Monday, April 14, 2014

Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #2 (Vignon markings)

Continuing with my series "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" from "Revised #1," with this Revised #2. Other previous posts in this series were, part 1, part 2, part 3, "Summary," "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," and "Further to my replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey."

After my previous Revised #1 post, which presented historical evidence for the Shroud's existence in the 13th and 12th centuries, I discovered more examples of the Shroud's existence in those two centuries, namely: the "Holy Face of Laon" (1201-1204) and a Christ Pantocrator fresco in the cave church of St Nicholas, in Casalrotto, Italy (c. 1150). I am back to the fourth century in my list of items of historical evidence of the Shroud's existence from the 13th to the 1st century and as I complete that I will now continue with a Revised #3 post in this series.

The purpose of documenting all this historical evidence of the Shroud's existence from the 13th to the 1st century is to prove, beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt, that the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" must be wrong.

And then the key questions would be (and are):

  1. "How could a 1st century cloth (absent fraud) carbon-date to the 13th-14th century?"; and

  2. "How could the midpoint of that date range, 1325 ±65, `just happen' (absent fraud) to be a mere ~25 years before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in the 1350s"?

Given that the leader of the Shroud carbon-dating project, Prof. Harry Grove, pointed out that the improbability of the Shroud being first century, yet its radiocarbon date being "between 1260 and 1390," is "about one in a thousand trillion" (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," p.303), I will document how courts decide, on the basis of high improbability, that a scientific fraud must have occurred.

And then, having proved beyond any reasonable doubt that there must have been fraud in carbon-dating the 1st century (or earlier) linen of the Shroud to 1325 ±65, I will re-present the evidence (not proof) for: 1) the fraud having been perpetrated by a computer hacker, or hackers; and 2) I will tentatively identify the hackers as having been Timothy W. Linick (1946-89), formerly of Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory, aided by Karl Koch (1965–89), a self-confessed hacker who had worked for the KGB.


The Vignon markings From the fifth century Jesus began to be consistently depicted in Byzantine Christian art as dark, Jewish, with long hair, a full forked beard, a long nose, large staring eyes, with a rigid front-facing posture[1]. In the 1930s, French Biology professor and artist, Paul Vignon (1865-1943), began to study a number of oddities that Byzantine portraits of Christ from the fifth century[2] shared in common[3]. After a painstaking comparison of hundreds of paintings, frescoes and mosaics with the face on the Shroud[4],

[Above (click to enlarge):

"The Vignon markings: "(1) Transverse streak across forehead, (2) three-sided `square' between brows, (3) V shape at bridge of nose, (4) second V within marking 2, (5) raised right eyebrow, (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, (10) heavy line under lower lip, (11) hairless area between lower lip and beard, (12) forked beard, (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair"[5].

Compare the above with a positive photograph of the Shroud face, as close as we can today get to what artists looking at it directly would have seen, with its Vignon markings numbered.

[Above (click to enlarge): Positive photograph of the Shroud face, with Vignon markings numbers 1-15 superimposed[6].

Vignon identified 20 such oddities, most of which artistically made no sense, including imperfections in the Shroud's weave, but were repeated slavishly[7] by Byzantine artists from the 5th to the 12th century[8]. Confirmation that the artists were copying the Shroud is evident in that they were trying to make sense of a negative image[9], for example open staring eyes which were actually closed in death[10], of which they could have had no concept of, the camera with negative film not having been invented until the 19th century[11].

Vignon paid particular attention to a topless square (Vignon marking 2 above) on the 8th-century Christ Pantocrator in the catacomb of St. Pontianus, Rome[12] Artistically it made no sense, yet it appears on other Byzantine Christ portraits, including the 11th century Daphni Pantocrator, the 10th century Sant'Angelo in Formis fresco, the 10th century Hagia Sophia narthex mosaic, and the 11th century "Christ the Merciful" mosaic in Berlin[13]. And at the equivalent point on the Shroud face, there is exactly the same feature where it is merely a flaw in the weave[14].

In 1938 Vignon presented his discoveries as an "Iconographic Theory" in his book, "Le Saint Suaire de Turin: Devant La Science, L'archéologie, L'histoire, L'iconographie, La Logique,"[15] in which he proposed that the Shroud was known and revered as far back as the fifth century[16]. Ian Wilson reduced Vignon's list of 20 peculiarities down to 15 more certain "Vignon markings"[17] (see above). No one work featured every peculiarity[18], but of the 15 Vignon markings, some feature 13 (e.g. the 11th century Pantocrator in the dome of the church of Daphni, Greece) and even 14 (e.g. the 12th century Cefalu apse mosaic and the 10th century Sant'Angelo in Formis fresco[19]. Ian Wilson sampled depictions of Christ's face from the sixth, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries and found between eight and fourteen of these Vignon markings features on them, an average of 80 percent incidence[20].

Continued in Revised #3.

Notes
1. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.76. [return]
2. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.60. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised, p.103. [return]
4. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, p.157. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82e. [return]
6. Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Face Only Horizontal (cropped and rotated right 90°). [return]
7. Wuenschel, 1954, p.60. [return]
8. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
9. Wuenschel, 1954, p.58. [return]
10. Wilson, 1979, p.105. [return]
11. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.82. [return]
12. Wilson, 1979, p.103. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
14. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.142. [return]
15. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.161-162. [return]
16. Walsh, 1963, pp.154-157. [return]
17. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
18. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, pp.104-105. [return]
20. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.128. [return]


Posted: 14 April 2014. Updated: 2 November 2017.

7 comments:

Bippy123 said...

Hello Stephen, I was wondering where Got this ridiculous number "1 in a thousand trillion " to estimate the chances of the shroud being from then1st century.

If he had actually researched the evidence that we have at our disposal and that you have so graciously supplied us in your blog, he would have no choice but to conclude that the odds of the shroud being from the 13th century is zero.

But I guess grove is ok with fabricating make believe numbers out of thin air.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Bippy123

>...I was wondering where Got this ridiculous number "1 in a thousand trillion " to estimate the chances of the shroud being from then1st century.

Gove doesn't give details, but I accept that, as a physicist, he would be correct on "the statistical probability that the shroud [C14] dates between 1260 and 1390," yet it was actually "first century," being "about one in a thousand trillion."

Gove meant it to prove that it was effectively impossible for the Shroud to be first century when its C14 date was 1260-1390.

But it cuts both ways. If the Shroud IS 1st century (as the OVERWHELMING weight of the evidence points to) then it is effectively impossible that it's C14 date could be 1260-1390.

Therefore, there MUST have been fraud in the C14 dating of the Shroud. The question then is, what TYPE of fraud was it?

I propose that the evidence points to the fraud having been perpetrated by a computer hacker (or hackers).

>If he had actually researched the evidence that we have at our disposal and that you have so graciously supplied us in your blog, he would have no choice but to conclude that the odds of the shroud being from the 13th century is zero.

Agreed. But in statistics there is no zero, except for logical impossibility. There is a very low probability that the Sun will not rise tomorrow. Gove's odds of "about one in a thousand trillion" is EFFECTIVELY zero.

That is, the chance that the Shroud, being 1st century, yet C14 dating 1260-1390, is effectively ZERO.

Therefore there HAD to have been fraud in that C14 dating of the Shroud.

>But I guess grove is ok with fabricating make believe numbers out of thin air.

The figure of "one in a thousand trillion," is presumably the statistical probability of an outlier of that magnitude.

But if you don't like Gove's "about one in a thousand trillion" number then the Oxford physicists who C14 dated the Shroud said it was "astronomical" that the Shroud could be 1st century, yet its C14 date was 1260-1390:

"As the world now knows, the Turin Shroud has been 'proved' a fake. On Thursday 13 October [1988] ... it was officially announced that the radiocarbon laboratories of Oxford, Arizona and Zurich had dated samples of the Shroud's linen `with 95% certainty' to somewhere between the years 1260 and 1390. At a British Museum press conference Dr. Michael Tite, together with fellow-physicists Professor Edward Hall and Dr. Robert Hedges of the Oxford laboratory, declared that the odds were now `ASTRONOMICAL' against the Shroud genuinely dating from around the time of Christ." (Ian Wilson, 1988. "The carbon dating results: Is this now the end?" BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.2).

That is, since the Shroud IS first century, the odds are ASTRONOMICAL that it could C14 date to 1260-1390. Therefore there WAS fraud in the C14 dating of the Shroud, to 1260-1390, or 1325 +/- 65.

Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
Reader, if you like this my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its Google PageRank number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.

JackieW said...

I am new to this debate, but have studied the Shroud off and on (as I have had time) since 1978. I have even had the great privilege (to me) of meeting Eric Jumper when he was at the Air Force Academy back in the day.
Anyway, just bought but have not yet read The DNA of God, and the author has proposed an interesting explanation (other than outright foul play) for the carbon dating snafu on the Shroud. I always figured that perhaps someone just substituted fibers from the patches after the Lirey fire. But if that is not what happened, and if no computer hacking went on (and I hold no opinions, since I wasn't there and have no idea), then perhaps Garza-Valdes' idea is correct.

His idea, as I understand it (and remember, I have not read the book yet) is that some bacteria produce an organic coating (what he calls a "bioplastic coating") over time on ancient textiles, textiles including the Shroud itself. Apparently this can really skew carbon dating. You can read the book's description at Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/The-DNA-God-Leoncio-Garza-Valdes/dp/0385488505.

Sorry for the repeated information if you already knew it. :-D

Closed minded folks and know it all's really are annoying, aren't they? There always seems to be something new that is cool to learn, but they just want to rain on our parade. They need to go home and rain on their own parades. Have a blessed day!

Stephen E. Jones said...

JackieW

>I am new to this debate, but have studied the Shroud off and on (as I have had time) since 1978. I have even had the great privilege (to me) of meeting Eric Jumper when he was at the Air Force Academy back in the day.

Thanks for your comment. I am having computer problems so apologies for the delay in responding, I will delete your next messages if they are the same as this one.

>Anyway, just bought but have not yet read The DNA of God, and the author has proposed an interesting explanation (other than outright foul play) for the carbon dating snafu on the Shroud. I always figured that perhaps someone just substituted fibers from the patches after the Lirey fire.

They would have then carbon-dated 15th /16th century, not 13th/14th century. And the laboratories could tell from the Shroud’s distinctive weave which sample was from the Shroud.

>But if that is not what happened, and if no computer hacking went on (and I hold no opinions, since I wasn't there and have no idea),

We don’t have to have been there to work out what happened, beyond reasonable doubt. Any more than a detective has to be there when a crime was committed to work out what happened, beyond reasonable doubt.

On my proposal that the laboratories were duped by a computer hacker, most of those who were there when the Shrould was carbon-dated did not realise that they had been hacked.

>then perhaps Garza-Valdes' idea is correct. His idea, as I understand it (and remember, I have not read the book yet) is that some bacteria produce an organic coating (what he calls a "bioplastic coating") over time on ancient textiles, textiles including the Shroud itself.

I own and have read Garza-Valdes' book, and he has a valid point that the Shroud would have been coated with microorganisms (I have a Biology degree and one of my lecturers told our class that if all of us students in the lecture theatre were suddenly to disappear, he would still be able to see each of us by our ghostly covering of microorganisms).

>Apparently this can really skew carbon dating. You can read the book's description at Amazon here:
>http://www.amazon.com/The-DNA-God-Leoncio-Garza-Valdes/dp/0385488505.

While it is a valid point that the Shroud, if authentic, would have over 19 centuries, absorbed into its flax fibrils newer carbon which would have become an integral part of the Shroud itself, and which could not have been removed without destroying the Shroud sampple, the laboratories’ pretreatment would have removed that SURFACE biofilm of microorganisms.

And as Prof. Harry Gove pointed out, from memory, it would require 21% of the Shroud to have been younger carbon to cause a 1st century Shroud to carbon date 1206-1390, i.e. 1325 +/- 65 years.

The same problem affects ALL younger carbon contamination theories, and also Benford & Marino's invisible reweave theory.

It would be a MIRACLE if, absent fraud, the Shroud being 1st century `just happened’ to carbon date to 1325 +/- 65 years, only ~25 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in ~1350.

>Sorry for the repeated information if you already knew it. :-D

No need to be sorry. Even though I did know it, many of my readers would not have.

>Closed minded folks and know it all's really are annoying, aren't they? There always seems to be something new that is cool to learn, but they just want to rain on our parade. They need to go home and rain on their own parades.

I presume this is meant to apply to those who are too closed-minded to consider my new proposal that the radiocarbon laboratories were duped by a computer hacker (or hackers) in their 1988-9 claim that the Shroud has a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 i.e. 1325 +/- 65 years. If so, the problem is THEIRS not mine.

>Have a blessed day!

Thanks, particulalry this blessed Resurrection Sunday!

Stephen E. Jones

JackieW said...

Stephen,
I don't really want to fight, but I am still absorbing all the new evidence that has come in since I last had time to check all the info out.

Now, I did watch a YouTube video about the radiocarbon dating done in 1988. One thing that stood out to me even then was that the Shroud has a KNOWN history since it was in Lirey, France. That known history falls to the back of the carbon dating range. But then this controversy started. Have you seen the clips? (I could only find one when I went back to look) where Ray Rogers and others were interviewed after the reweave on the edges and Ray Rogers had to admit that the non-scientists had found something he had missed? Here is the link I found. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZIY3wA-_hM)

I was astonished, but delighted, simply because the clincher for me that the Shroud is something amazing is the ability it has to hide and hold - for Centuries - 3D data that no one knew was there. Shoot, we haven't been doing 3D for that long ourselves, and the Shroud had had it for as long as it has been around. And photographic negativity as well.

The blood is blood (apparently AB+), etc. I've known since Jonathan Heller's book that they discovered that the image is a scorch, and can be reversed by re-hydration. The only other image that is even a bit like the Shroud image is the ones found in Japan after the bombs were dropped. Only, of course, those were not left on cloth. I don't know of any method to do this kind of "art" on purpose. Or any way of doing it accidentally. But the image remains, and no on has a clue how it go there with all the 3D data got there. And the image remains Amazing. Can't take Amazing away from it. :-D

Oh, my congregation celebrates Easter every week... but we are considered weird for it. Which is fine. But the more I remember, the more thankful I am for my salvation. :-)

Stephen E. Jones said...

JackieW

>I don't really want to fight, but

Nor do I, that is why I normally restrict debate in my comments by allowing only to one comment per person under each post.

>... I am still absorbing all the new evidence that has come in since I last had time to check all the info out.

Great!

>Now, I did watch a YouTube video about the radiocarbon dating done in 1988. One thing that stood out to me even then was that the Shroud has a KNOWN history since it was in Lirey, France.

The Shroud has an UNDISPUTED history from the 1350s. It has a KNOWN history all the way back to the 1st century. As I will demonstrate in this series, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised."

>That known history falls to the back of the carbon dating range.

It depends on what you mean by "back". The carbon dating range was 1260-1390, and what you call the "known history" was from 1350. So the 130 year carbon dating range only overlaps the undisputed history of the Shroud by 40 years.

>But then this controversy started. Have you seen the clips? (I could only find one when I went back to look) where Ray Rogers and others were interviewed after the reweave on the edges and Ray Rogers had to admit that the non-scientists had found something he had missed? Here is the link I found. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZIY3wA-_hM)

Thanks. I will look at it later today.

>I was astonished, but delighted, simply because the clincher for me that the Shroud is something amazing is the ability it has to hide and hold - for Centuries - 3D data that no one knew was there. Shoot, we haven't been doing 3D for that long ourselves, and the Shroud had had it for as long as it has been around.

And that 3D property of the Shroud image is just ONE of the clinchers that the Shroud is authentic.

>And photographic negativity as well.

Another clincher.

>The blood is blood (apparently AB+), etc.

Yes. And Jews have a high percentage of the AB blood group.

>I've known since Jonathan Heller's book that they discovered that the image is a scorch, and can be reversed by re-hydration.

Agreed that the image is a type of scorch, but not produced by heat.

But I am not sure that the image can be reversed by re-hydration. The Shroud's linen background colour is catching up to the colour of the Shroud, but as far as I am aware the image colour is not reverting to the colour of the linen background.

If that were the case the image would have reverted to the colour of the linen background early in its existence. Do you have a quote and/or page number from Heller's "Report on the Shroud of Turin" in which he states that the Shroud's image can be reversed by re-hydration?

>The only other image that is even a bit like the Shroud image is the ones found in Japan after the bombs were dropped. Only, of course, those were not left on cloth.

Those images on metal and concrete were produced by intense light and/or radiation. Nothing was added, the molecules were just rearranged. So they are analogous to what caused the Shroud's image.

>I don't know of any method to do this kind of "art" on purpose. Or any way of doing it accidentally.

It can be done by a battery of high-energy excimer (ultraviolet) lasers radiating about "34 thousand billion watts"! See my 2011 post, "Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe."

>But the image remains, and no on has a clue how it go there with all the 3D data got there. And the image remains Amazing. Can't take Amazing away from it. :-D

Agreed.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>Oh, my congregation celebrates Easter every week... but we are considered weird for it. Which is fine. But the more I remember, the more thankful I am for my salvation. :-)

So does my Church of Christ congregation in that we celebrate the Lord's Supper every week in which we remember the death of Christ, who was made sin for us that we can, if we receive it by faith, become God's righteousness:

2Cor 5:21. For our sake he [God the Father] made him [Christ, God the Son] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

According to my normally one comment, per person, per post policy, you have had your last comment under this post, except to cite a quote and/or page number from Heller's "Report on the Shroud of Turin" in which he states that the Shroud's image can be reversed by re-hydration. But you are free to make one comment under any other post.

I give the reason for that policy in my current post:

"... it is part of those policies not to allow extensive debate on my blog, but to normally only allow one comment per person under a particular post. I see my blog as more like a newspaper allowing letters to the editor, one letter per reader per issue, than a discussion board, allowing multiple `letters' on any one issue from individual readers. See "What are the Differences Between Message Boards and Weblogs?"

Stephen E. Jones