Monday, August 20, 2018

Date index 2012: The Shroud of Turin blog

The Shroud of Turin blog
DATE INDEX 2012
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the date index to my 2012 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: 2011] [Next: 2013]


2012

[Above (enlarge): Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin illustrated: The full-length Shroud of Turin (1), is doubled four times (2 through 5), resulting in Jesus' face within a rectangle, in landscape aspect (5), exactly as depicted in the earliest copies of the Image of Edessa, the 11th century Sakli church, Turkey (6) and the 10th century icon of King Abgar V of Edessa holding the Image of Edessa, St. Catherine's monastery, Sinai (7). The above is from my post of 15-Sep-12. My other posts on tetradiplon, "four-doubled" are at: 28Mar12, 10Jul12, 23Aug12, 11Sep12, 18May14, 08Sep14, 04Feb15, 20Jan17, 24Jan17, 13May17 & 18Mar18. There were many other other posts where I briefly mentioned "tetradiplon."]

22-Nov-12: The Shroud of Turin: 2.3. The man on the Shroud [part 9]
05-Nov-12: The Shroud of Turin: 2.2. The Shroud's location [part 8]
31-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 2.1. A linen sheet [part 7]
21-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 2. What is the Shroud of Turin? [part 6]
19-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 1.3 The central dilemma of the Shroud [part 5]
15-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 1.2 The Shroud and me [part 4]
15-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 1.1 Overview [part 3]
12-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: 1. Introduction [part 2]
11-Oct-12: The Shroud of Turin: Contents [part 1]
22-Sep-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 10: "The Image of Edessa" (6)
15-Sep-12: Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin
11-Sep-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 9: "The Image of Edessa" (5)
04-Sep-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 8: "The Image of Edessa" (4)
03-Sep-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 7: "The Image of Edessa" (3)
23-Aug-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 6: "The Image of Edessa" (2)
07-Aug-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 5: "The Image of Edessa" (1)
28-Jul-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 4: "The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo" (2)
22-Jul-12: Shooting the fox is not killing the fox!
17-Jul-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 3: "The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo" (1)
14-Jul-12: Old blood does not always degenerate to type AB, so the Shroud of Turin's and the Sudarium of Oviedo's AB blood group is significant!
11-Jul-12: `according to John chapter 20, Jesus was wrapped in linen cloths (plural) ... If Scripture is correct ... lets throw out the shroud'
10-Jul-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 2: "First Century Relics in Medieval Europe"
04-Jul-12: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 1: "Introduction"
15-Jun-12: `The Turin Shroud is a fake ... and it's one of 40': Antonio Lombatti
19-May-12: My critique of "The Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 May 2011
19-May-12: `Or the artist of the fake shroud knew of the Pray Manuscript and incorporated these signs into his forgery?'
10-May-12: You state that `there is no paint, dye or pigment on the Shroud that forms its image' but it is claimed that `the Shroud contains red ochre and other paint pigments'
01-May-12: Combined Review of: "The Sign" by Thomas de Wesselow and "Resurrected or Revived?" by Helmut Felzmann
23-Apr-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (5)
10-Apr-12: `De Wesselow fails to answer the reasons why rational people accept the Shroud is a fake'
09-Apr-12: Proceedings of the 1986 Hong Kong Shroud Conference now online
29-Mar-12: My comments on a Telegraph article about Thomas de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic but Jesus was not resurrected #2
28-Mar-12: My comments on a Telegraph article about Thomas de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic but Jesus was not resurrected #1
18-Mar-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (4)
03-Mar-12: `I heard the Shroud image was made by a bas-relief metal sculpture heated'
27-Feb-12: Luciano Buso - an artist who cracked Giotto Code?
23-Feb-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (3)
16-Feb-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (2)
12-Feb-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (1)
07-Feb-12: Shroud of Turin News, February 2012
04-Feb-12: Shroud of Turin News, January 2012
18-Jan-12: John P. Jackson, "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image" (1991)
15-Jan-12: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud has to be wrong!: #1 Introduction
10-Jan-12: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #10 His death and burial matches the Gospels' description of that of Jesus Christ
06-Jan-12: My response to: "The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it," by Tom Chivers, The Telegraph, 20 December 2011


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: 20 August 2018. Updated: 21 August 2018.

Monday, August 13, 2018

My critique of Borrini, M. & Garlaschelli, L., 2018, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Forensic Sciences, 10 July

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the seventh and final installment of my promised critique of the paper, Borrini, M. & Garlaschelli, L., 2018, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Forensic Sciences, 10 July. As previously mentioned, I have decided to not waste my time responding to sycophantic news articles in support of this paper, their similarity of wording indicating they are based on a press release from Borrini and/or Garlaschelli, but instead critique the paper itself. The paper's words are bold to distinguish them from mine. Emphases are minew unless otherwise indicated.

Matteo Borrini,1 Ph.D.; and Luigi Garlaschelli,2 M.Sc.

"The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17)!

Borrini and Garlaschelli are not neutral on the Shroud's authenticity (to put it mildly). Both are members of CICAP, "an Italian ... skeptic ... organization ... [its] main goals are the promotion of the scientific analysis of alleged paranormal and pseudoscientific phenomena":

"CICAP (Comitato Italiano per il Controllo delle Affermazioni sulle Pseudoscienze; in English Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Pseudosciences) is an Italian, non-profit, skeptic educational organization, founded in 1989. CICAP's main goals are the promotion of the scientific analysis of alleged paranormal and pseudoscientific phenomena. It is a member of the European Council of Skeptical Organisations"[2].
And it is a CICAP article of naturalistic (nature is all there is - there is no supernatural) faith that the Shroud is an example of "pseudoscientific phenomena":
"Italian group claims to debunk Shroud of Turin ... Scientists have reproduced the Shroud of Turin - revered as the cloth that covered Jesus in the tomb - and say the experiment proves the relic was man-made, a group of Italian debunkers claimed Monday. The shroud bears the figure of a crucified man, complete with blood seeping out of nailed hands and feet, and believers say Christ's image was recorded on the linen fibers at the time of his resurrection. Scientists have reproduced the shroud using materials and methods that were available in the 14th century, the Italian Committee for Checking Claims on the Paranormal [CICAP] said. The group said in a statement this is further evidence the shroud is a medieval forgery ... Many still believe that the shroud `has unexplainable characteristics that cannot be reproduced by human means,' lead scientist Luigi Garlaschelli said in the statement. `The result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure.' The research was funded by the debunking group and by an Italian organization of atheists and agnostics, he said"[3].
See my demolition of Garlaschelli's `Shroud' at "Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin" (8 October 2009).

Garlaschelli [Right[4].] is one of CICAP's founders:

"CICAP was started by the Italian science journalist Piero Angela together with a group of scientists including Luigi Garlaschelli"[5].
Indeed reference "2" above in "Luigi Garlaschelli,2" is not to Garlaschelli's current academic position, but to "CICAP":
"2CICAP – Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Pseudosciences, via Pascoli, 1, 35125 Padova, Italy (Formerly: Department of Chemistry, University of Pavia, Via Taramelli 10, 27100 Pavia, Italy)"!
Matteo Borrini [Left[6].] is likewise a member of CICAP:
"CICAP ... Technical and scientific consultants ... Matteo Borrini ..."[7].
A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin*

"BPA" stands for "Bloodstain pattern analysis," which "... has drawn more skeptical scrutiny since 2000 ... BPA is done by crime investigators using subjective hunches ... The National Academy of Sciences in 2009 ... questioned the reliability of their methods in the courtroom":

"Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA), one of several specialties in the field of forensic science, involves the study and analysis of bloodstains at a known or suspected violent crime scene with the goal of helping investigators draw conclusions about the nature, timing and other details of the crime. The use of bloodstains as evidence is not new; however, new experts have claimed to be able to use fluid dynamics, physics, and other calculations to determine with accuracy previous events at a crime scene. For example, the shape of blood droplets might be used to draw conclusions as to how far away the victim was from a gun when they were shot. This technique of forensic science has drawn more skeptical scrutiny since 2000; large amounts of the body of work in BPA is done by crime investigators using subjective hunches rather than scientists from other disciplines. A report released by The National Academy of Sciences in 2009 highlighted several incidents of blood spatter analysts to overstate their qualifications as well as questioned the reliability of their methods in the courtroom"[8].
As we shall see "subjective hunches" play a decisive role in this attempt by Borrini and Garlaschelli to discredit the Shroud!

Their paper is not new. The asterisk * above is to a footnote:

"*Presented at the 66th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 17-22, 2014, in Seattle, WA; and the 67th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 16-21, 2015, in Orlando, FL."
so it may not have been peer-reviewed. I doubt if any Shroud pro-authenticists (who are the true experts in the Shroud) have reviewed the paper, because of the many errors in it (as we shall see). Also it has taken more than four years from the paper's first presentation in February 2014 to appear on the Journal of Forensic Science's website, and it still has not been included in an issue. Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!

In fact Borrini and Garlaschelli's 2014 presentation was reported in an article in New Scientist: "Shroud of Turin depicts Y-shaped crucifixion," New Scientist, Linda Geddes, 2 April 2014, and I responded to it in a post of April 2014, "Shroud of Turin depicts a Y-shaped cross?" This has added significance (see below).

ABSTRACT: An investigation into the arm and body position required to obtain the blood pattern visible in the image of the Shroud of Turin was performed using a living volunteer. Here Borrini and Garlaschelli set up a strawman 'crucifixion victim' and then refuted that:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent"[9]
That is because a "living volunteer" is not a valid substitute for a living Roman crucifixion victim as Jesus, the Man on the Shroud (accordingly to the overwhelming weight of the evidence) was. Borrini and Garlaschelli's "living volunteer" (who actually may have been Garlaschelli) was not beaten about the face (Mt 26:67; 27:30; Mk 14:65; 15:19; Lk 22:63; Jn 19:3), scourged with a Roman flagrum (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Jn 19:1), crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2), carried a heavy wooden crossbeam part of the way to the site of his crucifixion (Jn 19:17), nailed through his hands and feet (Jn 20:25-27; Col 2:14), hung on a cross affixed by nails for ~6 hours (Mk 15:25, 33-34, 37; Mt 27:45-46, 50; Lk 23:44,46), died on that cross (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30), and was speared in the side to make sure he was dead (Jn 19:34), as Jesus (the Man on the Shroud) was. See my 06Aug13, 08Sep13 and 02Dec13. Therefore, it is impossible to experimentally simulate legally a first century Roman crucifixion, which Jesus underwent.

The two short rivulets on the back of the left hand of the Shroud are only consistent with a standing subject with arms at a ca 45° angle. This angle is different from that necessary for the forearm stains, which require nearly vertical arms for a standing subject. This is simply false! As illustrated by Wilson in 1978, over 40 years ago (below), based on the investigations of

[Above (enlarge): "The angle of the arms at crucifixion, deducible from the Shroud by determining the path of the blood flows in following the course of gravity. The main angle appears to have been 65 degrees, but there is evidence that at some stages the forearms were at 55 degrees, indicating that the man of the Shroud sought to raise himself, probably continually, during crucifixion"[10].]

surgeon Dr Pierre Barbet (1884–1961)[11], and supported by medical examiner Dr Robert Bucklin (1916-2001)[12] and forensic pathologist Prof. James Cameron (1930–2003)[13], the two slightly different angles of 55° and 65° of the blood trickles on the Shroudman's hand and forearms are consistent with blood dripping from nail wounds vertically under gravity, as the crucifixion victim (Jesus) alternatively raised himself on the nail in his feet to inhale and then slumped down on the nails in his hands to exhale[14]. By contrast neither Borrini (an anthropologist) nor Garlaschelli (a chemist) has any medical or surgical qualifications or expertise to contradict (directly or indirectly) these eminent medical and surgical authorities.

When I was studying for my Science degree (2000-4), we were told that the first step in writing a scientific journal paper was to thoroughly research the topic of our paper for at least a year. Apart from Borrini and Garlaschelli should be aware of Wilson's 40 year-old illustration above and its explanation in his 1978 classic book, "The Turin Shroud," if Borrini/Garlaschelli had Googled "Shroud Turin angle arms crucifixion" (without the quotes) they would have found my posts, "Re: The Shroud of Turin: Evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross, not a stake" of 25 April 2009 and "Shroud of Turin depicts a Y-shaped cross?" of 6 April 2014, especially the latter which mentions Borrini and Garlaschelli's names, both of which have the above illustration by Wilson with the explanation of the two slightly different angles of the blood trickles on the Shroudman's hand and arms. If Borrini/Garlaschelli didn't do that, they are guilty of scholarly incompetence. If they did do it but are concealing it, they are guilty of scholarly dishonesty!

The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) It is indeed a lance wound, matching the leaf-like shape of a Roman lancea (see below):

"Then we turn to the Roman lancea, in Greek lonche, the very weapon described in St. John's Gospel [Jn 19:34] as having been used to check that Jesus was dead. This was a spear of varied length, with a long, leaflike tip, thickening and rounding off toward the shaft. Whereas the other versions were intended to break inside the body of the victim, making it impossible for the enemy to reuse them against the Romans, the lancea was designed for continuous use. As such it is quite typical of what we would expect to have been standard issue for the soldiers of the military garrisons guarding Jerusalem at the time of Christ. From excavated examples, the shape of the lancea's blade corresponds exactly to the shape of the elliptical wound visible on the Shroud. It is another strikingly authentic, and Roman, detail"[15].

[Above (enlarge): The wound on the right side of the man on the Shroud[16] (on our left because the Shroud is, like a plaster cast, a mirror image). Note the wound (circled in red) which corresponds to the incision of a Roman lancea[17] and the light and dark stains corresponding to blood mixed with lung and heart sac fluid[18], i.e. "blood and water" as the Apostle John saw it (Jn 19:34). The dark border to the right is the remains of a burn from a fire in 1532.]

A medieval forger would be unlikely to know the shape of a Roman lancea, because as the above quote by Wilson says, its shape is known only from comparatively modern "excavated examples". Nor would a medieval forger be able to deduce the shape of a Roman lancea from the New Testament Greek word lonche, because (apart from the fact that there was no published Greek New Testament until 1516), contrary to Wilson's quote above, the Greek word lonche does not specifically mean a lance, but:

"The point of a weapon. A lance or spear, specifically the iron tip which reaches an enemy (Jn 19:34)"[19].
shows that the Shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position Borrini and Garlaschelli's `lance wound in the side' strawman 'experiment' was not even on a human body but a plastic "mannequin" [Right[20].]! Moreover they did not use post-mortem blood mixed with lung and heart sac fluid (as is on the Shroud - see above) but "synthetic blood"[21]! They also did not understand, or care, that the lance wound in Jesus' side occurred after He was dead (Jn 19:34), so the only blood from that wound would have come from the punctured right atrium (aka auricle) of the heart where blood accumulates after the heart's last beat at death had emptied its left ventricle[22]. They also did not consider or care that a dead crucifixion victim (Jesus) would have been slumped forward [Left[23].] held by the nails in his wrists. So any blood that did not adhere to the immediate vicinity of the wound would not have flowed down the body but dripped off onto the ground.

while the stains at the back—of a supposed postmortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine corpse—are totally unrealistic. Below is the bloodstain from the spear wound in the side of the man on the Shroud compared with the pool of blood across the small of his back from that wound. As can be

[Above (enlarge)[24]: Spear wound in the side (upper) compared to pool of blood from that wound in the small of the back (lower), flipped vertically and horizontally to match and outlined in red.]

seen it is totally realistic! Now compare it with the "totally unrealistic" (their own words!) strawman '`simulation' of Borrini and Garlaschelli below. But either they don't know the explanation in Shroud literature

[Above: Borrini and Garlaschelli's "totally unrealistic" (their words!) strawman `simulation' of how the pool of blood across the small of the back came from the spear wound in the side[25].]

that the pool of blood drained out of the head and upper body through the spear wound when the man was taken down from the cross and laid on the Shroud hours later[26], in which case they would be guilty of scholarly incompetence; or they do know that explanation but are concealing it from their readers, in which case they would be guilty of scholarly dishonesty! See also above.

Simulation of bleeding from the nail wounds contacting wood surfaces yielded unclear results. This is yet another strawman by Borrini and Garlaschelli, since the Shroud does not contain an imprint of the wood of the cross. They assumed that the bloodstain on the back of the hand (which is the side visible on the Shroud and that only of the left hand which largely covers the right

[Above (enlarge)[27]: Bloodflows down the left hand and arm of the Shroudman, flipped horizontally and then rotated 90 degrees, showing how the blood dripped off the hand and arm vertically under gravity. Because of the limitations of my software, the main bloodflows are not exactly vertical, as they would have been in reality. As can be seen, the blood from the nail wound flowed freely, so therefore the back of the hand was not in contact with the crossbeam.]

hand) would be altered by its contact with the crossbeam to which it was nailed [right[28]. But this ignores that a crucifixion victim (Jesus) would hang away from the crossbeam (see above) and so blood from the nail exit wounds on the back of the hands would not be altered by the crossbeam.

This is the conclusion of this post. I originally intended to critique Borrini and Garlaschelli's entire 7-page paper, but by critiquing only the abstract, I have refuted the paper's main points. I have shown that Borrini and Garlaschelli in their paper set up a strawman of the Shroud and refuted only that. And that they are guilty of either scholarly incompetence, in not being aware of the relevant Shroud literature, or scholarly dishonesty, in being aware of that literature but concealing it from their readers. Or both. They are an example of `the blind leading the blind' (Mt 15:14; Lk 6:39):

[Above (enlarge)[29]: "The Blind Leading the Blind," 1568, by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c.1525-1569).]

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. "CICAP," Wikipedia, 12 March 2018. [return]
3. "Italian group claims to debunk Shroud of Turin (Update)," PhysOrg, October 5, 2009. [return]
4. "Luigi Garlaschelli," Wikipedia, 17 July 2018 (translated by Google). [return]
5. "CICAP: History," Wikipedia, 12 March 2018. [return]
6. "XIV Convegno Nazionale CICAP - teaser: Matteo Borrini," YouTube, 20 August 2017. [return]
7. "CICAP: Organization chart," Wikipedia, 17 July 2018 (translated by Google). [return]
8. "Bloodstain pattern analysis," Wikipedia, 28 July 2018. [return]
9. "Straw man," Wikipedia, 29 July 2018. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, pp.50L; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.22. [return]
11. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, pp.82-83ff; Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, pp.44-45. [return]
12. Bucklin, R., 1982, "The Shroud of Turin: Viewpoint of a Forensic Pathologist," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 5, December, pp.3-10; Bucklin, R, 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: A Pathologist's Viewpoint," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.271-279, 273. [return]
13. Cameron, J. M., "The Pathologist and the Shroud," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.58. [return]
14. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.25; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.94. [return]
15. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.48-49. [return]
16. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
17. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 290; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.62-63; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.120; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.33-34; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.174. [return]
18. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 26; Iannone, 1998, p.63. [return]
19. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.926. Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. & Jones, H.S., 1883, "A Greek-English Lexicon," [1871], Seventh edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford, Reprinted 1935, p.417; Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, p.271; Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.382; Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. & Danker, F.W., 1979, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, p.479. [return]
20. Borrini, M. & Garlaschelli, L., 2018, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Forensic Sciences, 10 July, pp.1-7, 5, Fig. 7. [return]
21. Borrini & Garlaschelli, 2018, p.5. [return]
22. Barbet, 1953, p.206; Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.46; Wilson, 1979, p.44; Antonacci, 2000, p.31; Oxley, 2010, p.167. [return]
23. Ricci, G., 1978, "The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1982, p.61. [return]
24. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
25. Borrini & Garlaschelli, 2018, p.6, Figs. 8a & 8b. [return]
26. Wilson, 1979, p.23; Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.3; Wilson, 1986, pp.26, 28; 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.38; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.64; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, p.3. [return]
27. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
28. Borrini & Garlaschelli, 2018, p.2, Fig. 2b. [return]
29. "File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1568) The Blind Leading the Blind.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 29 March 2018. [return]

Posted: 13 August 2018. Updated: 20 August 2018.

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Date index 2011: The Shroud of Turin blog

The Shroud of Turin blog
DATE INDEX 2011
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the date index to my 2011 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: 2010] [Next: 2012]


2011
02-Dec-11: Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe

[Above (enlarge): ENEA's Hercules-L XeCl excimer laser[2]. The above is from my post of 02-Dec-11. My other posts on ENEA's excimer laser replicating the Shroud image's color and extremely superficial characteristics are: 06Jan12, 15Jun12, 23Jun15, 11Aug15, 19May16, 05Sept16, 05Feb17 & 08May18.]. The ENEA report found that the depth of the image on the cloth is only "one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter" (0.0002 mm) which is the thickness of the primary cell wall of a linen fiber:

"Furthermore, the color of the image resides on the outer surface of the fibrils that make up the threads of the cloth, and recent measurements of fragments of the Shroud show that the thickness of staining is extremely thin, around 200 nm = 200 billionths of a meter, or one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter, which corresponds to the thickness of the primary cell wall of the so-called single linen fiber"[3].
While the ENEA scientists did not use the word "supernatural," that is the only explanation of how a dead body generated the equivalent of "34 thousand billion watts" of light-energy to "reproduce the entire Shroud image":"
"However, ENEA scientists warn, `it should be noted that the total power of VUV [vacuum ultraviolet] radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts"[4]

14-Dec-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #9 The man has wounds and bloodstains matching the Gospels' description of the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus Christ
22-Nov-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #8 Bears the faint image, front and back, head to head, of a naked man
14-Nov-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #7 Kept in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Turin, Italy, since 1578
02-Nov-11: Earlier issues of the BSTS Newsletter now online
01-Nov-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #6 An old, yellowed, rectangular, linen sheet about 4.4 x 1.1 metres
28-Oct-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #5 What is the Shroud of Turin?
18-Oct-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus!: #4 The Shroud's image is a photographic negative!
10-Oct-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus! #3 About me
08-Oct-11: Re: `your own reasons for believing why the Shroud is important to Christians'
05-Oct-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus! #2 Contents
04-Oct-11: Shroud of Turin: Burial sheet of Jesus! #1 Title page
25-Aug-11: Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud debunked in an Australian high school textbook!
07-Aug-11: Prof. Joel Bernstein's lecture, "The Shroud of Turin: What science can tell us" #1
19-Mar-11: Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear
30-Jan-11: Re: Why couldn't Joseph of Arimathea have taken the Shroud?
11-Jan-11: Re: John Calvin on the Shroud #2
05-Jan-11: Re: John Calvin on the Shroud #1


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. "ENEA FIS-ACC Excimer Laboratory Annual Report 2000-2001," National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Frascati, Italy, 3 July 2007. [return]
3. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
4. Tosatti, 2011. [return]

Posted: 12 August 2018. Updated: 20 August 2018.

Monday, August 6, 2018

3 July 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #12, "3 July 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 over a month behind, but I will catch up (since the next day is 13 October 1988) 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: 06May88 #11] [Next: 13Oct88 #13]

3 July 1988 In his column in the London Sunday Telegraph, hist-orian Kenneth Rose (1924-214) wrote of the

[Right (enlarge)[2]: The late Kenneth Rose, who "never married"[3], was the first to leak on 3 July 1988 that the carbon dating of the Shroud would be "medieval"[4].]

radiocarbon dating of the Shroud[5], "In spite of the intense secrecy surrounding the investigation I hear signs that the linen cloth has been proved to be mediaeval"[6]. But only Arizona laboratory had completed its dating[7] and Oxford had not even started[8]. The story was repeated by other news media around the world that radiocarbon dating had shown that the Shroud was "medieval" and therefore a "fraud"[9].

On 8 June Arizona laboratory completed its dating of the Shroud and forwarded its results to Dr. Michael Tite of the British Museum[10]. Tite received Zurich laboratory's results on 22 July[11]. Then on 8 August Oxford laboratory completed its dating and sent its results to Tite[12]. So Oxford had ample time to learn the results from the other two labs and/or the British Museum[13], and adjust its measurements accordingly. Which was possible:

"In another interview Hall ... added: `Having only three labs doesn't undermine the validity of the dating. I think it was absolutely the right decision. You only need one lab to get it badly wrong to confuse everything, and the chances of that are higher with seven than with three. That was hardly the way the unchosen saw the matter, and privately they were saying the three [Arizona, Zurich and Oxford] were going to make certain they agreed - no matter how long it took"[14].

"On 25 April at 11 am, Harbottle called. He had learned from Otlet that the shroud samples had been removed on 21 April 1988 ... He said that, according to Otlet, there was no possibility this time of any outliers because the three labs would consult together so the answers would come out the same. I must say I thought that Otlet was being either paranoid or surprisingly cynical"[15].
Especially when considering that riding on a "medieval" carbon dating result was a million pounds donation to the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory[16] [see future "24 March 1989"]!

Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper showed that Oxford's results were much older than those of the other two laboratories[17], and if Oxford's results had been consistent with theirs the result would have overlapped even more the first appearance of the Shroud in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355:

"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"[18]!
See my three laboratories' year-dates bar chart below, based on Table 2 and Figure 1 in the 1989 Nature paper [see 18Nov15]:

[Above (enlarge): As can be seen above, Oxford's year-dates of the Shroud are much older than those of Arizona and Zurich. These years are from Table 2 (e.g. Arizona 646±31, i.e. 1950-646 = 1304 -31 = 1273 and 1304 + 31 = 1335) but it is not clear how Tite obtained "1260-1390" from them.]

in which it is clear that if Oxford's dates had been more consistent with those of Arizona and Zurich, then the Shroud would have dated much more recent than 1260-1390, which range already exceeded the Shroud's first undisputed appearance at Lirey in c.1355 by ~35 years!

Sox completed his book, "The Shroud Unmasked" [Right [19].] in "August 1988," according to the date in its Introduction[20]. In the book Sox quoted "Timothy Linick," the alleged leaker to Sox of Arizona's first "1350" date [see 22Feb16a and below], and the alleged primary hacker of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating [see 22Feb16b]:

"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?'"[21].
That was despite Linick (along with all those present at Arizona's first dating on 6 May 1988) having signed a confidentiality agreement:
"... not to communicate the results to anyone-spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public"[22].
On the same page (147 - see below) of his book, Sox (who wasn't there) described Arizona's AMS radiocarbon dating process as fully computerised and that Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the co-inventor of AMS radiocarbon dating[23] and the unofficial leader of the project[24] had a bet with his partner Shirley Brignall (who also wasn't there at the dating), that the Shroud would date closer to 1000 years than 2000 years old:
"So was Shirley Brignall ["going for 2000 years"]. 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. 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"[25].
Gove, who was present as a guest at Arizona's first dating of the Shroud, and had signed the same confidentiality agreement as Linick, admitted that he breached that agreement and told Brignall that the Shroud had dated "1350"[26]. Moreover, on the last page of his book Sox had stated:
"Section XIX Most of the observations in this section come from Harry Gove"[27].
But that section (or chapter) begins on page 143 with the arrival of Gove and his partner Shirley Brignall in Tucson the day before Arizona laboratory's first dating of the Shroud on 6 May 1988, and ends on page 147 with the AMS computer's calculations of the Shroud's age having been displayed on the computer's screen and that Gove won his bet with Brignall that the Shroud's age was nearer his 1000 years old against her 2000 years old (see below). So Gove had also broken his confidentiality by telling Sox, in effect, that the Shroud's radiocarbon age was medieval. However, Gove had not told Sox that the Shroud had dated "1350" (see below).

On 26 August the London Evening Standard ran as its front-page story, "Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake"[28], with an accompanying article by a Cambridge University librarian Richard Luckett, who stated

[Right (enlarge): "Dr Richard Luckett has been the Pepys Librarian at Magdalene College, Cambridge, since 1982 ... He says: `I'll just be having a quiet dinner with a friend on my birthday'"[29]. Note that Luckett's birthday is 1 July and Rose's article was two days later on 3 July! That is, Rose and Luckett allegedly heard from Sox [see below] at Luckett's birthday party on 1 July 1988 that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1350" and therefore "medieval." [see below and 15Aug17] that "a possible connection between Sox, Rose and Luckett was that they were part of an informal network of homosexuals").]

of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating that, "a probable date of about 1350 looks likely"[30] and that "laboratories are rather leaky institutions"[31]. This generated another worldwide round of media stories[32], yet no one involved in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating had even heard of Luckett[33], nor knew how he had obtained his information[34]. When Ian Wilson phoned Luckett and I asked him whether the Rev. David Sox had been his source, Luckett "hastily changed the subject"[35]!

On 9 September an Associated Press story appeared in Gove's local Rochester Democrat and Chronicle newspaper, which quoted Luckett, "I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories and it wasn't Oxford"[36]. Up to then Gove had assumed, along with others[37], that Cambridge's Luckett had learned his "1350" date from someone at Oxford laboratory[38]. But Oxford's Prof. Hall was quoted in the same article, to the effect that "1350" was not Oxford's date[39]. That, and Luckett's statement that the "1350" leak did not come from Oxford, made Gove realise that "it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement" as Linick had been:

"I must say I wondered about Luckett's date of 1350 because it was the date Donahue announced to me when I was present at the first radiocarbon measurement on the shroud in 6 May 1988 ... I still assumed Luckett had said he got the number from Oxford. When I read that he claimed he got it from one of the other two labs I worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement"[40].
But when Gove read page 147 of Sox's book, after its official launch on 15 October (see future "15 October 1988"), he would have realised that

[Right (enlarge): Page 147 of Sox's 1988 book which described the AMS dating of the Shroud as being fully computerised (lower), and also where Sox quoted "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona ... scientist" (upper).]

Linick was the leaker to Sox of Arizona's first "1350" date. So in his book published eight years later in 1996, Gove (as well as the other laboratory leaders - see 29Mar16) was covering up that Linick was the leaker of that "1350" date! If not them also covering up that Linick was the hacker whose program had generated the Shroud's bogus "1260-1390" radiocarbon date!

Then on 18 September the London Sunday Times published a front-page story with the headline: "Official: The Turin Shroud is a Fake"[41]. The article claimed that, "all three labs had independently placed the age of the linen in the same period of medieval history" and it concluded that, "The shroud is undoubtedly the work of a brilliant medieval hoaxer"[42]. After Wilson:

"... complained to the Sunday Times Editor with particular regard to the `official' headline. This prompted a conciliatory phone call from the Science Correspondent who when challenged directly, admitted that his source had been the Revd. David Sox. He said he had in front of him the Revd Sox's already complete book about the Shroud's mediaeval date, awaiting publication the moment this news becomes formally released"[43]!
So on 23 September in a letter to British Society for the Turin Shroud members, Wilson publicly concluded that Sox was the secondary source of all the leaks of the Shroud's "medieval" and "1350" dates, and that "his `inside' information ... can only have come from Arizona or Zurich" laboratories
"It seems clear that ... the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman [the American Rev. David Sox] 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), and his motives for flouting the confidentiality that all others have respected, can only be guessed at. His only explanation to me was that he `thinks' he knows the result by a `fluke'. Not being party to the same source(s), I can neither confirm nor deny the information's truth, only deplore the insidious and underhand means by which it has been disseminated"[44].
On that same day, 23 September, Sox phoned Gove to complain that Wilson had charged him with being the source of all the leaks, which Sox denied[45]. But tellingly Gove did not write that he believed Sox[46], On the contrary Gove wrote that Arizona's Doug Donahue and Paul Damon, as well as Turin's Luigi Gonella, had each come to the conclusion that "Sox was the source of the leaks"[47]. The next day, 24 September, in La Stampa, Sox was quoted as admitting he was partly to blame for the leaks: "May I be damned if I were to let the entire blame fall on myself"[48].

However, in a letter of 12 October 1988 to Fr Peter Rinaldi, copied to Gove, Sox stated that, neither Woelfli, the Director of Zurich laboratory, nor Gove, had told him "the results" (i.e. Arizona's "1350" date)[49]. But again (see above), when Gove read page 147 of Sox's book, he would have realised that it was, "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist" who had leaked Arizona's "1350" date to Sox. But Gove concealed that from the readers of his 1996 book. That is, Gove (and presumably the other laboratory leaders), were (and are) involved in a cover up, that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date to Sox! If not also involved in a cover up that Linick was the hacker whose program, installed on Arizona, Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers, had generated the Shroud's false "1260-1390" radiocarbon date!

To be continued in the next part #13 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. "Kenneth Rose - obituary," The Telegraph, 29 January 2014. [return]
3. Shawcross, W., 2014, "Kenneth Rose: we'll miss his wit, warmth and wry sense of humour," Telegraph, 1 February. [return]
4. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.272-273; Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, p.181. [return]
5. Gove, 1996, p.273. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September, pp.1-2, 1; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.90; 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.118. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, p.273; 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. [return]
8. Wilson, 1988, p.1; Gove, 1996, pp.272. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
10. Wilson, 1998, p.310. [return]
11. Wilson, 1998, p.310; Gove, 1996, p.274. [return]
12. Gove, 1996, p.277; Wilson, 1998, p.310; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.131. [return]
13. Guerrera, 2001, p.131. [return]
14. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," The Canterbury Press: Scoresby, VIC Australia, pp.134-135. [return]
15. Gove, 1996, p.252. [return]
16. Wilson, 1998, p.311; Wilson, 2010, p.89. [return]
17. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 613. [return]
18. 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]
19. Sox, 1988, front cover. [return]
20. Sox, 1988, p.6. [return]
21. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
22. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
23. Gove, 1996, p.314. [return]
24. Sox, 1988, p.95; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.192-193. [return]
25. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
26. Gove, 1996, p.265. [return]
27. Sox, 1988, p.160. [return]
28. Wilson, 1988, p.1; Wilson, 1998, p.310; Ruffin, 1999, p.118; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.89. [return]
29. "Birthdays: Dr Richard Luckett," The Times, 1 July 2010. [return]
30. Wilson, 1988, p.1; "Newspaper Story Stirs New Furor Over Shroud of Turin," Los Angeles Times, August 27, 1988; Gove, 1996, pp.276-277; Wilson, 1998, p.310; Ruffin, 1999, p.118; Wilson, 2010, p.89; Radford, T., 2015, "From the archive, 27 August 1988: Turin Shroud leak starts unholy row," The Guardian, 27 August. [return]
31. Wilson, 1988, p.1; Gove, 1996, p.277; Wilson, 2010, p.89; Radford, 2015. [return]
32. Wilson, 1988, p.1. [return]
33. Wilson, 1988, p.1; Morgan, R., 1988, "World Reaction to Carbon Dating a Farce," Shroud News, No 49, October, pp.3-18, 7; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.92; Wilson, 1998, p.310; Wilson, 2010, p.89. [return]
34. Wilson, 1988, p.1. [return]
35. Wilson, 1988, p.1. [return]
36. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, p.277; Radford, 2015. [return]
38. Gove, 1996, p.277. [return]
39. Ibid. [return]
40. Ibid. [return]
41. Wilson, 1988, pp.1-2; Wilson, 1998, p.310. [return]
42. Gove, 1996, p.282. [return]
43. Wilson, 1988, p.2. [return]
44. Ibid. [return]
45. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
46. Ibid. [return]
47. Ibid. [return]
48. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
49. Gove, 1996, p.283. [return]

Posted: 6 August 2018. Updated: 20 August 2018.

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Date index 2010: The Shroud of Turin blog

The Shroud of Turin blog
DATE INDEX 2010
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the date index to my 2010 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: 2009] [Next: 2011]


2010
16-Nov-10: Re: Shroud: I had a quick question regarding blood evidence
04-Oct-10: Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus! #1 Introduction
04-Jun-10: Turin Shroud goes on display for first time in 10 years, etc

[Above (enlarge)[2]: Perfect fit of the bloodstains on the Sudarium of Oviedo (which has been in Spain since shortly after 616 - Wikipedia) and the Shroud of Turin, proving that they once covered the head of the same crucifixion victim. That is, the Sudarium is the "smaller face cloth, the sudarium" [Gk. soudarion], mentioned in John 20:6-7. This is from my post of 04-Jun-10. My other posts on the Sudarium of Oviedo are: 08Aug07, 22Mar08, 17Jun08, 26Jun08, 08Dec09, 17Apr10, 04Jun10, 28Jul12, 21Sep14, 06Nov14, 09May15, 10Aug15, 21Jan16, 25May16, 24Jun16, 24Jul16, 24Jan17, 24Feb17, 25Mar17, 03Jun17 & 27Jul17]

12-May-10: Mark Oxley, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin" (2010)
17-Apr-10: `Ian Wilson's Turin Shroud theories are the worst kind of junk history'
01-Apr-10: New dating technique could establish age of the Turin Shroud
12-Mar-10: Robert K. Wilcox's new book: "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin"
25-Feb-10: Book wanted: Scannerini & Savarino, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future" (2000)
04-Feb-10: Ian Wilson's new book: "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved"
11-Jan-10: The Pray Manuscript (or Codex)


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. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image" Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.122. [return]

Posted: 5 August 2018. Updated: 12 August 2018.

Saturday, August 4, 2018

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

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

[Previous: June 2018, part #1] [Next: August 2018, part #1]

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

Contents:
• "The Bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin Are Probably Fake, Say Forensic Experts," BuzzFeed, 14 July 2018, Dan Vergano. [This is the first of many articles on the same topic, which I will respond to in a future post-see "News" below. [I have since decided to not waste my time responding to these sycophantic news articles about Borrini and Garlaschelli's paper, but instead I will respond directly to the paper itself: Borrini, M. & Garlaschelli, L., 2018, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Forensic Sciences, 10 July. But only after my next, "4 July 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud"]. See also the next four linked articles below.]
• "`The Shroud’s fake blood stains'. But the new research raises many doubts," Vatican Insider, 17 July 2018, Andrea Tornielli.
• "`Not scientific!' Catholic Church HITS BACK after Turin Shroud `fake' claims," Daily Express, 19 July 2018, Ciaran McGrath.
• "Shroud of Turin expert criticises new study casting doubt on authenticity," Catholic Herald, 19 July 2018, Junno Arocho Esteves.
• "The Question of the Shroud's Authenticity and the Certainty of the Resurrection's Historicity," The Christian Post, 25 July 2018, Brian G. Chilton.
• "Researchers offer paltry evidence on Shroud of Turin findings," Boston Globe, Adam Marcus, 27 July 2018. [This is a forced retraction, against the authors' wishes, of a paper that found "ferritin iron bound to creatinine" in a sample of Shroud blood, as evidence that the man on the Shroud suffered "a severe polytrauma" - see 19Jul17. "The researchers remain undaunted, however, and stand by their article."

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 July up to issue #105, December 1997 [Right (enlarge)], i.e ~89% completed. Issues in the archive are now up to #100, February 1997.

News As previously advised, 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 the near future. 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."
Also read, "`Not scientific!' Catholic Church HITS BACK after Turin Shroud `fake' claims," Daily Express, July 19, 2018, Ciaran McGrath:
"Pierluigi Baima Bollone, honorary president of the International Centre of Sindonology of Turin ... said: `I have read that the work that has been presented is based on a system called BPA [Bloodstain Pattern Analysis], very criticised on a scientific level. This method – in many court cases in which it was used – has created many problems and has been disavowed.'"
And also read, "An Unrealistic Approach and Analysis of the Blood Flows on the Shroud of Turin," July 27, 2018, Mark Antonacci:
"From these experimental results [by Borrini and Garlaschelli], which differ from comparable blood flows on the Shroud of Turin, the authors conclude the blood flow patterns on the Shroud are unrealistic and indicate they were the result of artistry or were faked. In this article I will briefly explain how both sets of experiments are flawed in several respects, how the blood flows on the Shroud are quite realistic, and how the authors' conclusions are necessarily flawed. All of the comments that I will make about the blood marks on the multiply-wounded crucifixion victim wrapped in the Shroud are supported by decades of research by numerous pathologists, physicians, anatomists, battlefield surgeons, scientists and forensic experts ..."

Media release: In July I continued preparing my previously mentioned media release outlining my hacker theory, which I have since completed (see 15Jul18). I am now working on a word-processed version which I will email to news outlets in anticipation of an upsurge of media interest in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating as the 30th anniversary draws near of the announcement on 13 October 1988 [see 23Jul15] that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390".

Posts: In July I blogged 5 new posts (latest uppermost): "Media release: Were the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?," - 15th "Date index 2009: The Shroud of Turin blog," - 14th; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourteenth century (3)" - 3rd; "Date index 2008: The Shroud of Turin blog" - 2nd and "`Editorial and Contents,' Shroud of Turin News, June 2018" - 1st.

Updates In July there was a significant update in the background of a past post, "`I would like to point out an important mistranslation of a French expression in your post'." I added a footnote 4 to, "Marguerite therefore must have meant that her grandfather Geoffroy I de Charny's possession of the Shroud was his by right of conquest[4] and therefore not something that her late husband, Humbert de Villersexel (1385–1437) could have given away to the canons of Lirey" ... 4. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.183:

"When the canons of Lirey wanted to claim their property back from the widow Marguerite, they had to take her to court. On May 8, 1443, she was ordered to restore to the canons the various "furnishings and vestments and relics" that had been entrusted to her husband. As for the sacred cloth, she declared she was not bound by her husband's signature as it belonged to her, having been obtained by her grandfather by right of conquest in war. ..." (Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.183. My emphasis)

Comments: In July, as in June, there were no comments!

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, I did blog about my hacker theory in July: "Media release: Were the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?."

My book: In July, writing the dot-point outline of my book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" (see 09May17 and 06Jul17),

[Left (enlarge): The planned cover of my book.]

took a backseat to preparing the media release, but today (4 August 2018) I resumed writing my book!

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 July 2018, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 927,977. This compares with 777,560 (up 150,417 or 19.3%) from the same time in July 2017. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "My critique of `The Pray Codex,' Wikipedia, 1 May 2011.," May 27, 2012 - 300; "Three-dimensional #20: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Feb 5, 2017 - 139; "Media release: Were the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?," Jul 15, 2018, 134;"Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 98 and "Shroud News - November 2007," Dec 1, 2007 - 85.

I presume the reason why my "Shroud News - November 2007" had a jump in pageviews in July is because it has a photo of the Jospice mattress imprint, which shows in a Google image search of it.

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: 4 August 2018. Updated: 14 August 2018.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

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

This is the 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 word-processed version of it (started 31 July 2018) to news outlets with a link back to this page. I will progressively update this page as I complete the word-processed version, and notify at the top of a current post and my Shroud of Turin News, when it is ready for publication. Even if no news outlets publish this media release, it will serve as a one-page summary of my hacking theory! As previously advised, "The Bloodstains ..." items will re-appear in my Shroud of Turin News of July 2018.


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 '1260-1390'[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 points out 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 c. 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): Photo-graph 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 process 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 uncritically 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 close to the time the Shroud's historic record began in c. 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 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 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]!

The source of those leaks to the English media was discovered to be the Rev. David Sox, an American Episcopalian priest teaching in London's American School[59]. Sox had not been present at Arizona's first "1350" dating[60], so he was the secondary, not the primary, source of those leaks.

Sox completed a book, "The Shroud Unmasked," about the carbon dating of the Shroud in August 1988[61], two months before the official announcement on 13 October[62]! In the book Sox described the Shroud's first radiocarbon dating at Arizona as being fully computerised[63], and while Sox did not cite the "1350" date, he later

[Left (enlarge): Page 147 of Sox's 1988 book in which he described the AMS dating of the Shroud as being fully computerised (lower). And also where Sox quoted "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona ... scientist" (upper).]

admitted that he knew it[64]. "It was from reading that part of Sox's book in 2007 that it occurred to me that a hacker could have installed a program which substituted the Shroud's 1st century date with bogus computer-generated 13th-14th century dates," recalled Jones.

On that same page (147) of Sox's book he quoted "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist" on the Shroud's current carbon dating (see above). From 1982 to 2002 Linick's older half-brother Anthony Linick[65] had worked as a teacher at that same American School in London[66]. Sox was a teacher at that school from 1974[67] to at least 1996[68]. So Sox and Anthony Linick had worked as teachers at that same school for 14 years, from 1982 to 1996, which included 1988[69]! "Timothy Linick likely made the initial contact with Sox through his half-brother Anthony," presumed Jones.

Linick, along with all others at Arizona's dating had signed an agreement "not to communicate the results to anyone"[70]. While Linick could (and presumably did) argue when Arizona's laboratory leaders found him quoted in Sox's August 1988 book, that the agreement he signed was only "not to communicate the results to anyone" and in Sox's quote Linick did not tell Sox any results. But that: a) Sox was the secondary source of the "1350" leak; b) the primary source of that leak was someone present at Arizona's first dating when the "1350" date was announced, as Linick had been; c) Linick had been communicating with Sox up to August 1988 about the dating of the Shroud; and d) Sox had worked with Linick's half-brother Anthony at the same American School in London for 14 years, including 1988; by Occam's Razor Linick was the primary leaker of Arizona's "1350" first date of the Shroud to Sox!

Linick was described by one of his professors as "extremely mathematically gifted"[71], and as previously mentioned, he was the lead author of the 1986 scientific journal paper which described Arizona's AMS system. "And from his prominent place in the group photograph of those present at Arizona's first dating (see above) Linick was in charge of Arizona's AMS dating process," Jones said.

"So there is no problem explaining how Linick could have written and installed a program on Arizona's AMS computer which substituted the Shroud 1st century date with computer-generated 13th-14h century dates. The problem is, how did Linick install his program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers?" asked Jones. "Because according to Arizona's Prof. Jull and Oxford's Prof. Ramsey, now Directors of their respective laboratories, who participated in the 1988 dating of the Shroud, and were signatories to the 1989 Nature paper, their AMS computers were never online"[72]. "Therefore, if my theory is true, someone would have had to physically install Linick's program by tape or disc on those other two laboratories' AMS computers in Zurich and Oxford," Jones concluded.

In 2014 Jones first began posting on his blog what would become his

[Right (enlarge): Karl Koch. "He was involved with the KGB scandal that involved hackers being bought by drugs in exchange for breaking into key NATO and corporate installations ... Koch, of Hanover, West Germany, died Friday, June 3 (sic) [1989][73]. But see my timeline][74] that Koch was killed between 23 and 30 May inclusive, his burnt body was discovered by police on 1 June, and 3 June was presumably the date the police publicly identified the body as Koch's.]

hacker theory[75]. He Googled "hacker" and "1988" and "1989" to see if there was any evidence of hacking in those years which might bear on hacking of the Shroud's dating. Jones discovered that the burnt body of a German hacker, Karl Koch, who had confessed to hacking for the KGB, had been found by West German police at the edge of a forest near Celle in late May/Early June, in what appeared to be an execution designed to look like suicide[76]. Koch (aka Hagbard) was in the same German hacking ring as Markus Hess (aka Urmel)[77], whom Stoll had helped catch (see above), and along with Hess and another member of the ring, Hans Hübner (aka Pengo)[78], had confessed to paid hacking of university, government, military and business computers in the USA and Europe for the KGB[79] to take advantage of an amnesty provision for espionage in West German law[80].

Koch's body had been burned by a gasoline fire and there was a melted

[Left (enlarge): Partly burnt tree branches from the gasoline fire that killed Karl Koch[81]. But dry branches would burn right through in a gasoline fire unless it was put out by a fire extinguisher but none was found at the scene. This alone is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Koch did not commit suicide but was murdered!]

empty gasoline can near it[82]. Koch's work car was nearby[83]. covered in thick dust, looking like it had been there for years[84]. A small circle of 3-4 metres of vegetation around Koch's body had been burned[85]. The police assumed Koch had committed suicide[86 by pouring gasoline over himself and the surrounding earth and lighting a match[87]. But it hadn't rained for 5 weeks and the vegetation was very dry[88]. Yet the burned area around the body had been contained[89] meaning the fire that killed Koch had been carefully controlled[90]. But Koch could not have controlled and extinguished, with his bare hands, the fire that killed him[91]!

Moreover, suicide made no sense[92]. Koch had confessed his hacking to the authorities and had co-operated fully[93], so he was in no danger of being prosecuted[94]. The authorities were satisfied with the information Koch had provided and had found him accommodation and a job with the Christian Democratic Party[95]. He was receiving help with his drug dependency and was his way to rehabilitation[96]. So the murder of Koch was much more likely than his suicide[97]. There was a rumour that the Stasi, the East German secret service, had killed Koch on behalf of the KGB, because "they were protecting a KGB source [Koch] who was proving too talkative"[98].

Jones then Googled the names of the signatories to the 1989 Nature paper. When he got to "T. W. Linick" Jones discovered that Timothy W. Linick had been found dead in Tucson Arizona of "suicide in mysterious circumstances"[99] on 4 June 1989[100]. Jones later

[Right (enlarge): Photo-graph of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances ..."[101] (Jones' emphasis).]

learned from Linick's half-brother Anthony (see above) that Timothy Linick had indeed died of presumed suicide[102], by gunshot[103], leaving no suicide note[104]. Jones later realised that Linick's suicide on 4 June 1989 was only one day after Koch's burnt body was identified by West German police on 3 June 1989 (see above). It was also after this that Jones discovered Linick quoted in Sox's 1988 book (above).

So in 2014 Jones proposed a theory that Linick had hacked Arizona's AMS computer directly by installing a program that when a Shroud sample date was detected, it was substituted by a computer-generated 13th-14th century date[105]. And that Koch was used by the KGB to install Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers[106]. There was then a major security flaw in the VMS operating system on DEC minicomputers[107], which the AMS computers were[108]. And Koch had exploited that flaw to hack into other similar DEC computers[109].

In March 2014 Jones first raised the possibility that the KGB had killed both Koch and Linick to prevent them from talking about their hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating for the KGB[110]. Then in May 2014 Jones proposed it as part of his theory that:

"The hacker was allegedly Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89), who with self-confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–89), were both allegedly working for the KGB to hack the laboratories' AMS control console computers, and the KGB allegedly executed them both to prevent them talking, within days of each other, if not on the same day" (emphasis original)[111].
Jones theorised that when the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero, on On 10 October 1987 advised that only three AMS laboratories, Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, would date the Shroud, not the seven laboratories using two different methods, as had been originally agreed[112], that Linick realised he could write and install a program on Arizona's AMS computer that would automatically substitute any Shroud sample date with a computer-generated 13th-14th century date[113]. And that if his program was installed on Zurich and Oxford's identical AMS computers[114] it would do the same to their dates of the Shroud.

A few months before, in July 1987, hackers had exploited the security flaw on DEC computers running the VMS operating (see above) to hack into NASA's computer network, which received wide publicity as "the NASA hack"[115]. According to Jones, "Linick realised that the NASA hack was committed by hackers working for the KGB, so he approached the the Soviet consulate in San Francisco, which according to the FBI, one of its `primary missions ... was to funnel U.S. technology into the Soviet Union'[116], to offer them a guaranteed radiocarbon date of the Shroud only a few decades before it first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in the 1350s"[117], if they could arrange a hacker to install his program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers."

The KGB's motive to accept Linick's alleged offer to guarantee the Shroud had a radiocarbon date plausibly before the 1350s was, according to Jones, because by 1988 the former Soviet Union (USSR) was on the verge of collapse[118] and indeed it did collapse in late 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall[119].

[Left (enlarge): Germans celebrating the Berlin Wall's collapse at the Brandenburg Gate on 10 November 1989[120].]

"A first (or early because of irremovable carbon contamination[121]) century radiocarbon date of the Shroud would have been a huge threat to the tottering atheist state that the Soviet Union was[122]," Jones pointed out. "That is because there were then about 50 million adherents of the Russian Orthodox Church and about 35 million Roman Catholics, both of whose traditions held that the Shroud was authentic. A first (or early) century radiocarbon date of the Shroud would likely have been feared by the Soviet leadership as `the straw that broke the camel's back' of the already crumbling, officially atheist, Soviet Union in the 1980s[123]!" "So if Linick had approached the Soviet Union, through for example the Soviet consulate in San Francisco which the FBI claimed one of its primary missions was to funnel U.S. technology into the Soviet Union[124], with an offer to guarantee an early 14th century radiocarbon date of Shroud for money, the Soviets would surely have accepted that offer[125]," Jones maintains.

According to Jones' theory, the KGB's motive to kill Koch and Linick was to prevent its own secret of the hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating being revealed[126]. "Koch had become a Christian[127] and after the publication of the 1989 Nature paper in February 1989, which claimed that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... 1260-1390"[128], he would have realised what his running a program on Zurich and Oxford universities' computers had done," Jones presumed. Koch's fellow hacker, Hübner, recalled that Koch had started talking about "conspiracies" and was having, what seemed to Hübner, "religious hallucinations"[129]. In April 1989 a well-known American Shroud author (who wishes to remain anonymous) received a late night phone call from a distraught German-sounding male who begged forgiveness for "falsifying the results of the 1988 dating" through "espionage"[130]. "This can only have been Koch," Jones points out, "because, as we saw above, `espionage' was what Koch and his fellow German hackers uniquely had confessed to, under the amnesty provisions of West German law!"

"My hacking theory was dismissed on a (now closed) anti-Shroud blog as a 'conspiracy theory'[131] with all its present-day pejorative connotations"[132], Jones recalled. "I countered with a Wikipedia quote (which is no longer online) that `the skepticism of ... conspiracy theories ... is akin to a modern day superstition"[133]. Jones agrees that his hacking theory is a theory that Linick and the KGB conspired to make it appear that the first-century Shroud originated just before its first undisputed historical appearance in 1355[134]. But Jones also says that to dismiss his hacking theory as merely a "conspiracy theory" is incorrect[135]. "That is because Koch and the KGB are not essential to my theory, as Linick could have acted alone," says Jones[136]. "For example, Linick could have flown over to Zurich and Oxford and installed his program on their computers himself"[137]. "Stoll, who did his PhD at Arizona University, recalled from personal experience that security at laboratories in the 1980s was poor," said Jones. "Laboratory doors were seldom locked[138] and passwords were easily guessable"[139]. "I included Karl Koch and the KGB in my theory because of the striking coincidence of Koch's and Linick's apparent suicides within days of each other"[140], Jones said.

Jones maintains that his hacking theory is the only viable explanation how the first-century Shroud had a radiocarbon date of 1325[141]:

"... when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth ..."[142]!
Jones concedes that the evidence for his theory is only circumstantial[143] and that absent an unlikely confession by someone in a position to know, such as one of the laboratory scientists, or an officer in the KGB[144], his theory may never be proved true.

However, if his theory is true, Jones points out that there must be many out there who know it, so he is hopeful that at least one of them will come forward with information that proves it to be true. And, if it Jones' hacking theory is proven to be true, it may well be the greatest scientific fraud of all time, when considering the many millions of people deceived and the length of time (nearly 30 years and counting) of the deception. Not to mention the great many Christians whose faith was damaged and even lost, and non-Christians who would have become Christians if not for the deception. Then those who later realised that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking by Linick will be immortalised (for the wrong reason) in Sociology of Science textbooks. Not for perpetrating the hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating: my theory is that those other laboratory staff involved in the dating of the Shroud were Linick's unwitting victims. But for later realising, or at least suspecting, that it was a hacking, and covering it up!

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. https://goo.gl/IlnBir [return]
3. Stephen E. Jones, "The Shroud of Turin" blog. https://goo.gl/SRVZ8Q [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., 2015d, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," 8 July. http://goo.gl/SpJeoU. [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. https://goo.gl/aJShW1 [return]
10. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. https://goo.gl/5Zwnx3. [return]
11. "File:Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 22 February 2015. https://goo.gl/HzGQmR. [return]
12. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., translated, West, A., revised., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, pl. III. [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. https://goo.gl/o7otJp. [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, 2015d, 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. https://goo.gl/S8N5zv. [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. https://goo.gl/ZDcXAW. [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. https://goo.gl/yor1Sx. [return]
38. Sox, 1988, p.146. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.264; Wilson, 1998, p.310. [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. https://goo.gl/vzpywe. [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. https://goo.gl/N1215y. [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. https://goo.gl/1YANvM. [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]
59. Wilson, 1988. [return]
60. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
61. Sox, 1988, p.6. [return]
62. Wilson. I., 1988, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter," No. 20, October, pp.18-19. https://goo.gl/639zdb; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.81. [return]
63. Gove, 1996, pp.281, 283; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
64. Sox, 1988, pp.146-147. [return]
65. Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse: Bloomington IN, pp.226, 619. [return]
66. "Anthony Linick: Academic life," Wikipedia, 2 June 2018. https://goo.gl/5D5hTU. [return]
67. "Obituary of Harold David Sox, April 24, 1936 - August 28, 2016," Trident Society, 2016. https://goo.gl/tt59bo. [return]
68. Gove, 1996, p.8. [return]
69. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
70. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
71. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
72. Jones, S.E., 2014b, "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, 13 March. http://goo.gl/sL8fGx. [return]
73. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. https://goo.gl/VhLMeX. [return]
74. Jones, S.E., 2016a, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #8," The Shroud of Turin blog, 2 June. https://goo.gl/ZmQiT9. [return]
75. Jones, S.E., 2014a, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (1)," The Shroud of Turin blog, 18 February. https://goo.gl/RVssPJ. [return]
76. Jones, S.E., 2014c, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Further to my replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey ," The Shroud of Turin blog, 31 March. https://goo.gl/2VZf8p. [return]
77. "Markus Hess," Wikipedia, 22 March 2018. https://goo.gl/M1sKmd. [return]
78. "Hans Heinrich Hübner," Wikipedia, 22 March 2018. https://goo.gl/nXg4Cj. [return]
79. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 10 October 2017. http://goo.gl/oPLPCx. [return]
80. Clough, B. & Mungo, P., 1992, "Approaching Zero: Data Crime and the Computer," Faber & Faber: London & Boston, pp.183-184; Hafner, K. & Markoff, J., 1991, "Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier," Corgi: London, reprinted, 1993, pp.273-275, 277. [return]
81. "Cliff Stoll visiting Karl Koch's death forest," YouTube, January 13, 2008. https://goo.gl/xeQvJJ. [return]
82. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303; Stoll, 1989, p.362. [return]
83. Stoll, 1989, p.362. [return]
84. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
85. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
86. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
87. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
88. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
89. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
90. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
91. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
92. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
93. Ibid. [return]
94. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.186. [return]
95. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
96. Ibid. [return]
97. Ibid. [return]
98. Ibid. [return]
99. Galeazzi, G., 2013. "Never solved: The enigma that still divides the Church: The Shroud," Vatican Insider, 1 April. Translated from Italian by Google (no longer online). English translation, "Unsolved Enigma that Still Divides the Church: The Shroud" (no longer online). [return]
100. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
101. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus," The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century. https://goo.gl/Uk6P2D. [return]
102. Linick, 2008, p.619. [return]
103. Linick, A., 2016a, Email "Re: David Sox," 25 February, 3:58 PM. [return]
104. Linick, A., 2016b, Email "Re: David Sox," 28 February, 7:50 PM. [return]
105. Jones, S.E., 2014e, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #3," 3 June. https://goo.gl/5Nzvvn. [return]
106. Ibid. [return]
107. Clough & Mungo, 1992, pp.170-172, 228n5. [return]
108. Linick, 1986, p.524. [return]
109. Stoll, 1989, p.362. [return]
110. Jones, 2014c, 31 March. [return]
111. Jones, S.E., 2014d, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #1," 24 May. https://goo.gl/U2TWQy. [return]
112. Gove, 1996, pp.213-214. [return]
113. Jones, S.E., 2015a, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (7) ," 31 March. https://goo.gl/UcoU63. [return]
114. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178. [return]
115. Stoll, 1989, pp.342-343; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.255-257. [return]
116. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.226. [return]
117. Jones, S.E., 2014f, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #9," 3 September. https://goo.gl/wRbQTf. [return]
118. "Soviet Union: Gorbachev era," Wikipedia, 21 December 2013. https://goo.gl/eKUT2E. [return]
119. "Berlin Wall: Fall of the Berlin Wall," Wikipedia, 25 July 2018. https://goo.gl/4i1KoV. [return]
120. "File:BerlinWall-BrandenburgGate.jpg," Wikipedia, 19 March 2018. https://goo.gl/a4CsB6. [return]
121. Tyrer, J., in Wilson, I., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. https://goo.gl/MCFXba. [return]
122. "State atheism: Soviet Union," Wikipedia, 24 July 2018. https://goo.gl/BXf5xx. [return]
123. Jones, 2015a.. https://goo.gl/F5TEF8. [return]
124. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.226. [return]
125. Jones, 2015a.. https://goo.gl/F5TEF8. [return]
126. Jones, 2015a.. https://goo.gl/wMntqP. [return]
127. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.302. [return]
128. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
129. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.316. [return]
130. Jones, 2014f, 2 June. https://goo.gl/51K19c. [return]
131. E.g. Porter, D.R. 2014, "Stephen Jones Continues his Computer Hacking Conspiracy Theory," Shroud of Turin Blog, 5 July https://goo.gl/bfi1Q3. [return]
132. "Conspiracy theory," Wikipedia, 25 July 2018. https://goo.gl/Wx4nwq. [return]
133. Jones, S.E., 2015c, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (10) ," 30 June. https://goo.gl/fqnmEE. [return]
134. Jones, S.E., 2016b, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #10," The Shroud of Turin blog, 15 September. https://goo.gl/zdSgs3. [return]
135. Jones, S.E., 2014g, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (3)," 13 December. https://goo.gl/zvK23J. [return]
. [return]
136. Jones, S.E., 2014g. https://goo.gl/iRrqku. [return]
137. Jones, S.E., 2015b, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (9) ," 17 May. https://goo.gl/1pJwN1. [return]
138. Stoll, 1989, p.12. [return]
139. Stoll, 1989, p.13; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.222; Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.168. [return]
140. Jones, 2014d, 24 May. https://goo.gl/zqYT6B. [return]
141. Jones, S.E., 2015e, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1," The Shroud of Turin blog, 23 July. https://goo.gl/aAoK8q. [return]
142. Sherlock Holmes to Watson, in Doyle, A.C., 2001, "The Sign of the Four," Penguin: London, p.42. Emphasis original. [return]
143. Jones, 2016b, 15 September. https://goo.gl/zv9N1Z. [return]
144. Ibid. [return]

Posted: 15 July 2018. Updated: 21 August 2018.