names, historical persons, countries, cities, or local dishes ... the password lists contained less than 5% passwords of such nature easy to guess!"[35].

And if the AMS laboratories' VMS was the very popular version 4.5, then "Anyone that logs into the system can become system manager by running a short program":

"Now if you want a tasty security hole, check out VMS. They've got a hole you could drive a truck through.' `Huh?' `Yeah. It's in every Vox computer from Digital Equipment Corporation that runs the VMS operating system Version 4.5.' `What's the problem?' Darren explained. 'Anyone that logs into the system can become system manager by running a short program. You can't stop 'em.' I hadn't heard of this problem. 'Isn't DEC doing something about it? After all, they sell those systems.' `Oh, sure, they're sending out patches. But they're being real quiet about it. They don't want their customers to panic.' `Sounds reasonable.' `Sure, but nobody's installing those patches. What would you do-some tape shows up in the mail saying, `Please install this program or your system may develop problems' ... you'll ignore it, because you've got better things to do.' `So all the systems are open to attack?' `You got it.' `Wait a second. That operating system was certified by NSA. They tested it and certified it secure.' `Sure they spent a year testing it. And a month after they verified the system, DEC modified it slightly. Just a little change in the password program.' ... `And now fifty thousand computers are insecure.'"[36].

So it would not be surprising if the three laboratories' AMS control console computers, being not online, were among the many VAX computers which were not patched. And in the "more than 40% of the cases" where the System password was still set to its default "MANAGER." And among the 95% whose passwords were easy to guess!

Hacking into such insecure 1980s computers would be easy for a very experienced hacker as Koch was. It may be significant that in late 1987/early 1988 Sergei wanted Koch excluded from the KGB hacking ring because of his drug-taking and talking to journalists for money[37]. But there is no evidence that Koch's talking was the source of any of the news stories about the KGB's hacking, so perhaps Sergei's real concern was that Koch would talk about his hacking of Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories' computers?

• Koch confessed to hacking for the KGB Following a period of treatment in psychiatric hospitals and drug rehabilitation centers[38], Koch was on the road to recovery[39]. In June 1987, due to Clifford Stoll's persistence, American and German authorities cooperated in tracing his Hess' modem call from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories in California to his apartment in Hannover, Germany, but due to a police bungle, Hess was not caught in the act of hacking as planned[40], and although he was arrested and charged, Hess was later released on appeal[41]. A year later, in the summer of 1988, first Koch, then Hübner, independently, taking advantage of an amnesty provision for espionage in West German legislation, approached the authorities to confess their hacking for the KGB[42]. Both were interrogated by West German prosecutors[43], and on 2 March 1989 eight were arrested, including Hess, Hübner, Koch, Brescinsky and Carl, but all except Carl and Brescinsky were released after a few days[44]. Koch and Hübner, having confessed to espionage before they were caught, under the espionage amnesty legislation were in no danger of being jailed providing they co-operated[45].

• Koch was murderd between 23 and 30 May 1989 Before noon on 23 May 1989, Koch left his workplace at the Hannover office of Germany's Christian Democratic Union party, in his employer's vehicle, to deliver a package to a government office in Hannover, but he never arrived[46]. In the late afternoon, Koch's employer notified the police of his disappearance[47]. Koch's friends and the German domestic security agency (BFV) sent out search parties looking for Koch but after a week the searches were abandoned[48]. On or about 30 May a farmer who had been checking his irrigation daily noticed a car parked in the adjoining forest[49] near the village of Ohof, north of Hannover[50]. After a few days in a row, when he saw that the car was still there, he called the police[51], on or about 1 June. The police investigated the report that day and found that the car's roof, hood and windscreen were thick with dust[52], looking like it had been there for years[53]. In the undergrowth near the car, the police found a charred corpse lying next to an empty gasoline can[54]. He was lying facedown with an arm over his head as though trying to shield himself from the flames[55].The vegetation in the surrounding three or four metres had been burned black[56]. The police concluded that the driver of the car had committed suicide[57]. by pouring the contents of the gasoline can over himself, soaking the surrounding earth as well, lit a match, and was burned to death[58]. The police noted that the corpse was barefoot but no shoes were found in the car or in the surrounding area[59]. They were puzzled, because there had been no rain for five weeks and the undergrowth was as dry as matchwood, yet the scorched patch around the body was contained, as if it had been carefully controlled[60]. The body was later identified as that of Karl Koch[61].

[Above: Partially burnt forest trees from the gasoline fire that killed Karl Koch. Note that a fire that can partly burn "dry as matchwood" trees would not go out until all the wood was burned, unless it was controlled by one or more persons using fire extinguishers or fire hoses. Buckets of water would not put out a gasoline fire. But Koch couldn't have extinguished the gasoline fire that killed him and there were no fire extinguishers or hoses at the scene. Therefore Koch's death was murder, not suicide![62].]

But if Koch had killed himself, how had he been able to control the fire to prevent it spreading outside the confined perimeter[63]. Koch would have been wearing shoes when he left his office in the car, but they weren't in the car or the urrounding area, as if someone had taken them[64]. And no suicide note was found.[65].

Moreover, suicide made no sense, since Koch had confessed to the German authorities his selling of hacked Western computer secrets to the KGB[66]. He was therefore in no danger of being prosecuted, being protected from punishment by the terms of the espionage amnesty legislation[67]. The authorities had actually provided Koch with accommodation and found him a job with the Christian Democratic Party[68]. He was also receiving help with his drug dependency and seemed on his way to rehabilitation[HDR] Koch was even planning to move into an apartment of his own and had embraced conventional religion[69]. So murder was much more likely than suicide[70].

To be continued in part #9.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. Clauss,U., 2012, "Ancestor of the Pirate Party was charred in the forest," Die Welt, 25 May. Translated from German by Google. [return]
3. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 30 May 2014. Footnotes omitted. [return]
4. Jones, S.E., 2014, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #1," The Shroud of Turin blog, May 24. [return]
5. Jones, S.E., 2014, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #5," The Shroud of Turin blog, June 13. [return]
6. Jones, S.E., 2014, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #7," The Shroud of Turin blog, July 5. [return]
7. Wikipedia, 2014. [return]
8. Hafner, K. & Markoff, J., 1991, "Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier," Corgi: London, reprinted, 1993, p.207. [return]
9. Clough. B. & Mungo, P., 1992, "Approaching Zero: Data Crime and the Computer," Faber & Faber: London & Boston, pp.164-165. [return]
10. Shea, R. & Wilson, R.A., 1975, "The Illuminatus! Trilogy," Dell: New York NY. [return]
11. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.206. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.206-207. [return]
14. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.216. [return]
15. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.214. [return]
16. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.215. [return]
17. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.164. [return]
18. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.208. [return]
19. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.209, 185. [return]
20. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.209. [return]
21. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.211. [return]
22. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.224. [return]
23. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.225, 293. [return]
24. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.230-231, 239-240, 245, 249, 250, 254, 260. [return]
25. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.266. [return]
26. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.213-214. [return]
27. Gove, 1996, pp.260-261. [return]
28. King, T., ed., 1989, "Computer Espionage: Three `Wily Hackers' Arrested," Phrack Magazine, Issue #25, 3rd March. [return]
29. Jones, S.E., 2014, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," The Shroud of Turin blog, March 13. [return]
30. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.173. [return]
31. Linick, T.W., et al. , 1986, "Operation of the NSF-Arizona accelerator facility for radioisotope analysis and results from selected collaborative research projects," Radiocarbon, Vol. 28, No. 2a, pp.522-533, 524. [return]
32. Clough & Mungo, 1992, pp.170-172, 228n5. [return]
33. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.172. [return]
34. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991, p.362. [return]
35. King, T., ed., 1989, "News From The KGB/Wily Hackers," Phrack Magazine, Issue #25, 7 March. [return]
36. Stoll, 1989, pp.341-342. [return]
37. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.254, 266. [return]
38. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.283. [return]
39. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
40. Stoll, 1989, p.363. [return]
41. Ibid. [return]
42. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.184. [return]
43. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.172. [return]
44. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.184. [return]
45. Clough & Mungo, 1992, pp.183-184. [return]
46. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
47. Ibid. [return]
48. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.302-303. [return]
49. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
50. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
51. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
52. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
53. Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 30 May 2014. [return]
54. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
55. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
56. Ibid. [return]
57. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
58. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
61. Ibid. [return]
62. "Cliff Stoll visiting Karl Koch's death forest," FirstPost, 2014. [return]
63. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
64. Ibid. [return]
65. Stoll, 1989, p.362. [return]
66. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
67. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.186. [return]
68. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
69. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.302. [return]
70. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]


Updated: 22 July, 2014.