Sunday, July 15, 2018

Media release: Were the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?


I will respond to the article, "The Bloodstains On The Shroud Of Turin Are Probably Fake, Say Forensic Experts," BuzzFeed, July 14, 2018, Dan Vergano, and other similar articles, in my next post, when I have completed this one. In the meantime, read "Shroud of Turin expert criticises new study casting doubt on authenticity," Catholic Herald, 19 Jul 2018, Junno Arocho Esteves:
"`Does it seem like a scientific criterion to take a mannequin — like the ones used to display clothes in a store window — and a sponge soaked in fake blood attached to a piece wood that is pressed on the right side of a dummy to see where the streams of blood fall?' Marinelli asked. `If this is considered science, I guess I’ll just have to take my degree in natural sciences and throw it away,' she said."


This is the sixth installment of my promised [see 25Mar18 and 02Apr18] media release outlining my Shroud radiocarbon dating hacking theory. When this is completed and ready for publication (which will be indicated below) I will leave it here for news outlets to find and publish. Then if it has not been published by any news outlets, as the 30th anniversary of the announcement on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!" (see below) draws near, I will email a plain text version of it without footnotes to news outlets with a link back to this page. Even if no news outlets publish this media release, it will serve as a one-page summary of my hacking theory!


MEDIA RELEASE
(Not yet ready for publication)

Were the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?

© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

"Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories, which in 1988 dated the Turin Shroud as 'medieval'[2], duped by a computer hacker?" asks Australian pro-Shroud blogger Stephen Jones[3].

This 13th October will be the 30th anniversary of the announcement

[Right (enlarge): From left to right, Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), Dr M. Tite (British Museum) and Dr R. Hedges (Oxford) announcing on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud of Turin had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[4].]

that radiocarbon dating laboratories at Arizona, Zurich and Oxford had dated the Turin Shroud to "1260-1390"[5].

Yet the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud existed long before 1260 and indeed all the way back to the 1st century[6].

Even the Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, Prof. Christopher Ramsey, who was a member of that laboratory's team which dated the Shroud in 1988[7] and was a signatory (as "C.R. Bronk") to the 1989 Nature paper which reported that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... 1260-1390"[8], has admitted: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow ..."[9] (Jones' emphasis)!

"To give one example among many, the Hungarian Pray codex is dated 1192-95[10], yet it

[Left (enlarge)[11]: A page in the Pray Codex depicting the entomb-ment of Jesus (upper) and His resurrection (lower)[12]. Agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow agrees that this page contains "eight telling correspondences" with the Shroud[13]!]

contains ink drawings of Jesus which contain at least eight unusual features found only on the Shroud," Jones points out. Yet at no later than 1195, they must be at least 65 years before the earliest 1260 carbon date of the Shroud[14]!

The midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325[15], which was only 30 years before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history in 1355 at Lirey, France[16].

It was this 'bull's eye' date[17] which convinced the radiocarbon scientists that their dating must be correct[18]. They pointed out that the improbability that the Shroud was 1st century, yet had a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date, was "astronomical"[19], "one in a thousand trillion"[20] and "totally impossible"[21].

But as Jones points out, "the flip side of this is that since the Shroud is 1st-century (according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence)[22], it must be the 1260-1390 date which is `totally impossible'"!

"And since the odds are so `astronomical' that by chance the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date, let alone the 'bull's eye' date 1325, it can only be the result of some kind of fraud," claims Jones. "As the agnostic de Wesselow pointed out, `1325 ... is precisely the sort of date' a fraudster would aim for"[23].

However, allegations by a minority of Shroudies that the laboratory leaders, or the British Museum's Dr Michael Tite who coordinated the dating, committed fraud by switching a 14th century control with the Shroud sample[24] are highly implausible. Not only were Tite and the laboratory leaders honest[25], the Shroud's weave is so distinctive that a sample switch would be readily detected[26].

Also highly implausible are theories that just the right amount of neutron flow[27], or carbon contamination[28], or a "bioplastic coating"[29] or medieval repairs[30], 'just happened' to shift the radiocarbon date of the 1st century Shroud 13-14 centuries into the future to the 'bull's eye' date 1325.

So the question is, according to Jones, "what kind of fraud was it?"

In the early 1990s Jones was the System Administrator of a wide area network of Western Australian hospital UNIX computers.

"I read in 2007 that the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating technique which dated the Shroud at all three laboratories was fully computerised"[31]. "It then occurred to me that a hacker could have installed a program on those AMS computers, which substituted the Shroud's 1st century date with computer-generated 13th -14th century dates," said Jones. The laboratory scientists reading those dates on their AMS computer screens[32]. would not realise they had been duped.

"I had read Clifford Stoll's 1989 book, `The Cuckoo's Egg' in which he described how university computer networks were poorly secured and vulnerable to hacking in the 1980s"[33]. "How Stoll even helped catch a member of a German hacking ring, Markus Hess, who had hacked into hundreds of university computers by dialing in from Germany"[34], Jones said. "And the three laboratories which dated the Shroud in the 1980s were and are at universities"!

On 6 May 1988 the AMS computer at Arizona laboratory displayed on

[Right (enlarge): Photograph of those present at Arizona laboratory's first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud on 6 May 1988[35], when the AMS computer terminal on the left displayed a date of the Shroud, which when calibrated, was "1350 AD". The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is the one in a black shirt standing prominently in the foreground[36]. The 1989 Nature paper in footnote 9 cited Linick as the lead author of a 1986 paper which described in technical detail the AMS radiocarbon system at Arizona[37]. Jones claims that, "it is significant that Linick is standing in front of his Arizona laboratory leaders and colleagues in this historic group photograph of the very first dating of the Shroud, because it is evidence that Linick was in charge of the AMS dating system at Arizona laboratory and those present were acknowledging that!"]

its screen to eagerly waiting scientists, the very first carbon-14 date of the Shroud, which after calibration for past variations of atmospheric carbon dioxide[38], was calculated to be "1350 AD"[39]!

That date was accepted uncrtitically by all those present, as the date of the Shroud[40], despite it being Arizona laboratory's first of four datings[41], and the other two laboratories had yet to commence their datings[42], because they knew 1350 was only 25 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in 1355 at Lirey, France[43].

"Being nuclear physicists[44] they evidently were unaware that in the 1350s the Shroud was owned by Geoffroy I de Charny[45], who was known as the `Perfect Knight'[46] and wrote three books on knightly ethics[47]," said Jones. In 1350 Geoffroy was a prisoner of war in England[48] and in 1356, at the Battle of Poitiers, he chose death by interposing his body between an English lance aimed for his King[49], rather than break his vow to never abandon France's sacred battle standard, the Oriflamme[50]. Even Geoffroy's English enemies honoured him as, "The bravest and most worthy of them all"[51]. So Geoffroy I de Charny was the last person who would have been a party to a forgery of Jesus' burial shroud"[52].

While the dating was still ongoing, in July a leak appeared the London Sunday Telegraph by its columnist Kenneth Rose, that the Shroud's date was "mediaeval"[53]. Then in August a Cambridge University librarian, Dr. Richard Luckett, wrote in the London Evening Standard that a date of the Shroud of "about 1350 looks likely"[54]. Rochester laboratory's Prof. Harry Gove, the co-inventor of AMS radiocarbon dating[55], and the unofficial leader of the project[56], realised that the primary source of that leak had to have been someone who was present at that first dating of the Shroud at Arizona laboratory[57], as Linick had been[58]!

To be continued in the seventh installment of this post.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm [return]
3. Stephen E. Jones, "The Shroud of Turin" blog. https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/ [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, plate 3b. [return]
5. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7. [return]
6. Jones, S.E., 2015, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," 8 July. http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-evidence-is-overwhelming-that-turin.html. [return]
7. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.188. [return]
8. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
9. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "The Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, March. http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/shroud.html [return]
10. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex. [return]
11. "File:Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 22 February 2015. [return]
12. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. [return]
13. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.180. [return]
14. Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]
15. Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
17. Meacham, W., 1986, "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties," Proceedings of the Symposium "Turin Shroud - Image of Christ?," Hong Kong, March. http://www.shroud.com/meacham.htm. [return]
18. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
19. Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.303. [return]
21. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.115. [return]
22. Jones, 2015, 8 July. [return]
23. de Wesselow, 2012, p.170. [return]
24. Wilson, 1998, pp.8-9, 186. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, p.11. [return]
26. Gove, 1996, p.260. [return]
27. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.159-160. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, pp.191-192. [return]
29. Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.1-3. [return]
30. Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2008, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud," Chemistry Today, Vol 26, N0. 4, July-August, pp.4-12. http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p09.pdf. [return]
31. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147. [return]
32. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
33. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991, pp.12-13. [return]
34. Stoll, 1989, pp.354-355, 363. [return]
35. Gove, 1996, p.176H. [return]
36. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
37. 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. [return]
38. Sox, 1988, p.146. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
40. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
41. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
42. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.10. [return]
43. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
44. Wilson, I., 1988, "Editorial and The Carbon Dating Results: Is This Now the End?," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.2-10, 4. [return]
45. Wilson, 2010, pp.220-223. [return]
46. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.16. [return]
47. "Geoffroi de Charny: Literary works," Wikipedia, 17 April 2018. [return]
48. Guerrera, 2001, p.10. [return]
49. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.90-91. [return]
50. Wilson, 1998, p.276. [return]
51. Wilson, 2010, p.225. [return]
52. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.24; Wilson, 1998, pp.130-131. [return]
53. Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks' ...," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September; Gove, 1996, pp.273, 276. [return]
54. Wilson, 1988; Gove, 1996, pp.276-277. [return]
55. Gove, 1996, p.314. [return]
56. Sox, 1988, p.95. [return]
57. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
58. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]

Posted: 15 July 2018. Updated: 20 July 2018.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Date index 2009: The Shroud of Turin blog

The Shroud of Turin blog
DATE INDEX 2009
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the date index to my 2009 posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. The posts are listed in reverse date order (more recent uppermost). For further information on this date index series see the Main Date Index.

[Main index] [Previous: 2008] [Next: 2010]


2009
17-Dec-09: Burial shroud proves Turin Shroud not from 1st century C.E. Jerusalem?
08-Dec-09: The Shroud of Turin is the Burial Sheet of Jesus

[Above (enlarge) [2]: The Hungarian Pray Codex in my post of 08-Dec-09 linked on this page. There are "eight [indeed eleven see 23Sep17] telling correspondences between the Shroud and ... the Pray Codex"[3]. Some of my other posts on the Pray codex are: 23Sep17, 21Jun17; 11Apr17; 07Aug16; 07May16; 27Dec15; 27May12; 11Jan10; 08Oct09 & 03Apr08]

08-Oct-09: Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin
21-Jul-09: Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #3
14-Jul-09: Leonardo da Vinci 'faked Turin Shroud and used his own features as the face of Jesus'
25-Apr-09: Re: The Shroud of Turin: Evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross, not a stake
14-Apr-09: Knights Templar may have secretly held shroud, Vatican expert says
12-Mar-09: I am training to be a high school biology teacher, so less blogging!


Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Porter, D., 2009, "Pray Codex," The Definitive Shroud of Turin FAQ. [return]
3. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.180. [return]

Posted: 14 July 2018. Updated: 15 July 2018.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourteenth century (3)

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
FOURTEENTH CENTURY (3)
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the eleventh and final (which is continuation of the tenth and the fourth) installment of part #16, "Fourteenth century (3)" of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. I had decided to again split the fourteenth century, this time into parts (2), 1351-1375 and this part (3) 1376-1400. For more information about this series see part #1, "1st century and Index." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 14th century (2) #15] [Next: 15th century #17]


14th century (3) (1376-1400).

1378 Robert of Geneva (1342-94), a nephew of Jeanne de Vergy's second husband Aymon of Geneva[2] [see "c1359"], was elected Pope by cardinals opposed to the Italian Pope Urban VI (1378-1389)[3], and took the name Clement VII (r.1378-94)[4]. The papacy was thus split between Avignon, France and Rome in the Western Schism[5].

1388 Death of Aymon of Geneva [see "c.1359"], thereby widowing Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332– 1428) for a second time[6] [see "1345a"].

1389a In April the Shroud was exhibited for the second time [see "c.1355"] at the Lirey collegiate church[7], by Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–1398) and his

[Right (enlarge): Drawn copy of the brass effigy which was over the tomb of Geoffroy II de Charny in Froidmont Abbey, Belgium[8]. The Abbey and the tombs within it were destroyed in World War I[9].

twice-widowed mother Jeanne de Vergy[10]. Lirey being a collegiate church, was not under the control of the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395), so Geoffroy II, being a relative by marriage and former neighbour of Pope Clement VII [see "c1359" and "1389e" below] had bypassed d'Arcis and sought and received permission from Clement, through his nuncio, Cardinal Pierre de Thury (-1410), to exhibit the Shroud at the Lirey church[11]. This was subsequently confirmed in a letter of 28 July 1389 from Clement to Geoffrey II, which formally ratified Cardinal de Thury's permission for Geoffrey II to re-exhibit the "image or representation of the Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ"[12]. Geoffroy II had also obtained the approval of Charles VI of France (r.1380–1420) for the exposition[13]. The exposition of the Shroud at the Lirey church attracted thousands of pilgrims[14]. The Cloth was held by "two priests vested in albs with stoles and maniples and using the greatest possible reverence, with lighted torches and upon a lofty platform constructed for this special purpose"[15]. Although it had been agreed that Geoffroy would claim that the Cloth was only a "picture" or "figure"[16] (for why see 15Aug17 and future "1389f"), by both unofficial word and actions, Geoffroy and the canons made it clear that it really was the true shroud of Christ[17]! On some days Geoffroy would hold the Cloth in his own hands before the crowds, his presence giving the impression that it was something far more precious and holy than simply a cloth bearing an 'image' or 'representation'[18].

1389b In August a letter signed in Paris by King Charles VI (presumably when he was suffering from one of his episodes of temporary insanity) ordered the bailli of Troyes to seize the Shroud at the Lirey church and bring it to the Bishop of Troyes (Pierre d'Arcis) so that he could relocate it in another church in Troyes[19]. But the Dean refused to hand over the Shroud because it was locked with different keys, one of which was held by Geoffroy II[20]. Then when later that month the bailli returned and threatened to break in and remove the Shroud, the Dean informed him that the Shroud was no longer there[21]. The Dean and canons then lodged an appeal to the King and in September the bailli of Troyes was told that the Shroud was now "verbally put into the hands of our lord the king" and that was the end of matter[22].

1389c In October Bishop d'Arcis appealed to Pope Clement VII about the current exhibition of the Shroud at Lirey, describing it as bearing the double imprint of a crucified man and that it was being claimed to be the true Shroud in which Jesus's body was wrapped, and was attracting crowds of pilgrims[27]. But according to d'Arcis' information it had been discovered to be the work of an artist[28] [see below].

1389d The d'Arcis Memorandum [Left (enlarge) [29].] One of two copies [30] found only in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (National Library of France)[31], of a draft, unsigned, undated, unaddressed docu-ment[32]. Which was in 1900 published in its original Latin by French Roman Catholic anti-authenticist historian Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923)[33], who fraudulently added a title to make it appear to have been sent by Bishop d'Arcis to Pope Clement VII at the end of 1389[34]. Chevalier's fraud was continued by Fr Herbert Thurston (1856–1939)[35], another leading Roman Catholic opponent of the Shroud, who in 1903 published his translation of Chevalier's Latin into English[36]. [see also 31Oct14]. There is no evidence in either the Troyes or Papal archives of a final version of the d'Arcis memorandum that was sent to Pope Clement[37]. However since the Pope did reply to d'Arcis' appeals[38] [see below] it presumably is a record of d'Arcis verbal complaints to Clement VII through his nuncio, Cardinal de Thury. The value of the d'Arcis memorandum is that it is the earliest undisputed historical reference to the existence of the Shroud in c.1355[39].

In the memorandum Bishop d'Arcis stated that "thirty-four years or thereabouts ... to the present year"[40] (i.e. c.1355)[41] [see "c.1355"] at the Lirey church, an exhibition was held by its Dean of:

"... a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore"[42].

D'Arcis appealed to Pope Clement VII to stop the exposition[43], claiming that one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) had discovered that the Shroud was "cunningly painted":
"... Henry of Poitiers ... then Bishop of Troyes ... after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed"[44].
But d'Arcis provided no evidence in his memorandum to substantiate his claims[45], which he would have if there had been any[46]. D'Arcis did not provide the name of the artist[47], nor a record of his confession[48], nor the source of his allegations[49]. There is also no record of Henri de Poitiers conducting any inquiry into the origin of Shroud[50] and d'Arcis did not even know its date[51]! But there is a record of a letter of 28 May 1356[see "1356a"], from Bishop Henri de Poitiers, praising Geoffroy I, ratifying the Lirey church and approving its "divine cult"[52], which presumably refers to the Shroud[53]! It is also highly unlikely that Geoffrey I de Charny, the owner of the Shroud in the 1350s [see "c.1355"], one of France's most ethical knights, and a devout author of religious poetry, was complicit in forging Jesus' burial shroud[54]. The final refutation of the d'Arcis memorandum is that the image of the man on the Shroud is not painted[55]! [see 11Jul16].

1389e Pope Clement VII allowed expositions of the Shroud to continue as a "figure" and "representation" of Jesus' burial shroud[56] and commanded Bishop d'Arcis to "perpetual silence" on this matter[57]. This unexpected siding of the Pope with the de Charnys against a senior bishop is explained by Clement, as Robert of Geneva (see above), being not only a nephew of Jeanne de Vergy's second husband Aymon of Geneva, but also having been their neighbour[58] [see above and "c1359"]. So Clement presumably had a private viewing of the Shroud[59] and was told by Jeanne that her ancestor, Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234) had looted the Shroud in the 1204 sack of Constantinople[60] [see "1204," "c1359" and 25Oct15]. The problem for the Pope was that the Byzantine Empire (c.330–1453) still existed and its Emperor John V Palaiologos (1332–1391) lived in Chambéry, France! So if the de Charny's continued to claim that the Shroud was Jesus' burial Shroud, John V would have known it was the one looted from Constantinople and demanded it be returned to him, creating a diplomatic crisis for the Pope[61]! [see 15Aug17 & 20Jun18]. It may be no coincidence that the year the Byzantine Empire ended, 1453, was the same year that Geoffroy II's daughter, Marguerite de Charny [see "c1393" below], transferred the Shroud to Duke Louis I of Savoy (1440-1465) [see future "1453"].

1389f In December Bishop d'Arcis received a reply "from an authority higher even than Pope Clement"[62] in that Troyes cathedral was struck by lightning causing its roof to catch fire[63] and the nave of the unfinished cathedral to collapse[64]. The damage was so significant that it would not be for another 60 years that repairs would be completed[65]. In fact Troyes cathedral is still unfinished as it has only one tower, St. Peter's,

[Right (enlarge): The unfinished Troyes cathedral[66]. A judgement against Bishop d'Arcis' attempt to seize the Shroud to profit from it, by Jesus, the Man on the Shroud, who is ruling over all (Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9)?]

while its planned second tower, St. Paul's, has never been built[67]. In 1389 Troyes Cathedral had already suffered a loss of revenue due to pilgrims visiting the nearby Lirey exposition and leaving their offerings there[68]. So presumably Bishop d'Arcis was envious of Lirey's relic[69] and wanted it for his cathedral[70] [see above].

1390a In January Pope Clement VII again commanded Bishop d'Arcis to "perpetual silence" on this matter, threatening him with excommunication, and sent a letter to Geoffrey II de Charny restating conditions under which expositions could be carried out[71].

1390c Upper limit of the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[72].

c. 1392 Geoffroy II de Charny married Marguerite de Poitiers (1362–1418)[73] a niece of the late Bishop Henri de Poitiers, being the daughter of Henri's brother Charles (1325-1410)[74]. This would have been highly unlikely if Bishop Poitiers had really discovered that Geoffroy II's father and mother, Geoffroy I de Charny and Jeanne de Vergy, were exhibiting in c.1355 a "cunningly painted" forgery of Jesus' burial shroud (see above)[75]. See also future "1460" where Marguerite de Charny left her Lirey lands to her godson, Antoine-Guerry des Essars (c. 1408-74), who was the son of Guillemette de Poitiers (1370–1450), who in turn was one of four illegitimate children of Bishop Henri de Poitiers and his nun concubine, Jeanne de Chenery (1340–) [see 11Jul16]!

c. 1393 Birth of Marguerite de Charny (c. 1393–1460), to Geoffroy II de Charny and Marguerite de Poitiers[76].

1398 Death of Geoffroy II de Charny on 22 May 1398 in the Abbey at Froidmont, Belgium[77] [see above] from wounds sustained in the 1396 Battle of Nicopolis, near today's Nikopol, Bulgaria, where a combined besiging Crusader force was routed by the Ottoman Turks[78]. Marguerite de Charny, the eldest of three daughters, yet still a child aged ~5, became the owner of the Shroud[79]. However the Cloth remained in the Lirey church under the control of its canons[80], who came to believe, falsely, that they owned the Shroud [see future "1418]!

To be continued in the next part #17 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. 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.279; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.44; Wilson, 2010, p.233. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.62; Wilson, 1998, p.279. [return]
4. Wilson, 1991, p.62; Wilson, 1998, p.279; Whiting, 2006, p.44. [return]
5. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, p.54; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.206; Wilson, 1998, p.279; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.151; Whiting, 2006, p.44. [return]
6. Wilson, 1979, pp.203, 205; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.43; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.34; Wilson, 1998, p.280; Wilson, 2010, p.230. [return]
7. 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, p.102; Antonacci, 2000, p.122. [return]
8. "Geoffroi de Charny: Brass effigy of his son Geoffroi II de Charny," Wikipedia, 17 April 2018. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 2007, "The Tombstone of Geoffrey II de Charny at Froidmont," BSTS Newsletter, No. 66, December; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.235-236. [return]
10. Wilson, 1979, p.260; Antonacci, 2000, p.151; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.13; Wilson, 2010, p.230. [return]
11. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.97; Wilson, 1979, pp.206, 260; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.43; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.129; Wilson, 1998, p.120; 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.65; Guerrera, 2001, p.13; Whiting, 2006, p.44; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.83. [return]
12. Oxley, 2010, p.82; Wilson, 2010, p.230. [return]
13. Ruffin, 1999, p.64. [return]
14. Whiting, 2006, p.44. [return]
15. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the verdict of history," The Month, CI, pp.17-20, in Whiting, 2006, p.44. [return]
16. Wilson, 1979, pp.206-207; Wilson, 1991, p.16; Wilson, 1998, p.121. [return]
17. Wilson, 1979, p.206; Wilson, 1991, p.16; Wilson, 1998, p.121. [return]
18. Wilson, 1991, pp.16-17; Wilson, 1998, p.120; Whiting, 2006, pp.44,46. [return]
19. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.98; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.102; Wilson, 1998, p.280; Wilson, 2010, p.303. [return]
20. Humber, 1978, p.98; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.102; Wilson, 1998, p.280; Wilson, 2010, p.303. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.280. [return]
22. Ibid. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, p.260. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, p.281. [return]
29. "La Sindone di Torino: Il memoriale del vescovo Pierre d'Arcis del 1389," n.d. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.121; Antonacci, 2000, p.151; Oxley, 2010, p.56. [return]
31. Bonnet-Eymard, B., "Study of original documents of the archives of the Diocese of Troyes in France with particular reference to the Memorandum of Pierre d'Arcis," 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, pp.233-260, 236; Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
32. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, pp.236-237; Wilson, 1991, p.17; Iannone, 1998, p.129; Wilson, 1998, p.121; Antonacci, 2000, pp.151-152; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Whiting, 2006, p.57; Oxley, 2010, p.56. [return]
33. McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, p.28; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.24; Wilson, 1998, p.299; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, p.7. [return]
34. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.236; Antonacci, 2000, pp.151-152; Markwardt, J., 2001, "The Conspiracy Against the Shroud," BSTS Newsletter, No. 55, June 2002; Oxley, 2010, p.58. [return]
35. Markwardt, 2001; Oxley, 2010, p.58. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.266; McNair, 1978, p.28; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Oxley, 2010, pp.57-58. [return]
37. Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Oxley, 2010, p.56. [return]
38. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.32; Wilson, 1991, p.17. [return]
39. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, pp.171-204, 174. [return]
40. Wilson, 1979, p.267; Wilson, 1998, p.111. [return]
41. Humber, 1978, p.96; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.14; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.180; Wilson, 1998, p.111; Guerrera, 2001, p.14; Oxley, 2010, p.52; de Wesselow, 2012, p.182. [return]
42. Wilson, 1979, p.267; Guerrera, 2001, p.13. [return]
43. Wilson, 1979, p.271; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.42. [return]
44. Wilson, 1979, p.267; Adams, 1982, p.32; Drews, 1984, pp.23-24; Currer-Briggs, 1988, pp.40-41; Antonacci, 2000, p.151; Guerrera, 2001, p.13; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.19. [return]
45. Antonacci, 2000, pp.152, 158; Guerrera, 2001, p.14. [return]
46. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
47. Iannone, 1998, p.129; Guerrera, 2001, p.14. [return]
48. Guerrera, 2001, p.14. [return]
49. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
50. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
51. Wilson, 2010, p.229. [return]
52. Wilson, 1979, p.90; Scavone, 1989, p.16; Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.242; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.14; Oxley, 2010, p.59; Wilson, 1998, p.278. [return]
53. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.247; Oxley, 2010, p.52. [return]
54. Drews, 1984, p.24. [return]
55. McNair, 1978, p.34; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.104-105; Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 289; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.99; Antonacci, 2000, p.153; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.204. [return]
56. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.7; Wilson, 1979, pp.210, 260; Walsh, 1963, p.54; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.43; Scavone, 1989, p.14; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.29; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.181; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.15, 182. [return]
57. Wilson, 1979, p.260. [return]
58. Wilson, 1991, p.18. [return]
59. Wilson, 1979, p.206; Wilson, 1991, p.18. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, p.206; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.43. [return]
61. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.182-183. [return]
62. Wilson, 2010, p.216. [return]
63. "Troyes Cathedral: Building history and description," Wikipedia, 2 March 2018. [return]
64. Wilson, 1991, p.17; Hoare, R., 1998, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence Updated," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.47; Wilson, 1998, p.281; Antonacci, 2000, p.150; Oxley, 2010, p.59; Wilson, 2010, p.234. [return]
65. Antonacci, 2000, p.150; Oxley, 2010, p.59. [return]
66. "File:Cathédrale de Troyes 2006.JPG," Wikimedia Commons, 18 February 2016. [return]
67. "Troyes Cathedral: Building history and description," Wikipedia, 2 March 2018. [return]
68. Antonacci, 2000, p.150; Oxley, 2010, p.59. [return]
69. Hoare, 1998, p.47. [return]
70. Oxley, 2010, pp.58-59. [return]
71. Walsh, 1963, p.57; Wilson, 1979, p.260; Wilson, 1991, pp.17-18; Iannone, 1998, p.129; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Oxley, 2010, p.58; Wilson, 2010, pp.234, 281. [return]
72. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
73. Wilson, 2010, p.230; Jones, S.E., 2015, "de Charny Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au (members only). [return]
74. Wilson, 1979, pp.88, 205; Morgan, 1980, p.42; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.22; Crispino, D.C., 1990, "Kindred Questions," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 34, March, pp.43-44, 44; Crispino, D.C., 1990, "The Charny Genealogy," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 37, December, pp.19-25, 20; Guerrera, 2001, p.12; Whiting, 2006, p.44; Wilson, 2010, p.230. [return]
75. Wilson, 1979, p.205; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.104; Crispino, D.C., in Fossati, L., 1983, "The Lirey Controversy," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 8, September, pp.24-34, 32; Whiting, 2006, p.44; Wilson, 2010, p.230. [return]
76. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.35; Jones, S.E., 2015, de Charny Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au. [return]
77. Wilson, 1979, p.260; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.44; Wilson, 1998, p.281; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Oxley, 2010, p.61; Wilson, 2010, pp.235, 303. [return]
78. Wilson, 1979, p.211; Wilson, 2010, p.235. [return]
79. Wilson, 1979, p.86; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.44; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.220; Brucker, E., 1998, "Thy Holy Face: My 39 Years of Lecturing on the Shroud of Turin," Brucker: Tucson AZ, p.16; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.46-47; Wilson, 2010, p.303. [return]
80. Morgan, 1980, pp.43-44; Whiting, 2006, p.49; Oxley, 2010, p.61; Wilson, 2010, p.235. [return]

Posted: 3 July 2018. Updated: 14 July 2018.

Monday, July 2, 2018

Date index 2008: The Shroud of Turin blog

The Shroud of Turin blog
DATE INDEX 2008
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the date index to my 2008 posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. The posts are listed in reverse date order (most recent uppermost). For further information on this date index series see the Main Date Index.

[Main index] [Previous: 2007] [Next: 2009]


2008
13-Dec-08: Shroud of Turin News - October/November 2008

[Right (enlarge): Entom-bment of Jesus, c. 1181, by Nicholas of Verdun (1130–1205), Kloster-neuburg Abbey, Vienna. A photo of this enamel panel in the altar of Klosterneuburg monast-ery is in my "13-Dec-08" post, but with no explan-ation. See my later posts of 11Jan10, 29Mar14, 21Jun17 & 23Sep17 where it is explained that this depiction of Jesus about to be entombed is clearly based on the Shroud, with Jesus' hands crossed awkwardly at the wrists, right over left, with no thumbs visible, exactly as they are on the Shroud, and He is about to be wrapped in a double body length burial sheet. Yet this panel is dated 1181, which is 79 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud!]

26-Nov-08: Did Max Frei misidentify Carduus argentatus Shroud pollen as Gundelia tournefortii?
22-Nov-08: Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #2
19-Nov-08: Re:There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #1
13-Nov-08: Index to my "Bogus: Shroud of Turin?" posts
07-Nov-08: Are the three Hebrew letters on the Shroud tsade-'aleph-waw: `you will come out'?
01-Nov-08: Shroud of Turin News - September 2008
10-Oct-08: Shroud of Turin News - August 2008
02-Aug-08: Response #2 to Bill Meacham's criticism of my proposal to radiocarbon-date the Shroud's pollen
29-Jul-08: Re: Middle Eastern Features on Shroud Image
15-Jul-08: Re: Are you still trying to talk the Pope into "pollen dating"?
26-Jun-08: Re: In my humble opinion, the Shroud of Turin is a hoax #3
25-Jun-08: Re: In my humble opinion, the Shroud of Turin is a hoax #2
17-Jun-08: Re: In my humble opinion, the Shroud of Turin is a hoax #1
07-Jun-08: Shroud News - May 2008
30-Apr-08: Response #1 to Bill Meacham's criticisms of my proposal to radiocarbon-date the Shroud's pollen
12-Apr-08: Deut. 4:15: Hoax is hoax and do not bow unto them nor serve them
03-Apr-08: Shroud News - March 2008
01-Apr-08: Shroud name index `J'
24-Mar-08: Shroud News - February 2008
22-Mar-08: Shroud News - January 2008
28-Feb-08: Shroud of Turin may not be a fake after all!
24-Feb-08: Shroud name index `M'
17-Feb-08: Shroud name index `H'
15-Feb-08: Shroud name index `A'
12-Feb-08: Shroud Dating May Have Been Inaccurate - Radiocarbon Expert
11-Feb-08: Shroud name index `R'
11-Feb-08: Shroud name index `W'
11-Feb-08: Shroud name index `A-Z'
10-Jan-08: A proposal to radiocarbon-date the pollen of the Shroud of Turin #1
10-Jan-08: TSoT: Bibliography "R"
02-Jan-08: Shroud News - December 2007


Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Posted: 2 July 2018. Updated: 14 July 2018.

Sunday, July 1, 2018

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, June 2018

Shroud of Turin News - June 2018
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: May 2018, part #1] [Next: July 2018, part #1]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1, of the June 2018 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed below linked news articles about the Shroud in June as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them.

Contents:
"What did Jesus really look like? Scientists recreate body of Christ from Turin Shroud," Daily Express, June 13, 2018, Sebastian Kettley.
"New study: Christ figure moving in Shroud of Turin," WorldNet Weekly, June 17, 2018.
"Scientists create 3D image of Jesus based on Turin Shroud," Christian Today, 21 June 2018, Jardine Malado.


Editorial
Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of the 118 issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz, for him to convert to PDFs and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in June up to issue #103, August 1997 [Right (enlarge)], i.e ~87% completed. Issues in the archive are now up to #100, February 1997.

Media release: In June I continued preparing my previously mentioned media release, outlining my hacker theory, which I will post here when it is completed. I may then email a copy of it to news outlets in anticipation of an upsurge in media interest in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating as the 30th anniversary of the announcement on 13 October 1988 [see 23Jul15] that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390" draws near.

Posts: In June I blogged 6 new posts (latest uppermost): "6 May 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud," - 23rd; "Date index 2007: The Shroud of Turin blog," - 22nd "`I would like to point out an important mistranslation of a French expression in your post'," - 20th; "Main date index: The Shroud of Turin blog," - 20th; "Obituary (4): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)," - 5th; and "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, May 2018," - 3rd.

Updates There were no significant updates in the background of past posts in June.

Comments: In June there were no comments! Lest that be thought to be a problem, I have in the past posted approvingly [05Jan16], the following 2004 quote (with its older terminology "Message Boards" (= discussion groups) and Weblogs (= blogs):

"What are the Differences Between Message Boards and Weblogs? Posted by: leelefever on August 23, 2004... Responses Weblogs and Message Boards both allow for responses from the community- new topics can be responded-to by others. Weblog topics have comments and message board topics have replies. This subtle difference in syntax reveals a difference in the roles. The word comment for weblogs implies that the author does not need further participation to reach a goal - comment if you want. Reply, on the other hand, implies that participation is explicitly requested by the poster. A discussion is not a discussion without a reply." (my emphasis)
That is, this my blog is not a discussion group and while I allow comments, I restrict them to "normally ... only one comment per individual under each one of my posts" so that replying to comments does not take up too much of my scarce time for blogging.

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, I did not blog specifically about my hacker theory in June. However, my "6 May 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" post made extensive mentions of it, too many to quote here.

My book: In June, having `gone back to the drawing board' [see last month] I am again making good progress, albeit dividing my away time between my book and my media release (above).

Pageviews: At midnight on 30 June 2018, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 913,093. This compares with 764,259 (up 148,834 or 19.5%) from the same time in June 2017. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 83; "The Letter from Alexius Comnenus": My response to Dan Porter," May 8, 2014 - 82; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.5. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crowned with thorns," Sep 8, 2013 - 74; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified," Dec 2, 2013 - 64; and "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Twelfth century," Sep 23, 2017 - 59.

The pageviews for these most viewed posts are lower than usual, which, since pageviews for the month were 12,437, presumably means that there was a lot of different past posts of mine read in June. I still cannot explain why the "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ..." is yet again among the most viewed posts. It is also pleasing to see my "... 3.5. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crowned with thorns" and "... 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified" being among the highest read, because I assume the readers would be Bible-believing Christians, who might not have been aware of how closely the Shroud matches the Gospels description of Jesus' suffering and death. The high pageviews of "The Letter from Alexius Comnenus ..." may be due to a Guardian article in May, "10 great Greek islands: readers’ travel tips," which mentions "Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I."

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Posted: 1 July 2018. Updated: 1 July 2018.

Saturday, June 23, 2018

6 May 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the eighth and final installment of part #11, "6 May 1988," of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1. I am still more than a month behind, but I will again catch up and then post each day in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 21Apr88 #9] [Next: 04Jul88 #12]

6 May 1988 At about 9:40am on Friday, 6 May 1988[2], Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory began the first of its four runs of radiocarbon dating its Shroud samples[3], which was also the first

[Above (enlarge): Photograph of those present at the Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating laboratory at 9:50 am on 6 May 1988[4] when the AMS computer terminal [left] displayed a date of the Shroud, which when calibrated, was "1350 AD" (see below). The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick (1946-89) [see 22Feb16], is in a black shirt standing prominently in the foreground[5]. The 1989 Nature paper in footnote 9 acknowledged that Linick wrote the 1986 paper which described in detail the AMS radiocarbon system at Arizona[6]. So it is significant that Linick is standing in front of his Arizona laboratory leaders and colleagues in this historic group photograph of the very first dating of the Shroud, because this is evidence that Linick was in charge of the AMS computerised dating process at Arizona laboratory and those present were acknowledging that. See also my 22Nov16 where Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009) must have realised by September 1988 that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350 AD" date to David Sox (1936-2016) [see 30Dec15], but Gove (and presumably the other laboratory leaders) covered it up! See also 25Mar18.]

radiocarbon dating of the Shroud[7]. At about 9:50 am the AMS computer terminal screen displayed the year of the Shroud sample, which when calibrated for past variations of atmospheric carbon dioxide[8] by Arizona laboratory co-founder Douglas J. Donahue was announced by him to be "1350 AD"[9]. According to the AMS computer screen, the Shroud was only about 640 years old[10], and so it could not have been Jesus' burial shroud[11].

Here is Sox's 1988 description of that first 6 May 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud at Arizona [see 22Nov16]:

"At 9.50am what matters to the layman was available - the results of the measurements, the first carbon dating test on the Turin Shroud ... The night before the test Damon told Gove he would not be surprised to see the analysis yield a date around the fifth-century, because after that time the crucifixion was banned and a forger would not have known of the details depicted so accurately on the Shroud. 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?' Donahue's wife, who believed the Shroud was genuine, was going for 2000 years. So was Shirley Brignall [Gove's companion[12], who was a nuclear physicist[13] and an administrative assistant at Gove's Rochester University[14]. She and Gove had a bet. Gove said 1000 years although he hoped for twice that age. Whoever lost was to buy the other a pair of cowboy boots [see below]. The calculations were produced on the computer, and displayed on the screen. Even the dendrochronological correction was immediately available. All eyes were on the screen. The date would be when the flax used for the linen relic was harvested. Gove would be taking cowboy boots back to Rochester"[15].
Note: ■ The Introduction by Sox in his book, "The Shroud Unmasked" [right] in which this appears is dated "August 1988"[16], so the book had already been written by Sox well before the 13 October official announ- cement of the 1260-1390 dating results [see future "13Oct88"[17].

Paul Damon (1921-2005), with Donahue a co-founder of the Arizona laboratory, before the dating believed that the Shroud was "fifth-century [above], because after that time ... crucifixion was banned [by Emperor Constantine I in AD 337] and a forger would not have known of the details depicted so accurately on the Shroud"!

On the very same page of his book describing Arizona's first dating of the Shroud, Sox quoted "Timothy Linick [above], a University of Arizona research scientist"! Amazingly this seems not to have been noticed by any Shroud pro-authenticists, even by Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, who noted [Left [18].] that Linick, an Arizona laboratory signatory to the 1989 Nature report, had "died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances." But Gove and Linick's Arizona laboratory leaders would have noticed it and demanded that Linick `please explain' why he had breached his confident- iality agreement [see below].

■ Linick was an extreme anti-authenticist who would not have accepted that the Shroud was authentic even it it "date[d] ... back 2000 years" [above].

■ "The calculations were produced on the computer, and displayed on the screen" [above]. So they could have been the result of a computer hacking (allegedly by Linick), which installed a program on the AMS computer that intercepted Shroud sample dates coming from the AMS system and substituted them with computer-generated dates, which when calibrated and averaged, clustered around a year (1325), which was only a few decades before the Shroud had first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355.

■ Gove had not told Sox the Shroud's "1350 AD" first radiocarbon date [later confirmed by Sox - see future], but Gove had told Sox that the Shroud's age was closer to 1,000 than 2,000 years [above]. So Gove also had breached his confidentiality agreement! [see below].

Here is Gove's 1996 description of that first 6 May 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud at

[Right (original): Prof. Harry E. Gove (1922-2009), co-developer of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry radiocarbon dating[19].]

Arizona [see 22Sep15]:

"The first sample run was OX1 [an oxalic acid standard]. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The age of the control sample could have been calculated on a small pocket calculator but was not-everyone was waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue. His face became instantly drawn and pale. At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first. It had taken me eleven years to arrange for a measurement that took only ten minutes to accomplish! Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began ... I remember Donahue saying that he did not care what results the other two laboratories got, this was the shroud's age. Although he was clearly disappointed in the result, he was justifiably confident that his AMS laboratory had produced the answer to the shroud's age. Like Donahue, I also had wished for a 2000 year age. That result would have been so much more exciting. Of course, it would not have proved the shroud was Christ's burial cloth but it certainly would have upped the odds. As a scientist, I would have (and did) bet it was not that old ... When the results of all three labs were finally averaged, the date of the flax harvesting came out to be 1325 AD ±33 years. "That agreed with this initial Arizona result obtained in ten minutes using a piece of the shroud cloth measuring less than 1/4" x 1/4" inch." It was a triumph for carbon dating by AMS if not for those who passionately believed it was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ or for those of us who wished it might have been. I had a bet with Shirley on the shroud's age-she bet 2000 ±100 years old and I bet 1000 ±100 years. Whoever won bought the other a pair of cowboy boots. Although my guess was wrong, it was closer than Shirley's. She bought me the cowboy boots. The reader, by now, will have guessed that despite the agreement I had signed [see below], I told Shirley the result that had been obtained that day. She and I had been associated with this shroud adventure now for almost exactly eleven years-there was no way I could not tell her. I knew she would never violate my confidence and she never did. Her disappointment in the result was deeper and palpably more poignant than mine. She has told me that, even now, her heart still tells her it is Christ's shroud"[20].
Note: ■ Gove also (with Sox above) states that "All this was under computer control" and "the calculations [were] produced by the computer" and it is those that "were displayed on" the AMS computer's terminal "screen" [above]! So they were not seeing the actual AMS system's date of the Shroud sample but what the AMS computer's program displayed it was! So again they could have been duped by a computer hacker (allegedly Linick), and in view of the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the Shroud is authentic, it is my theory that they were!

■ Gove's "At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud" [above] is further evidence that they had been psychologically manipulated by the hacker's "1350 AD" date [see 22Feb16]. That is because, according to Gove, there was no need for Arizona, nor the other two laboratories, to do any further dating of the Shroud!

■ Gove's "the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD" [above] is a prime example of the "Law of the instrument," fallacy, popularly expressed in the saying, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail":

"The concept known as the law of the instrument, otherwise known as the law of the hammer, Maslow's hammer (or gavel), or the golden hammer, is a cognitive bias that involves an over-reliance on a familiar tool. As Abraham Maslow said in 1966, `I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail'"[21].
That is, Gove and his fellow nuclear physicists arrogantly assumed that they did not need to know where the Shroud actually was in 1350: owned by Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300–1356), one of the most noble, most ethical, knights in France, who in 1350 was a prisoner of war in England [see 10Feb18]! As Ian Wilson pointed out, "all involved with the carbon dating ... were physicists" and in their arrogance, born of ignorance, their "instruments had spoken, and that was it":
"But if there was one feature of the British Museum press conference [of 13 October 1988] that particularly astonished, and frankly annoyed me, it was Professor Hall's flat assertion, on the basis merely of the averaged `1260-1390 AD' dates quoted ... that the carbon dates have overwhelmingly proved the Shroud's fraudulence. Effectively we are supposed to believe that on the basis of one single branch of science, nuclear physics (and all involved with the carbon dating, including Gonella and Tite, were physicists), every other scientific and historical contribution to the subject must now be tossed aside as totally worthless. As Hall admitted, it did not matter to him that there remained no clear explanation for how some hypothetical forger created the Shroud's image. The laboratories' instruments had spoken, and that was it"[22].
■ By his, "It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began" [above]. Gove here showed that he and the other radiocarbon scientists had been psychologically manipulated by the hacker's "1350 AD" date, in that their usual scientific objectivity had been suspended so that they never considered how unlikely it was that: 1. "the flax had been harvested" in "1350 AD"; 2. the linen fibres had been separated from the flax by retting which takes many months; 3. the linen fibres were then spun into thread; 4. the thread was woven into a linen sheet; and 5. Jesus' image was forged onto that linen sheet, all in five years, because"the time" the Shroud's historic record began" was only 5 years later in 1355!

■ Further evidence of the psychological effect of the hacker's "1350 AD" date on the scientists' critical faculties was Donahue saying that, "he did not care what results the other two laboratories got, this was the shroud's age" [above]. But that was after only the first one of the four Arizona dating runs, and the other two laboratories were yet to start their dating! See above on Gove's similar suspension of normal scientific scepticism.

■ "Like Donahue, I also had wished for a 2000 year age. That result would have been so much more exciting"[above]. Gove is here either lying or more likely self-deceived. His sustained campaign to ensure that STURP had no part in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, and his objection to some STURP members wearing Christian crosses revealed Gove to be a virulent (if not fanatical) anti-Christian - see 27Apr87, 15Jun87 and 10Oct87. See also next where Gove would have accepted the Shroud was authentic even if it did have a 2000 year age. Besides, if Gove really had wished for a 2000 year age of the Shroud why didn't he `put his money where his mouth was'?

■ "Of course, it would not have proved the shroud was Christ's burial cloth but it certainly would have upped the odds" [above]. Gove here reveals that he too, like Linick, was an extreme Shroud anti-authenticist [see above], in that he would not have accepted that the Shroud was authentic even if it had "a 2000 year age"! Clearly no amount of evidence for the Shroud's authenticity would have sufficed for Gove (or Linick). They were therefore invincibly ignorant regarding the Shroud's authenticity:

"There does remain, nonetheless, a cast of mind which seems peculiarly closed to evidence. When confronted with such a mind, one feels helpless, for no amount of evidence seems to be clinching. Frequently the facts are simply ignored or brushed aside as somehow deceptive, and the principles are reaffirmed in unshakable conviction. One seems confronted with what has been called `invincible ignorance'"[23].

■ "When the results of all three labs were finally averaged, the date of the flax harvesting came out to be 1325 AD ±33 years" [above]. Either Gove couldn't do simple arithmetic (the midpoint of 1260-1390, which he agreed was the range of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating[24], is 1325 AD ±65 years)! Or did Gove deliberately falsify the range, to avoid the problem that 1325 + 65 = 1390 which is 35 years after Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in 1355?:

"Omitting to address the problems of the non-representative nature of the mediaeval mean, or the value of the entire statistical analysis, Gove instead somewhat characteristically resolved everything by simply falsifying the mean. Pretending, without showing his workings, to determine the mean with an extreme precision (1325 years ± 33 years), he distanced himself from all the objections made and others which went unsaid, not least by ignoring even mention of any statistical calculations. Having thereby disposed of the spread among the dates, he behaved as if issues such as the control samples and the question of their origin should similarly thenceforth be beyond dispute"[25].
■ "That agreed with this initial Arizona result obtained in ten minutes

[Left (enlarge): Extract from Table 1 in the 1989 Nature paper, showing the dates of each run at each laboratory of Sample 1, the Shroud[26]. The dates are years before 1950[27]. Thus the corrected mean of Arizona's first date was actually 1950-591=1359. As can be seen there was a very wide spread of the mean dates within each laboratory and across the three laboratories. Arizona's mean maximum was 701 and its minimum was 591, a spread of 110 years! Oxford's mean maximum was 795 and its minimum 730, a spread of 65 years. Zurich's maximum was 733 and its minimum 635, a spread of 98 years. For all three laboratories the maximum mean was 795 (Oxford) and the minimum was 591 (Arizona's first date), a spread of 204 years!

using a piece of the shroud cloth measuring less than 1/4" x 1/4" inch." [above]. Gove doesn't consider how amazing it is, that the very first dating at Arizona, "1350 AD," agreed to within 25 years of the midpoint, 1325, of the average of all the other datings! Especially considering the very wide spread of all those datings: 204 years! (see above), and Arizona's 110 years. In fact the mean of Arizona's first date is not a typical one: it is the lowest of all the means. And because lowest is most recent, it is the upper limit of the dating's calendar years. It was pointed out in 1994 by a Victor de Vincenzo in the USA that if it was not for Oxford's inconsistently older dates, the dating would have overlapped even more the year 1355, when the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history:

"Father Peter Rinaldi ... was also disturbed by the inconsistencies of the 1988 results as published in Nature in 1989. The Arizona and Switzerland lab dates gave a later age (late 14th century) than the final published results. The Oxford lab dates came in late and conveniently low enough to skew the average of the three labs to an early 14th century date instead of a late 14th century date. Had the Oxford lab been consistent with the other two labs, the late 14th century results would clearly have made the whole procedure erroneous since we know that the Holy Shroud had to have been in existence in the early 14th Century since it was exhibited in 1355 in France"[28].
So presumably it was part of the design of the hacker's (allegedly Linick's) algorithm, that the Shroud's date could not go above 1350. See my 22Febr16 where I proposed that 1350 "was a `hard-wired' straight substitution ... for the actual Shroud date." See future "16Feb89" where this much wider than expected variability of the laboratories' results for the Shroud sample, which was even admitted in the 1989 Nature paper's Table 2 summary of Table 1, is inexplicable [13Jun14, 26Oct14, 11Feb15, 18Nov15 & 24Oct16] and indeed impossible [26Oct14, 03Jun15, 27Aug15 & 26May18] if the dates of the Shroud sample at each laboratory were real. But it is explicable if those dates were computer-generated by a hacker's (allegedly Linick's) program!

■ "It was a triumph for carbon dating by AMS if not for those who passionately believed it was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ ..." [above]. As Ian Wilson observed:

"... it would seem more and more evident that in the laboratories' eyes the Shroud was a hotly prized test for the AMS carbon-dating method, rather than the AMS method a cool, wholly impartial test for the Shroud"[29].
As for Gove's "... not for those who passionately believed it was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ," Gove died in 2009, so maybe he now knows (too late) how wrong he was?

■ "I had a bet with Shirley on the shroud's age-she bet 2000 ±100 years old and I bet 1000 ±100 years. Whoever won bought the other a pair of cowboy boots. Although my guess was wrong, it was closer than Shirley's. She bought me the cowboy boots."[above]. See also above where Gove had breached his confidentiality agreement (see below) by telling Sox that Arizona's first date of the Shroud was closer to 1,000 than 2,000 years ago. That meant that Gove twice breached his confidentiality agreement by first telling it to his companion Shirley Brignall. Wilson, commenting on this part of Sox's book, noted:

"We are yet again reminded of the soldiers casting lots for Jesus's clothing [Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:24] at the foot of the cross..."[30].

■ "The reader, by now, will have guessed that despite the agreement I had signed [see below], I told Shirley the result that had been obtained that day. She and I had been associated with this shroud adventure now for almost exactly eleven years-there was no way I could not tell her. I knew she would never violate my confidence and she never did." [above]. Sox had already `outed' Gove on this ~8 years before [above]. If "there was no way" that Gove "could not tell" Brignall Arizona's first date of the Shroud (and presumably Gove did tell her it was "1350") then he should not have signed the confidentiality agreement. Gove is trying to justify his dishonesty by claiming that Brignall "would never" and "never did" violate his confidence (how would Gove know that?) is besides the point. Archeologist William Meacham pointed out:
"In sum, he [Gove] gave his word to his colleagues, as a scientist and a gentleman, and he broke it the very same day"[31]!
Before the dating Gove, who had been invited by Donahue to be present as an observer [see 25Mar18] arrived with Shirley Brignall in Tucson, Arizona on the afternoon of the day before, 5 May 1988[32]. Gove phoned Donahue who suggested he (not Brignall) be at the laboratory at 8am the next morning[33]. That evening Damon called at the motel that Gove and Brignall were staying and updated them on the sample removal, its cleaning and that Arizona had divided the total area of its Shroud samples (see 26May18 where due to a mistake in cutting, Arizona was given its sample in two pieces) "about 2 square centimetres (0.3 square inches) ... into four pieces each about 0.5 square centimetres or 1/4" x 1/4" in area" and stored them each in different places[34]. After the dating, Gove and Brignall were shown

[Above (enlarge): Photomicrograph of one of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated Shroud sub-samples, taken by former STURP photographer Barrie Schwortz in 2012[35]. As can be seen, it has no obvious contamination or foreign fibres. This looks like it may be a part of the sample that Gove saw, from a black-and-white photograph of it in Gove's book[36]. Of that sample Gove pointed out:

"If the shroud were actually first century and modern contamination produced the 14th century result this sample would have to be two thirds shroud and one third contamination"[37].]
one of Arizona's four subdivided pieces of its samples, which had been cleaned[38]. Of that sample he saw (which may have been a larger piece from which the above sub-sample was cut) Gove noted:
"After cleaning the shroud linen, it was still slightly yellowish in colour. The shroud sample could be readily identified. This was actually an advantage because it dispelled the concern that 14th century linen had been somehow substituted for shroud samples"[39].
However, this is further evidence for my hacking theory. See my 23Jul15 that, "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy [i.e. carbon contamination, bioplastic coating, invisible repairs] all fail."

At 8 am of the next morning, the day of Arizona's first dating, 6 May 1988, Gove arrived at the radiocarbon dating laboratory alone[40]. Gove had previously asked Donahue if Brignall could also attend the dating but that was refused[41]. Gove would be the only one present at Arizona's first dating of the Shroud who was not a member of the Arizona AMS group[42]. Donahue then asked Gove to sign a confidentiality agreement as follows:

"We the undersigned, understand that radiocarbon age results for the Shroud of Turin obtained from the University of Arizona AMS facility are confidential. We agree not to communicate the results to anyone-spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public"[43].
Note that the confidentiality agreement prohibited communicating the Shroud dating results even to "spouses"! So, as mentioned previously, if "there was no way" that Gove "could not tell" Brignall, who was effectively Gove's spouse, what Arizona's first date of the Shroud was, then Gove, if he was a man of honour, should not have signed the agreement as he did (below). Let alone that Gove also told Sox before August 1988 when Sox's book was completed, that the result of Arizona's first first dating of the Shroud was that its age was closer to 1,000 than 2,000 years (see above)!

Gove continued:

"It had been signed by D J Donahue, Brad Gore, L J Toolin, P E Damon, Timothy Jull and Art Hatheway, all connected with the Arizona AMS facility, before I signed. My signature was followed by T W Linick and P J Sercel, also from the Arizona facility"[44].
So Gove would have had no moral authority to criticise Linick for not honouring his signing of the confidentiality agreement when Gove discovered by September 1988 [see above] that Linick had told Sox that the result of Arizona's first Shroud dating was "1350" [see 30Dec15], when Gove himself had told Sox that the result was that the Shroud's age was closer to 1,000 than 2,000 years!

To be continued in the next part #12 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264.[return]
3. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return].
4. Gove, 1996, p.176H. [return]
5. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
6. 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. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, p.324; Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.92. [return]
8. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.146. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, p.264; 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.310; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.9; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.308. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.264; Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, pp.163, 180. [return]
11. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
12. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.183. [return]
13. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.8. [return]
14. Gove, 1996, p.312. [return]
15. Sox, 1988, p.146. [return]
16. Sox, 1988, p.6. [return]
17. Wilson. I., 1988, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter," No. 20, October, pp.18-19; Crispino, D., 1990, "Recently Published," Shroud Spectrum International, Nos. 35/36, June/September, pp.29-37, 30; Paci, S.M., 1990. "The Case is Not Closed!," Shroud News, No 60, August, pp.4-11, 8; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.11, 109; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.134. [return]
18. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
19. Extract from, "Dr. Harry Gove Co-developer, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," El carbono 14, por Manuel Carreira, Sabana Santa, 2013. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, pp.264-265. [return]
21. "Law of the instrument," Wikipedia, 22 April 2018. [return]
22. Wilson, I., 1988, "Editorial and The Carbon Dating Results: Is This Now the End?," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.2-10, 4. [return]
23. Fearnside, W.W. & Holther, W.B., 1959, "Fallacy the Counterfeit of Argument," Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 25th printing, p.113. [return]
24. Gove, 1996, p.301; Gove, H.E., 1999, "From Hiroshima to the Iceman: The Development and Applications of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.161. [return]
25. Van Oosterwyck-Gastuche, M.C., 1991, "The dating of the Shroud to the Middle Ages: Episodes in a game of technological bluff," BSTS Newsletter, 29, September, pp.7-14, 12. [return]
26. Damon, et al., 1989, p.612. [return]
27. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
28. de Vincenzo, V., 1994, "12 reasons why I cannot accept the carbon-14 test results on the Holy Shroud of Turin," Shroud News, No 82, April, pp.3-13, 11 (typos corrected). [return]
29. Wilson, I., 1989, "Recent Publications: Archaeometry," BSTS Newsletter, No. 23, September, pp.14-19, 19. [return]
30. Wilson. I., 1988, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter," No. 20, October, pp.18-19, 19. [return]
31. Meacham, 2005, p.93. [return]
32. Gove, 1996, p.259. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. Gove, 1996, pp.259-260. [return]
35. "New Photographs Of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Samples," Shroud.com, November 21, 2012. [return]
36. Gove, 1996, p.265. [return]
37. Ibid. [return]
38. Gove, 1996, pp.259-260. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.260. [return]
40. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
41. Ibid. [return]
42. Ibid. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. Ibid. [return]

Posted: 23 June 2018. Updated: 1 July 2018.