Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Index "S": Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Index "S"

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

[Main index] [Previous] [Next].

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

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


[Savoy] [scourged] [shroud] [Shroud of Turin] [speared] [superficial]


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

Updated: 27 July, 2014.

Monday, July 21, 2014

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

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued in part #9.

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


Updated: 22 July, 2014.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Main index "A-Z": Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Main index "A-Z"

This the main index page to, and part #1 of, my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia."


[A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H] [I] [J] [K] [L] [M] [N] [O] [P] [Q] [R] [S] [T] [U] [V] [W] [X] [Y] [Z] [Next]

[Above: "The Shroud of Turin: modern photo of the face, positive left, digitally processed image right"[2].]

I will in future add entries and link them back to indexes of the first letter of those entries (e.g. the entry "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia: Shroud of Turin" will be linked to an index page "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia: S", which in turn will be linked back to this main index under "[S]"). I will also link each post in this series to the previous and next posts in the series.

Neither the entries, nor the indexes, will necessarily be in any order, but I will add entries as they occur to me. However, one of my aims is to link each key word to an entry about it. I have linked this main index page to this blog's front page.

This is the start of a long-term project.

Other encyclopedia entries about the Shroud of Turin include:
"Shroud of Turin," Encyclopedia.com, 2003.
"Shroud of Turin," New World Encyclopedia, 20 February 2013.
"Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 13 July 2014.
"Shroud of Turin (relic)," Encyclopedia Britannica, 19 May 2014.
"The Holy Shroud (of Turin)," Catholic Encyclopedia, 14 June 2014.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from it or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one graphic) of any of my posts, provided that they include a reference to the title of, and a hyperlink to, that post from which it came. [return]
2. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 13 July 2014. [return]

Updated: 23 July 2014.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Stephen E. Jones' home page WON'T harm your computer!

Update 13 July 2014. Google is no longer claiming that my home page will harm visitors' computers!

At Dan Porter's emailed suggestion that the problem may be in my members.iinet.net.au directory, I checked there and found down near the bottom of it a tiny shortcut file that I didn't put there (thanks Dan). I deleted it (and immediately regretted I did not save it because I could not prove that that was the problem).

I then emailed my ISP, iiNet, telling them what I had done, together with a screen capture of a Google error message which listed a "Suspicious snippet" of Java script:

The script includes the word "oemtechnology" that I had previously searched for in my folder of HTML files that I had uploaded to my website, but drew a blank. I therefore wrongly assumed that it was just an example. My ISP had not got back to me (I told them it was not urgent) so I assume that that since my home page is no longer blacklisted by Google, that was the problem.

So my apologies to Google's robot. I hope I have not hurt its feelings! For my sake I better not have :-) But it would have helped if it had not wrongly listed some of my HTML files as infected, when the problem was not in those files but that they contain a link back to my home page. It now seems that when Google's robot followed those links back to my home page it encountered the invisible Java script shortcut in my members.iinet.net.au directory and then blamed the files. I don't know how that Java script got into my online home directory, but now I am aware of the potential problem I will be on the lookout for it happening again.

I will add back links to my old files by linking my Sitemap.html file to my home page. I like my new less cluttered home page.


Original 10 July 2014. Google continues to FALSELY claim that my home page, will harm visitors' computers. This is despite me requesting Google to tell me where exactly the problem is and my removal of all external links from those few files it listed. But still my home page remains blacklisted by Google. Finally I removed ALL links from my home page except to this my Shroud of Turin blog, but still a Google search of "Stephen E. Jones' home page" has the warning: "This site may harm your computer."

I have suggested to Google that the problem may be a circular error of theirs. Most of my pages have a link back to my Home Page. But if Google's robot falsely lists my Home Page as infected, it will falsely think every page that has a link to my Home Page is potentially harmful. And so on in an endless loop...! If so, I am not going to waste my time deleting every link to my home page in my hundreds of online pages, and nor should I have to. It would then be a Google bug that it should fix.

It doesn't bother me personally because these days my focus is on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. But it will be interesting to see if and when Google's robot finally wakes up to the fact that my home page cannot now possibly harm anyone's computers (if it ever could) and if and when my home page, and my other pages now cut-off from their root, will cease to be unfairly blacklisted by Google, or even listed by Google at all.


Saturday, July 5, 2014

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #7

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #7 of my series, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker." Previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, part #3, part #4, part #5 and part #6. See those previous posts for the background of my theory.

[Above: Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory staff and Rochester radiocarbon dating laboratory's Prof. Harry Gove (second from right) around the AMS control console computer terminal[2], after it had, on 6 May 1988 displayed the alleged hacker's bogus radiocarbon age of the Shroud, "640 years"[3], which was then calibrated to "1350 AD"[4]. The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is the one in a black shirt standing the most prominently in the foreground[5].]

6. EVIDENCE THAT TIMOTHY W. LINICK WAS THE HACKER In part #6 we saw that:

• Linick was an extreme anti-authenticist who would not accept that the Shroud was authentic, even if its carbon-date was 2000 years old:

"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?'"[6].

• Linick was probably aware of McCrone's prediction that the Shroud's carbon date would be "about 1355." Linick's words above are similar to those of the late extreme anti-authenticist Walter McCrone (1916-2002) who wrote in 1980 of a future "carbon-dating test" that "A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ...", which were in the context of McCrone's claim that "the image" on the Shroud "was painted on the cloth shortly before the first exhibition, or about 1355":

"My conclusions published in October 1980-March 1981 (McCrone and Skirius 1980) (McCrone 1981) were as follows: `Our work now supports the two Bishops [Henri of Poitiers and Pierre d'Arcis] and it seems reasonable that the image, now visible, was painted on the cloth shortly before the first exhibition, or about 1355. Only a carbon-dating test can now resolve the question of authenticity of the 'Shroud' of Turin. A date significantly later than the first century would be conclusive evidence the `Shroud' is not genuine. A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ, would, no doubt, be so accepted by nearly everyone"[7].

Although McCrone did not use the words "predict" or "prediction" in the above quote, that he regarded it as a prediction is evident in that: 1) he later claimed it was a prediction: "I could predict with complete confidence what the result of the radiocarbon dating of the linen cloth would be," followed by an excerpt from the above 1980 quote:

"From my view after all of the work I had done on the `Shroud' tapes I could predict with complete confidence what the result of the radiocarbon dating of the linen cloth would be. Some of my predictions more than two to nine years before the carbon-dating follow: In October 1980-'our work now supports the two Bishops [in Lirey] and it seems reasonable that the image now visible was painted on the cloth shortly before the first exhibition in 1356' (McCrone 1980)"[8]

and 2) in a 1980 letter to David Sox (see part #6), McCrone wrote: "The carbon date will be helpful here; I predict the range of dates found will include the 1350's but it could be earlier":"

"20 February 1980 Dear David: I am enclosing a copy of a letter recently sent to Father Rinaldi [see p. 174]. It speaks pretty much for itself, and you should read it before continuing here. The only remaining question is the date the `Shroud' was painted. The carbon date will be helpful here; I predict the range of dates found will include the 1350's but it could be earlier. [Eight years later it was carbon-dated to 1325 ±65 years (see p. 246).] The Pilgrim's medallion associated with the Lirey exhibition in about 1357 seems to be the first obvious copy of the full double image. I am sure Henri, the Bishop of Troyes, was right when he claimed knowledge of the artist who painted it" (words in brackets McCrone's)[9].

• Linick was the leaker of Arizona's "1350" first date of the Shroud. The above quote of Linick by Sox is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Linick was the leaker who told Sox that Arizona's first calibrated radiocarbon date of the Shroud was "1350"[10], in breach of his signed undertaking "not to communicate the results to anyone ... until that time when results are generally available to the public"[11]. See part #6.

• Linick was found dead of suspected suicide on 4 June 1989 Linick was found dead in Tucson, Arizona[12] on 4 June 1989[13], at the age of 42[17].

[Right: Photograph of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances, shortly after the campaign of the Italian press reporting our [Bonnet-Eymard's] accusations" (my emphasis)[14]. This is consistent with my theory that the KGB executed confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch on 3 June 1989)[15], and Linick a day later[16] [however-see part #8 where Koch's death was between 23 and 30 May 1989], to stop them revealing that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to 1325 ±65 was the result of a KGB-sponsored computer hacking by Linick, aided by Koch.]

Linick's obituary in Arizona laboratory's journal Radiocarbon said that his death was "untimely"[18], and the lack of details (e.g. "after a short illness," "as a result of a road accident," etc) suggests that Linick's death was sudden, unexpected and embarrassing (as a suicide would be). Ian Wilson recorded Linick's death in his chronology of the Shroud and noted that it was "in unclear circumstances"[19]. Vatican Insider reported that Linick's death was "suicide in mysterious circumstances"[20]. Those who alleged that there was fraud in dating the Shroud, such as Roman Catholic scholar Br. Bruno Bonnet-Eymard[21], suspected that Linick was murdered to cover up his part in the radiocarbon dating fraud[22]. Linick's death occurred shortly after a campaign in the Italian press reporting Bonnet-Eymard's accusations of fraud in the radiocarbon dating [23]. No other signatory to the 1989 Nature paper[24] appears to have met an untimely death.

Yet, despite my trying (e.g. emailing Arizona news media, police departments, etc), I have been unable to find any further information on Linick's death. Arizona is a "closed record" state, which means that death records are not normally available to the public[25]. The US Library of Congress could only find for me two newspaper items about Linick's death, a funeral notice in the Arizona Daily Star of June 6 and a death notice in the Los Angeles Times of June 9 (see below). That Linick's death was apparently not reported in at least the local Tucson or Arizona state newspapers, supports that there was something mysterious about Linick's death. The sudden

[Left: Timothy W. Linick's funeral and death notices sent to me by the Library of Congress. In the words of the librarian: "I am attaching two death notices, one from the Arizona Daily Star (June 6), and one from the Los Angeles Times (June 9)" and "I have not been able to find any additional information on the cause of Linick's death"[26]].

"untimely" death of a 42 year-old local scientist (especially one who had only a year before been involved in carbon-dating the Shroud of Turin) is sufficiently unusual to have been newsworthy, so there may have been a high-level suppression of news about Linick's death, due to its circumstances which may have made US security agencies suspect the KGB's involvement.

• Linick's role at Arizona laboratory included the AMS measurement procedures Linick was mentioned in a footnote to the 1989 Nature paper as the lead author of a 1986 paper which covered the "specific measurement procedures" for Arizona laboratory:

"The specific measurement procedures for each laboratory are given by Linick et al. 9 for Arizona , by Gillespie et al. 10 for Oxford and by Suter et al. 11 for Zurich"[27].

It may be significant that Linick is the only one of those three who originally described the AMS measurement procedures at each of the laboratories, who was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper.

At footnote 9 of the Nature paper that previous paper is cited as:

"Linick, T. W., Jull, A. J. T., Toolin, L. J. & Donahue, D. J. Radiocarbon 28, 522-533 (1986)"[28]
In that paper[29] Linick described in minute technical detail how the AMS system at Arizona measured the carbon 14 content of samples, for example:
"At the start of operation, the carbon targets are mounted in aluminum holders (see Jull et al, 1986), placed into a circular target wheel, which has a capacity of 10 targets, and inserted into the vacuum system. Typical vacuum levels in the source during operation are 8 x 10-7 torr. After a 25kV bias is applied to the target plate and the Cs beam is focused on the 1 mm-diameter target, each target is sequentially left in the Cs beam for five minutes to cesiate the target surface and to remove surface contamination. ... In each target wheel, there are normally two targets made from standard material (usually, 11 oxalic acid I and II) in positions 1 and 6, and either 8 sample targets or 7 sample targets plus a target made from a material containing no 14C before preparation"[30].

So Linick would have had access to Arizona's AMS control console computer and would understand what its carbon 14 measurement program did, and indeed may even have written that program! Also, the above standard order of samples explains how Linick could write a program, not only for Arizona, but also for the other two laboratories, Zurich and Oxford, and the program would know which sample was the primary one. Which sample was the Shroud was known by its distinctive weave and a unique identifying code for the Shroud and the control samples was imposed upon the laboratories by the coordinator of the dating, Prof. Tite of the British Museum[31]. It would therefore not be difficult for a competent programmer, as the "extremely mathematically gifted"[32] Linick presumably was, to write a program which could detect that the test was of the Shroud and then substitute the dates of the primary sample with random dates within limits which, when they were calibrated, totalled and averaged, would make the flax of the Shroud appear to have been harvested a plausible period of time before McCrone's prediction of "about 1355" above.

• Linick had sufficient time to prepare and carry out his hacking On 10 October 1987 the Archbishop of Turin advised the seven laboratories that were originally proposed to carbon-date the Shroud, using two different methods, that their number had been reduced to three AMS laboratories: Arizona, Oxford and Zurich[33]. So after that Linick could have realised that it was feasible for him to write a program to be installed on the AMS control console computers at the three laboratories (which were effectively clones of each other[34]), to replace the Shroud's carbon 14 dates coming from their AMS systems, with computer-generated dates which would ensure the Shroud appeared to date a plausible time before the Shroud's debut in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in about 1355[35]. On 21 April 1988 the sample was cut from the Shroud and sub-samples in turn were cut from it and distributed to leaders of the three laboratories[36]. The first actual dating of the Shroud was over six weeks after that when Arizona carried out its first run on 6 May 1988[37]. Zurich was next with its first dating on or about 26 May[38], nearly three weeks after Arizona's. Six weeks after that, on 9 July, Oxford still had not begun dating the Shroud [39]. So Linick had enough time after he had proved his program worked at Arizona to have it installed on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers. Although because he may have been unsure when each laboratory would date the Shroud, Linick may have written his program and had it installed on all three laboratories' AMS computers even before, or shortly after, the sample was cut from the Shroud.

• The AMS control console computer at Arizona was a "DEC computer system" In the above 1986 paper Linick also mentioned that the AMS control console computer was a "DEC computer system" which "largely controls the ... calculation of results for each 15-minute run":

"The DEC computer system largely controls the cycling of isotopes, accumulation of data, and calculation of results for each 15-minute run"[40]

This is consistent with the computer in the photo above, from page 176H of Prof. Gove's book, appears to be a DEC VT-100 terminal, which were

[Right: A DEC VT-100 terminal[41].]

typically networked to a DEC mini-computer (i.e. a mini-mainframe-computer). "DEC" stands for Digital Equipment Corporation, the maker of the powerful PDP-11 and VAX-11 mini-computers which were very popular in science laboratories in the 1980s.

• Arizona's Prof. Jull's and Oxford's Prof. Ramsey's misleading and false responses to my hacking proposal A copy of a comment I made on Dan Porter's blog, proposing that the radiocarbon dating laboratories may have been duped by a computer hacker (at that early stage I did not claim it was a theory) was sent without my permission to Prof. A.J. Timothy Jull, Director of the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory.and to Oxford's

[Left: Prof. A.J.T. Jull: Hungarian Academy of Sciences[42]. Prof. Jull was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper[43] and is in Prof. Gove's photo above of those present at Arizona's first dating of the Shroud.]

Prof. Christopher Ramsey, by the anti-authenticist Editor of the BSTS Newsletter, Hugh Farey[44] and then posted by Porter to his blog[45] .

Prof. Jull's reply (copied to my blog [46]) was as follows:

"This is impossible. In our case, the software for the calculations is offline. In any case, the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph, as I recall. Indeed, in 1988 the internet (as we know it today) didn't exist – there was a pre-existing network run by the US government which was quite restricted. Anyway, the machine we used at that time couldn't have been attached to it, and that one still isn't."

First I was (and still am) amazed that two Professors and Directors of major radiocarbon laboratories would bother responding to an anonymous (Farey said he did not give them my name) blog comment. I don't know what Farey prefaced my comment with, but as I pointed out in my response on Porter's blog (copied to my blog[47]), I said nothing about "the Internet" and Prof. Jull's "the software for the calculations is offline ... the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph" is both misleading and false. As we have seen above, while the final calibration was "done offline and plotted on a graph," as I did in part #5, the actual "calculation of results for each 15-minute run" was done by the very powerful "DEC computer system."

So I found (and still do find) Prof. Jull's (and Prof. Ramsey's - see below) downplaying of the role of the AMS control console computer and his attempted `red herring' diversion away from the calculation of results by the computer to the calibration of those computer results using a graph, as very strange. And not only very strange but suspicious, when coupled with his (and Prof. Ramsey's) prompt response to my anonymous (to them) blog comment. It causes me to suspect that after Linick's "untimely" death, the circumstances of it may have prompted an investigation which found that Linick may have hacked into Arizona's AMS control console computer and therefore Arizona's radiocarbon dates may have been bogus. However, it may be that Linick covered his tracks so well and they could not prove it, and they could conceive how Linick could have also hacked Zurich and Oxford's computers.

Nevertheless I did accept at face value Prof. Jull's (and Prof. Ramsey's - see below) word that the AMS control console computers at Arizona and Oxford (and presumably also at Zurich) were never online. This however was not a problem for my theory because I had previously stated that if those computers were never online, they could still have been hacked manually and locally.

My surprise that Prof. Jull had responded to an anonymous (to them) comment of mine on Dan Porter's blog turned to amazement when my further reading of those comments revealed that the Director of the

[Right: Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey[48, 49], who as "C.R. Bronk" (for his original name Christopher Ramsey Bronk[50]) was also one of the signatories to the 1989 Nature paper[51].]

Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, Prof. Christopher Ramsey, had also responded to my comment sent to him by Farey, as follows:

"Yes – I agree with all that Tim [Jull] says. This would seem to be a suggestion from someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s. In the case of Oxford the AMS had no connection to any network (and indeed even today our AMS control computers have no network connections). The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured. Age calculation was done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS"[52]

As can be seen above, Prof. Ramsey's response was also misleading in that like Jull, he also strangely, and suspiciously, downplayed the role of the AMS control computer. Indeed some on Porter's blog (including Porter himself) took Prof. Ramsey to be claiming that the AMS computer was little better than a calculator, and Porter even questioned whether it was "programmable"! When as we have seen, both Jull and Ramsey knew it was a "DEC computer system", probably either a PDP-11 [right][53], or more likely a VAX-11 [below left][54], both of which were very powerful, programmable, and therefore hackable computers! In fact as we shall see in part #8, some versions of VMS, the operating system of PDP/VAX computers, were very vulnerable to hacking.

Moreover, in his reply above, Prof. Ramsey's "This would seem to be a suggestion from someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s" is not only false, it must be deliberately false, given that Ramsey, like Jull, knew that the AMS computer was a very powerful "DEC computer system." In fact, as I pointed out in my reply to Ramsey's response on Porter's blog, copied to my blog[55], far from me being "someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s":

"I was one of the first to have a personal computer in 1980. I pioneered the introduction of computers into Health Department of WA [Western Australia] hospitals in the mid-to late 1980s and in the late 1980s/early 1990s, I was the Systems Administrator of a network of 7 hospitals' UNIX systems."

Prof. Ramsey's response cannot be explained by a lack of computer literacy, since he is the author of Oxcal, a radiocarbon dating calibration computer program[56].

Prof. Ramsey's (and Prof. Jull's) prompt response to an anonymous (to them) blog comment, coupled with their misleading and even false replies, suggests that they both may know, or at least suspect, given the circumstances of Linick's death and that he was probably the leaker of Arizona's 1350 date, having been quoted in Sox's book (see part #6), that I am on the right track with my theory. Which is that the 1260-1390, 1325 ±65, radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, by three AMS radiocarbon dating laboratories, Arizona, Zurich and Oxford[57], all using the same "tandem Van de Graaff" accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) system[58] was bogus, being the result of a hacking of each of their AMS control console computers by the late Arizona physicist, Timothy W. Linick, aided by confessed KGB hacker, Karl Koch. Although I don't claim that the laboratories, or even Linick, knew about Koch.

Professors Jull and Ramsey, being signatories to the 1989 Nature paper, were involved in their respective laboratory's 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud and while they were not then leaders of their laboratories, they are now. If they do know, or suspect, that they were all duped by Linick, they would have a strong incentive to resist admitting it, and even covering it up. So I don't expect them to confirm that my theory was true, and indeed given their misleading and false responses above, I expect the opposite!

Continued in part #8.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176H. [return]
3. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
6. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147. [return]
7. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.138. [return]
8. McCrone, 1999, p.245. [return]
9. McCrone, 1999, p.178. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
11. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
12. Suess, H.E. & Linick, T.W., 1990, "The 14C Record in Bristlecone Pine Wood of the past 8000 Years Based on the Dendrochronology of the Late C. W. Ferguson," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 330, April 24, pp.403-412. [return]
13. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
14. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
15. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010h. [return]
16. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
17. de Nantes, G. & Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2014, "The Holy Shroud of Turin: II. The conclusion of a new trial," The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st Century, 27 March. [return]
18. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
19. 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.311. [return]
20. Galeazzi, G., 2013. "Never solved: The enigma that still divides the Church: The Shroud," Vatican Insider, 1 April. Translated from Italian by Google. See English translation, "Unsolved Enigma that Still Divides the Church: The Shroud." [return]
21. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.128-129. [return]
22. "Examination of the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud," Wikipedia, January 4, 2014. Translated from Italian by Google. [return]
23. Bonnet-Eymard, 2000. [return]
24. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp. 611-615, p. 611. [return]
25. "Who Can Obtain a Death Certificate,"Arizona Department of Health Services: Office of Vital Records, April 15, 20141. [return]
26. Email reply from the Library of Congress, received on 2 May 2014. [return]
27. Damon, 1989, p. 613. [return]
28. Ibid. [return]
29. Linick, T.W., et al. , 1986, "Operation of the NSF-Arizona accelerator facility for radioisotope analysis and results from selected collaborative research projects," Radiocarbon, Vol. 28, No. 2a, pp.522-533. [return]
30. Linick, 1986, p.522. [return]
31. Sox, 1988, pp.138-139. [return]
32. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
33. Gove, 1996, pp.213-214. [return]
34. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178. [return]
35. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
36. Gove, 1996, pp.260-261. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, pp.263-264. [return]
38. Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.131. [return]
39. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.91. [return]
40. Linick, 1986, p.524. [return]
41. "VT100," Wikipedia, 22 June 2014. [return]
42. "Prominent guest researchers arrive in Hungary," Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2013. [return]
43. Damon, 1989, p. 611. [return]
44. Farey, H., 2013, "Editorial - by Hugh Farey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 78, December. [return]
45. "Comment Promoted: On the Hacking Hypothesis," Shroud of Turin Blog, March 9. [return]
46. Jones, S.E., 2014, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," The Shroud of Turin blog, March 13. [return]
47. Jones, 2014. [return]
48. "Professor Christopher Ramsey" Merton College, Oxford, 2014. [return]
49. "Christopher Bronk Ramsey," Wikipedia, 23 March 2014. [return]
50. Bronk, C.R., 1987, "Accelerator Mass Spectrometry for Radiocarbon Dating: Advances in Theory and Practice," PhD Dissertation University of Oxford. [return]
51. Damon, 1989, p. 611. [return]
52. Jones, 2014. [return]
53. "PDP-11," Wikipedia, 17 May 2014. [return]
54. "VAX," Wikipedia, 20 June 2014. [return]
55. Jones, 2014. [return]
56. Ramsey, C.B., 2014, "OxCal," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 24 May. [return]
57. Damon, 1989, p. 611. [return]
58. Gove, 1996, pp.10-11. [return]


Updated: 12 July, 2014.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #6

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Here is part #6 of my series, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker." Previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, part #3, part #4 and part #5. Read those previous posts to obtain the background of my theory thus far.

[Right: Rev. H. David Sox's book, "The Shroud Unmasked," was written by "August 1988"[2], and the London Sunday Times had a copy of it by 18 September[3], more than two weeks before the official announcement of the carbon dating result[4] on 13 October 1988[5]. Sox quotes "Timothy Linick" in the book (see below), and while he cites no date of the Shroud in it, it is clear that Sox knew the result of Arizona's first carbon dating of the Shroud on 6 May 1988 up to two months before the official announcement[6].]

4. EVIDENCE THAT TIMOTHY W. LINICK WAS THE LEAKER OF ARIZONA'S 1350 DATE As part of my evidence that Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-4 June 1989)[7] was allegedly the primary hacker, who: 1) allegedly wrote and installed on Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS control console computer a program which ensured that the Shroud of Turin samples' actual radiocarbon dates would be replaced by dates which, when calibrated, clustered around 1325; and 2) allegedly passed that program on to the KGB, for which he was allegedly working, to be installed by confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–3 June 1989)[8] on the AMS control console computers at Zurich and Oxford's radiocarbon dating laboratories; here is my evidence that Linick allegedly leaked Arizona's 1350 radiocarbon date of the Shroud to the Rev. H. David Sox, an American Episcopalian priest, teaching at the

[Left (click to enlarge): David Sox (centre), meeting with Harry Gove (right) and a BBC representative (left) in 1986[9].]

American school in London[10]. And that Sox in turn leaked that date to the media through Luckett and others, well before the official announcement on 13 October 1988.

• Linick was an extreme Shroud anti-authenticist In his 1988 book, "The Shroud Unmasked," the Rev. H. David Sox, a former Shroud pro-authenticist General Secretary of the British Society of the Turin Shroud, but later turned anti-authenticist[11], quoted "Timothy Linick" as saying before Arizona's 6 May 1988 dating of the Shroud, "If we date it back 2000 years ... It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?" (my emphasis):

"The night before the test Damon told Gove he would not be surprised to see the analysis yield a date around the fifth-century, because after that time the crucifixion was banned and a forger would not have known of the details depicted so accurately on the Shroud. Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'"[12].

This is not only anti-authenticist of Linick, it is extreme anti-authenticist, which would not accept that the Shroud was authentic, even if its radiocarbon age was "2000 years"! That contrasts with non-extreme anti-authenticists like the late Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001) of Oxford laboratory (and the late Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009) of Rochester laboratory who quoted Hall approvingly)), who would have accepted the Shroud was authentic if its carbon-date was first century (see below).

Indeed Linick's quoted words are so similar to what the extreme Shroud anti-authenticist, the late Dr Walter McCrone (1916-2002) wrote in 1981, "A date significantly later than the first century would be conclusive evidence the `Shroud' is not genuine. A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ...":

"My conclusions published in October 1980-March 1981 (McCrone and Skirius 1980) (McCrone 1981) were as follows:
`Our work now supports the two Bishops [the Bishops of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers (†1354–1370) and Pierre d'Arcis (†1377–1395) and it seems reasonable that the image, now visible, was painted on the cloth shortly before the first exhibition, or about 1355. Only a carbon-dating test can now resolve the question of authenticity of the 'Shroud' of Turin. A date significantly later than the first century would be conclusive evidence the `Shroud' is not genuine. A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ, would, no doubt, be so accepted by nearly everyone.'"[13]

that it is evidence Linick was aware of, and agreed with, McCrone's 1980 claim that the Shroud "image ... was painted on the cloth ...about 1355" (my emphasis).

But Linick would have realised that because McCrone's "about 1355" date was when the Shroud's image was supposedly painted on the linen, the radiocarbon date for him to aim for was that of the harvesting of the flax[14], which more plausibly would have been well before 1355.

• Sox was allegedly the secondary leaker of Arizona's 1350 date In the first of many leaks of the Shroud's carbon dating results[15], on 3 July 1988, columnist Kenneth Rose (1924-2014) in the

[Right: The late Kenneth Rose[16], was the first to leak on 3 July 1988 that the carbon dating of the Shroud would be "medieval". Rose kept detailed private diaries from the 1940s until his death this year, totalling "six million words," which are being edited for publication by historian D. Richard Thorpe[17]. It will be interesting to see if Rose's published diaries mention who leaked the information to him that the Shroud would carbon date "medieval"!]

London Sunday Telegraph reported on the ongoing radiocarbon dating of the Shroud that:

"In spite of the intense secrecy surrounding the investigation I hear signs that the linen cloth has been proved to be mediaeval"[18].
The story was picked up by news media around the world[19]. Suspicion fell on Oxford laboratory having leaked the results, but Oxford's Prof. Hall and Dr. Hedges[20] in letter to The Times of 9 July denied that, pointing out that Oxford had not yet begun its dating of the Shroud[21].

On 21 July 1988 the BBC's Neil Cameron phoned Gove and told him that after filming the Timewatch "Shreds of Evidence" documentary on the Shroud in Zurich, between 8th[22] and 13th May 1988[23], accompanied by Sox[24] as the program's sole consultant[25], that Cameron had "gleaned ...that the shroud dated to the 13th century"[26]. Zurich carried out its dating on 26 May[27], twenty days after Arizona[28] and, according to Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper[29], Zurich's average age of the Shroud was 676 ± 24 years, which is 700-652 years before 1950[30], which in turn is 1250-1298, entirely in the thirteen century (see my uncalibrated and calibrated spreadsheet tables and and bar charts in part #5).

Then on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran a front-page story, "Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake"[31], with an accompanying article by Cambridge librarian Dr. Richard Luckett stating that "a

[Left: "Dr Richard Luckett [who] has been the Pepys Librarian at Magdalene College, Cambridge, since 1982"[32], i.e. Luckett's position in August 1988 when he leaked, allegedly on behalf of Sox, who allegedly received it from Linick, Arizona's 1350 date of the Shroud to the London Evening Standard.]

probable date of about 1350 looks likely" and remarking that "laboratories are rather leaky institutions"[33].

This generated another world-wide media frenzy, yet none of the laboratories nor the British Museum knew Luckett or how he had obtained his information[34]. It was generally assumed that the Oxford laboratory, which had completed its dating on 6 August, had leaked the 1350 date to Luckett[35]. But not only was Oxford's mean date "several decades less than 1350 AD"[36], in an Associated Press story of 9 September 1988, Luckett was quoted as saying:

"I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories and it wasn't Oxford" (my emphasis)[37].

Gove, knowing that Luckett's date of 1350 was Arizona's first date of the Shroud on 6 May 1988, became "worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement" (as Linick was):

"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. Of course, it also corresponds very closely to the shroud's known historic date. However, 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"[38].

I have been told privately of a possible connection between Sox, Luckett and Rose, but I am not at liberty to reveal it.

On 23 September 1988, Ian Wilson in a special letter to all BSTS members, publicly named "the Revd. David Sox" as "the ... source of possibly all the leaks" and "his `inside' information ... can only have come from Arizona or Zurich":

"As members can scarcely fail to have been aware, ever since early July there have been a spate of press rumours that the Shroud has been carbon-dated to sometime in the mediaeval period. The rumours have chiefly come from this country ... Towards the end of July the rumours were rekindled as a result of pre-publicity surrounding the BBC Timewatch television programme `Shreds of Evidence'. ... transmitted 27 July ... The programme had just one 'expert' consultant, the Revd. David Sox. ...on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran as its front-page lead story `Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake'. Accompanying this was a seemingly authoritative article by librarian Dr. Richard Luckett of Magdalene College, Cambridge, cryptically remarking that `laboratories are rather leaky institutions' and `a probable date of about 1350 looks likely' ... yet both the Oxford laboratory and Dr. Michael Tite of the British Museum insisted that they knew nothing of how Dr. Luckett had come by his information, and had had no dealings with him. When in a telephone enquiry to Dr. Luckett I asked whether the Revd. David Sox had been his source, he hastily changed the subject. ... On 18 September the Sunday Times carried the front page headline `Official: Turin Shroud is a Fake' ... the Science Correspondent ... admitted that his source had been the Revd. David Sox. ... It seems clear that they have been mistaken, and that the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman whose identity will now be self-evident. This individual's means of obtaining his `inside' information (which can only have come from Arizona or Zurich) ... can only be guessed at"[39].

On the day of Wilson's special letter, Sox phoned Gove to deny he was the source of the leaks, but tellingly Gove did not record that he told Sox he believed him, but on the contrary Gove later wrote that Arizona's Donahue and Damon and Turin's Gonella had come to the conclusion that Sox was indeed the source of the leaks:

"David Sox called me from London on 23 September 1988 to say that Ian Wilson had charged him with being the source of all the leaks. Sox vigorously denied the charge. On 27 September I phoned Donahue. He told me that Damon had phoned Gonella and that Gonella had conceded that the rumours were correct but that it was not yet official. Gonella also told Damon that he believed the rumours came from me to Sox. Damon himself believed that Sox was the source of the leaks"[40].

The next day, 24 September, Sox reportedly admitted that he was at least partly to blame for the leaks:

"Finally, it became known that Sox was behind the rumours. He, however, was not prepared to foot the entire bill on behalf of everybody: `May I be damned if I were to let the entire blame fall on myself.' [La Stampa, September 24, 1988]. One thing is certain: Sox's book was already printed at the end of September, that is, more than two weeks before the official publication of the results. The Reverend had shown himself to be most informed on many secret aspects of the affair ..."[41].

And since, according to Table 1 of the 1989 Nature paper, none of Zurich's dates were anywhere near 1350[42], Sox's source of the "1350" date of the Shroud, which he evidently leaked through Luckett, had to have been someone from Arizona laboratory, who was present at that first dating run, as "T W Linick" was:

"The next morning at about 8 am (6 May 1988) I arrived at the Arizona AMS facility. ... I would be the only one present outside the Arizona AMS group. Doug immediately asked me to sign the following statement: `We the undersigned, understand that radiocarbon age results for the Shroud of Turin obtained from the University of Arizona AMS facility are confidential. We agree not to communicate the results to anyone - spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public.' It had been signed by D J Donahue, Brad Gore, L J Toolin, P E Damon, Timothy Jull and Art Hatheway, all connected with the Arizona AMS facility, before I signed. My signature was followed by T W Linick and P J Sercel, also from the Arizona facility"[43].

• Linick was allegedly the primary leaker of Arizona's 1350 date How would Sox even know that Linick existed, to quote him:

[Above: Quote of "Timothy Linick , a University of Arizona research scientist ...," on page 147 of Sox's book, "The Shroud Unmasked" (1988). This is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Linick was in direct contact with Sox in the period from just before Arizona's first dating of the Shroud as "1350" on 6 May 1988 and the last date in Sox's book "August 1988."].

unless Linick contacted Sox? Linick was not a laboratory leader, but an ordinary `back room' Arizona laboratory scientist. Sox's book has at the end of its Introduction its last date before publication, "August 1988"[44], and the book had its official launch on 15 October 1988[45]. So the 16 February 1989 Nature paper to which Linick was a signatory[46] was still four months in the future. Before then, outside of radiocarbon dating circles, Linick would have been unknown.

Besides, Sox in the above page states that the context of Linick's statement was "before the test," and specifically, before the day of the test. But according to Sox's own book, there was no opportunity for Gove to talk with Linick, before the day of the test:

"Harry Gove and Shirley Brignall arrived in Tucson, Arizona at 4.00pm on 5 May, three days before Neil Cameron and I were in Zurich. They were exhausted from a thoroughly fouled-up flying schedule due to bad weather. Gove called Douglas Donahue at the Arizona lab, and he told them to be at the Physics Department at 8.00 the next morning. They were starting the preparation for their first run on the samples at 7.00am. Paul Damon called an hour later and suggested he came over to the motel and have a beer and a chat with Gove and Brignall ... Gove arrived at the Physics Department around 9.00am"[47].

In Gove's book he adds that after the Damon left, he and Brignall had dinner and then Gove was interviewed by Donahue's journalist son-in-law at 9:30 pm, and at 8 am the next morning Gove was at the Arizona laboratory:

"Damon then had to leave to attend some 'Jesse Jackson For President' function. Shirley and I had dinner at the Doubletree and had just gotten back upstairs when the phone rang. It was a reporter named Bill McClellan of the St Louis Post Dispatch ... [who] was married to one of Donahue's daughters. He was visiting the Donahues with his wife and two children and wanted a chance to talk to me. McClellan asked if he could interview me that evening. After consulting Shirley, I agreed we would meet him in the lobby about 9:30 ... During the interview ... He said he would phone me if he had further questions. The next morning at about 8 am (6 May 1988) I arrived at the Arizona AMS facility ... "[48].

So again there was no opportunity for Linick to have said the above words to Gove before the day of the test, and there is nothing in Gove account about him chatting with Linick or the other AMS staff while they were busy preparing the samples and carrying out final checks of the AMS system. And even if Gove had talked with Linick immediately before the test, Sox later stated in writing that it was not Gove who had told him Arizona's 1350 date (see below).

So how would Sox know that Linick said the above words, unless Linick said them directly to Sox, over the phone? In Gove's list above of all those who were present at Arizona's dating on 6 May, Sox wasn't there. According to Sox's book he was in Zurich on 8 May, two days after Arizona's first dating, consulting for the BBC's Timewatch documentary on the Shroud[49]. Then Gove in his book records that he had dinner with Sox in London on 12 May[50]. On the last page of Sox's book, in an end note, Sox wrote:

"Section XXIX Most of the observations in this section come from Harry Gove."[51]

That section begins with the arrival of Gove and his partner Shirley Brignall in Tucson on 5 May, the day before Arizona's first dating of the Shroud, and it ends on page 147 above with the AMS control console's computer's calculations of the Shroud's age being displayed on the computer's screen, and that Gove won his bet that the Shroud's age would be 1000 years against Brignall's 2000 years. So Gove had to admit in his 1996 book that he told Brignall the 1350 date, in breach of his signed undertaking above "not to communicate the results to anyone":

"I had a bet with Shirley on the shroud's age-she bet 2000 ±100 years old and I bet 1000 ±100 years. Whoever won bought the other a pair of cowboy boots. Although my guess was wrong, it was closer than Shirley's. She bought me the cowboy boots. The reader, by now, will have guessed that despite the agreement I had signed, I told Shirley the result that had been obtained that day. She and I had been associated with this shroud adventure now for almost exactly eleven years-there was no way I could not tell her. I knew she would never violate my confidence and she never did"[52].
and he must have told Sox that the Shroud's age, according to Arizona's first dating, was closer to 1000 years than 2000. But Gove makes it abundantly clear that he never divulged to Sox that Arizona's first date was "1350"[53], and he was puzzled when Luckett stated the radiocarbon date of the Shroud was "1350"[54]. And indeed Sox, in a copy of a letter forwarded to Gove, stated, "Gove didn't [tell me the 1350 date of the Shroud]":
"On 12 October I received by express mail a copy of a letter dated 7 October and postmarked 8 October 1988 that Sox had written to [Rinaldi]. He said `... Woelfli did not tell me, Gove didn't and I will never say how I came to have an inkling about the results ...' This letter settled the question of whether I revealed any information to Sox regarding the results obtained on the shroud's age during the first run I attended at Arizona. When I was in Britain in May to participate in the BBC's shroud programme I had taken great care not to tell him or Cameron or anyone else the results I had observed first hand in Tucson"[55].

Moreover, Gove would be most unlikely to quote Linick's words to Sox, given again that Linick was just another Arizona scientist. If Gove had wanted to make a similar statement, he would be perfectly capable of saying it himself, and with more weight than Linick. That is if Gove agreed with its extreme anti-authenticity, which going by Gove's approving quote of Oxford's Prof. Hall, that, "if the carbon date turned out to be around the start of the first century AD, he [Hall] would then find it difficult to dismiss the shroud's authenticity:"

"Hall went on to say that he would not know the results of the test until they were announced by the Vatican because he would have no way of knowing which piece of material was from the shroud. As an agnostic, he did not believe in any supernatural explanation for the shroud's images. He added that he viewed Christ as a historical individual with a powerful personality. He admitted that it is possible that, in some way we do not currently fully understand, some kind of impression from him was transferred to the shroud. However, if the carbon date turned out to be around the start of the first century AD, he would then find it difficult to dismiss the shroud's authenticity"[56].
Gove didn't agree with Linick's and McCrone's extreme anti-authenticism.

Neither Sox nor Gove said anything in their books about Sox flying to Arizona before its dating on 6 May, or after Zurich's dating on 26 May and before his book was published in August. And why would Sox go over there? He would have had his hands full writing his book in record time. Also, Sox was employed as a teacher at the American School in London (see above). So either someone in Arizona lab quoted Linick's words to Sox (and why would anyone do that when they could say it themselves?), and then Sox quoted Linick's words as hearsay in his book (a dangerous thing for an author to do especially in such a controversial topic). The publisher of Sox's book, to avoid possible legal action by Linick, would have routinely checked with Sox to make sure that Linick said those words directly to Sox. Finally, Sox's quote of Linick is in quotation marks, which means that Linick did say those words directly to Sox. Otherwise Sox would have had to preface Linick's words with something like, "X, in the Arizona laboratory before the dating of the Shroud, heard Timothy Linick, an Arizona laboratory scientist, say ..."

So the simplest (if not the only reasonable) explanation is that Linick communicated his quoted words directly to Sox over the phone, or by a written account. And since Sox was the secondary source of the leak of Arizona's 1350 leak (see above), the inference is irresistible that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's 1350 date to Sox.

While this does not alone prove that Linick was the hacker, who wrote and installed a program on Arizona's AMS control console computer (and indirectly on the counterpart computers at Zurich and Oxford), which replaced the Shroud's first (or early because of irremovable contamination by younger carbon) century radiocarbon dates with computer generated dates which, when calibrated, yielded the `bull's eye' date of 1350, it is now harder to argue that Linick wasn't the hacker. Given that Linick had breached his signed undertaking to keep the results of the dating confidential (see above) by leaking them to Sox, whom he must have known would in turn leak it to the media. And given that it would have been important for a hacker to create a climate of expectation to influence the other two laboratories to accept without question (as Arizona laboratory did) that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was medieval. And Linick's scientific career would have been adversely impacted (if not over) if Sox had inadvertently let it slip (which he almost did by quoting Linick in his book, which must have raised eyebrows among Linick's Arizona colleagues). So Linick must have been motivated by something more than an anti-authenticist desire to discredit the Shroud in advance of the official announcement a few months later, if he thought that Arizona's dating of the Shroud as 1350 was genuine.

But it is consistent with my theory that Linick was paid by the KGB to take that career-ending risk, to directly hack into Arizona's (and indirectly Zurich's and Oxford's) AMS control console computers so as to ensure that their Shroud samples returned a combined average calibrated radiocarbon date of about 1325, for the harvesting of the flax which became the Shroud's linen, just before its first appearance in undisputed history, at Lirey, France "about 1355," as publicly predicted by leading Shroud anti-authenticist Walter McCrone in the early 1980s (see above and the next part #7).

Continued in part #7.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.6. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1988a, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.19. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.6-7. [return]
6. Wilson, 1988a, p.19. [return]
7. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
8. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
9. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176G. [return]
10. Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
11. Ibid. [return]
12. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
13. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.138. [return]
14. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
15. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
16. "Kenneth Rose - obituary," The Telegraph, 29 January 2014. [return]
17. Shawcross, W., 2014, "Kenneth Rose: we'll miss his wit, warmth and wry sense of humour," The Telegraph, 1 February. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 1988b, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [return]
19. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
20. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
21. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.91. [return]
22. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
23. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
24. Sox, 1988, p.160. [return]
25. Wilson, I., 1988c, "Two Recent B.B.C. Television Programmes," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.23. [return]
26. Gove, 1996, p.274. [return]
27. Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.131. [return]
28. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.87. [return]
29. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.613. [return]
30. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
31. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
32. "Birthdays: Dr Richard Luckett," The Times, July 1 2010. [return]
33. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
34. Ibid. [return]
35. Gove, 1996, p.277. [return]
36. Gove, 1996, pp.277-278. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, p.278. [return]
38. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
39. Wilson, I., 1988b. [return]
40. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
41. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
42. Damon, 1989, p.613, 611. According to Table 1, the mean uncalibrated dates of Zurich's five Shroud samples runs were: 733, 722, 635, 639 and 679 years before 1950, which equates to 1217, 1228, 1315, 1311 and 1271. [return]
43. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
44. Sox, 1988, p.6. [return]
45. Wilson, 1998, p.311. [return]
46. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
47. Sox, 1988, pp.143,145. [return]
48. Gove, 1996, pp.261-262. [return]
49. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
50. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
51. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
52. Gove, 1996, p.265. [return]
53. Gove, 1996, pp.267, 276, 281, 283. [return]
54. Gove, 1996, pp.277-281. [return]
55. Gove, 1996, p.283. [return]
56. Gove, 1996, pp.184-185. [return]


Updated: 12 July, 2014.