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[but see 17May15])[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: 24 June 2014. Updated: 25 September 2016.

Friday, June 13, 2014

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #5

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

I have decided to retrospectively split part #4 of my series, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" into two parts. So this part #5 is what was previously the latter half of part #4, expanded. Other previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, and part #3. The reason that I split part #4 is I later realised that Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper (see below), is a very important item of evidence for my theory that the radiocarbon dates of the Shroud were not real dates, but were computer generated random numbers within limits so that when calibrated to take account of past variations in atmospheric CO2, their midpoint was 1325[2], just before the Shroud's first appearance at Lirey, France, in the 1350s[3].

[Above (click to enlarge): Carousel wheel of the CEDAD (CEntro di DAtazione e Diagnostica) AMS radiocarbon dating facility at the University of Salento, Italy[4]. The target and control samples are converted to pure carbon and then compressed into tiny carbon pellets inside the holders on the carousel wheel:

"Next the sample became a target. The powdery graphite was ... loaded into tiny target holders, and thousands of pounds of pressure per square inch was applied with a drill press. The Shroud sample was now a target for the beam of caesium atoms which was to be fired at it"[5].]

This CEDAD carousel wheel has 12 target holders and is of unknown diameter. Arizona's (and presumably Zurich and Oxford's) carousel wheel had ten holders and its diameter was "a little larger than a two pence coin" (about 26 mm or 1 inch)[6]:

"Like gunpowder packed into a bullet casing, the Shroud sample now reduced to graphite is compressed into metal pellets one millimetre in diameter. A drill press with thousands of pounds of pressure is used for this task. Ten pellets with graphite are loaded into holes in a small carousel that is a little larger than a two pence coin. ... The carousel is loaded into the end of the accelerator, and under a vacuum, a beam of caesium atoms is fired at the graphite target"[7] (see below).

This small size of the carousel and all the samples being on it together and irradiated one after the other in close succession is very important evidence of my theory as we shall see below.]

• The spread of the measurements for the Shroud sample is greater than that of the non-Shroud samples Under Table 2 the Nature paper admits that, "...the agreement among the three

[Above (click to enlarge): Table 2 in the 1989 Nature paper[8] showing that Sample 1 (the Shroud)'s average radiocarbon age for each laboratory was widely different, unlike the non-Shroud samples (2, 3 and 4). See my comparison table and chart below. This is even more important than I first realised as evidence for my theory that the Shroud samples' radiocarbon dates were not real dates like those of the non-Shroud samples, but were random numbers generated by a hacker's computer program which, when calibrated, would cluster around 1325.The computer hacker, as I have alleged, was Arizona Radiocarbon Laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-4 June 1989)[9], aided by self-confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–3 June 1989 [but see 17May15])[10], who both died of suspected `suicide' within days of each other (or even on the same day).

laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 [not the Shroud] is exceptionally good" but "The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted" (my emphasis):

"The mean radiocarbon dates and associated uncertainties for the four samples, as supplied by each of the three laboratories, are listed in Table 2 and shown in Fig.1. ... An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted"[11].

Below is my spreadsheet table showing the age ranges (before 1950)[12] and the years they equate to:

[Above: Spreadsheet table showing minimum and maximum year ranges of each of the three laboratories' average for Sample 1 (the Shroud). As can be seen, Oxford's 780-720 (years before 1950) age range (1170-1230) doesn't overlap either Arizona's (1273-1335) or Zurich's (1250-1298). And Arizona's and Zurich's ranges only overlap by 25 years (1273-1298). This is clearer in my spreadsheet bar chart below.]

[Above: Bar chart, based on the years in my spreadsheet table above, which in turn is based on the average age ranges for each laboratory's dating on Sample 1 (the Shroud) in Table 2, showing visually the wide differences between the three laboratories' dating of the Shroud sample. As can be seen, Oxford's year range of 1170-1230 does not overlap the year ranges of the other two laboratories. And Arizona's (1273-1335) and Zurich's (1250-1298) ranges only overlap by 25 years (distorted by limitations of the spreadsheet).]

I later realised that the above are uncalibrated ages. Since there does not appear to be calibrated years for each of the laboratory's dating of the Shroud I have now converted the above to calibrated years using the graph in Fig. 2 of the Nature paper below[13].

[Above (click to enlarge): Calibrated ages and dates of Arizona (red), Zurich (green) and Oxford (orange) laboratories based on the ages (before 1950) and years in Table 2, drawn on the calibration curve of Fig. 2 of the 1989 Nature paper, and corrected. See my spreadsheet table and bar chart below for these calibrated years.]

[Above: My spreadsheet table showing calibrated years of the Shroud (sample 1) based on Table 2 and Fig. 1 of the 1989 Nature paper, and corrected. See my bar chart below for a clearer view of the still wide differences between the three laboratories' dating of the same `postage stamp' sized sample of the Shroud divided between the three laboratories and dated by the same AMS method].

[Above: My bar chart of the Shroud samples' calibrated years based on my table above, which is turn is based on Table 2 and Fig. 1 of the 1989 Nature paper, and corrected. As can be seen, there are still wide variations between the three laboratories' dating of the Shroud, with Oxford's years still not overlapping Arizona's and Zurich' and those two laboratories overlapping by only 8 years (1285-1293), again distorted by limitations of the spreadsheet.]

This is inexplicable given that the laboratories' Shroud samples were all from the same `postage stamp' size sliver of linen[14], and all were

[Above (click to enlarge): Drawing of the approximately 8 x 1.2 mm sample area, from A1 (Arizona 1), O (Oxford), Z (Zurich) to A (Arizona), with a photo of the 8 cm x 1.2 cm sample superimposed over the drawing on the bottom right hand side[15]. Clearly there can be no significant difference in contamination between samples in such a tiny area. This is also very important (see below).]

dated by the same AMS method. Indeed, in their AMS dating method the three laboratories were effectively clones:

"Also to be discounted is the argument that the credibility of the shroud carbon dating is hugely reinforced by having been arrived at by three theoretically independent laboratories. This is totally vitiated by the fact that as users of Gove's accelerator mass spectrometer technique all three laboratories are clones of each other. Furthermore, instead of having received samples taken from different areas of the shroud, they all received sections of a single portion taken from one edge of the cloth. Effectively they were almost bound to achieve the same result, a weakness of the original decision on the choice of laboratories as made in Turin"[16]

The three laboratories, dating one-third each of the same `postage stamp' size sample, indeed "were almost bound to achieve the same result." But in fact, as Table 2 shows, they didn't! Even Wilson was taken in by the 1989 Nature paper's "95% chance that the Shroud was made between 1260 and 1390 A.D." when in fact it is based on "statistical sleight-of-hand" and "internal massaging of numbers":

"The widely reported `95% chance that the Shroud was made between 1260 and 1390 A.D.' sounds impressive, but it is the result of statistical sleight-of-hand. ... It all amounts to internal massaging of numbers which hides certain warning signals. In fact the wide range of dates among the three labs obtained in the Shroud sample as compared to the much narrower range in the three control samples indicates that the Shroud test gave an anomalous result. The report in Nature hints at the problem when it notes (in Table 2) that there is only a 5% probability of attaining by chance "a scatter among the three dates as high as that observed, under the assumption that the quoted errors reflect all sources of random variation." In plain English this means that all the statistical manipulation in the world can't get rid of the fact that the range of dates is much too large to be accounted for by the expected errors built into radiocarbon dating"[17].

But "all the statistical manipulation in the world can't get rid of the fact that the range of dates is much too large to be accounted for by the expected errors built into radiocarbon dating" (my emphasis)!

That "the spread of the measurements for the Shroud" is "greater than would be expected from the errors quoted ... demands the existence of a variable which the statistical analysis did not take account of":

"Set out in extremely technical terms [in the Nature article of 16th February 1989] the idea of odds was nonetheless missing from the abstract, the mediaeval date being presented as an indisputable certainty: 'Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud is mediaeval' ... the odds figured strongly in the conclusions, indeed forming the major plank on which the credibility of the mediaeval date was based. ... The real curiosity, therefore, is that these attestations were inverted in the main text of the paper, the spread of the measurements for the Shroud being stated to be 'somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted.' This demands the existence of a variable which the statistical analysis did not take account of, and which, unhappily, is impossible to identify"[18].

But there is no other variable possible (see below), so this is evidence for my theory that the Shroud samples' dates of all three laboratories were computer-generated by a hacker's (Timothy W. Linick's) program.

Remember that Sample 1 (the Shroud) and Samples 2, 3, 4 (the control samples) were all on the same "small carousel that is a little larger than a two pence coin" about 26 mm (~1 inch) diameter (see above).

[Right (click to enlarge): A British two pence coin (called "new pence" from 1971-1981) held by fingers[19] to show how small the laboratories' "carousel that is a little larger than a two pence coin" was.]

And each run consisted of a one minute ("10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts") measurement of each sample on the same "small carousel that is a little larger than a two pence coin":

"There were three or four members of the AMS team there when I arrived and they had almost finished the five minute per sample cesiation. This consisted of rotating each of the ten samples, located on the ion source wheel, into the cesium beam ensuring that the sample was coated with cesium. During this cesiation process the carbon-12 beam is measured and it was running approximately 12-13 microamps for each. At Rochester we would consider this a very good carbon beam intensity ... The first sample run was OX1. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen"[20].

Given these facts it is even more inexplicable why the Shroud samples would return such widely different dates, with Oxford's not even overlapping the others and the dates of Arizona and Zurich only overlapping at `top and tail' by a mere 25 years uncalibrated and 8 years calibrated.

It can't have been due to faulty AMS machinery because samples 2, 3 and 4's dates (on the same ~26 mm diameter carousel wheel, and dated only minutes apart) were "exceptionally good." And it couldn't have been due to different pretreatment because, as the Nature paper stated:

"From these data it can be seen that, for each laboratory, there are no significant differences between the results obtained with the different cleaning procedures that each used"[21].

And it couldn't have been because of differing degrees of contamination (including by 16th century invisible repairs) because each laboratory's sample was a one-third sub-sample cut from the same `postage stamp size' sample, and so they would have the same amount of contamination. Besides, Arizona laboratory still has some of their Shroud sample as it came from Turin, uncleaned and undated and it has "no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants" (as can be seen in the photomicrograph of it below):

Abstract. We present a photomicrographic investigation of a sample of the Shroud of Turin, split from one used in the radiocarbon dating study of 1988 at Arizona. In contrast to other reports on less-documented material, we find no evidence to contradict the idea that the sample studied was taken from the main part of the shroud, as reported by Damon et al. (1989). We also find no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants"[22]

[Above: Photomicrograph of one of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated Shroud sub-samples, presumably as it came from Turin with no pretreatment, photographed by Barrie Schwortz in 2012[23]. As can be seen, it has no obvious contamination or foreign fibres, whereas, as Prof. Harry Gove noted on an earlier black-and-white photograph of the same sample, if the Shroud were first century and subsequent contamination produced the fourteenth century radiocarbon date, then "this sample would have to be two thirds shroud and one third contamination":

"Photograph of one quarter of the shroud sample received by the University of Arizona. The dimensions are about 1/2 cm by 1 cm. The original sample was four times this area. It was divided into four pieces for separate measurements. Note the lack of any contamination. If the shroud were actually first century and modern contamination produced the 14th century result this sample would have to be two thirds shroud and one third contamination"[24].

If the Arizona laboratory is confident that the "mediaeval...AD 1260-1390"[25] radiocarbon date of the Shroud was correct, why doesn't it radiocarbon date this sample? I predict that if it did, the date would not be 13th-14th century, but rather 1st (or an early because of irremovable and invisible younger carbon contamination which has become absorbed into the Shroud's linen fibres[26]) century date. That would be a test of my theory.]

In fact from what Gove[27], Hall[28], and Benford & Marino[29] have elsewhere said, Gove probably meant one-third Shroud and two-thirds contamination would be needed to cause a first century cloth to have a fourteenth century radiocarbon date!

But it is explicable if the Shroud samples' dates were, unlike those of the non-Shroud samples, not real ages but were random numbers generated by a hacker's computer program within limits to ensure that the Shroud's radiocarbon dates, when calibrated, would cluster around 1325. A problem with randomly generated numbers is that for a small number of `rolls of the dice' (as there were with each laboratory's few Shroud dating runs) there can be wide variations. For example, with dice one could by chance throw two double sixes in the first two throws, but over a large number of throws it would even out. It is also evidence that all three laboratories' AMS control console computers were hacked, not only Arizona's.

Even though my theory at this early stage is entirely circumstantial, lacking as yet a `smoking gun', by a process of elimination of "the impossible," my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker, "however improbable" it may seem to be, "must be the truth":

"`How came he, then?' I reiterated. `The door is locked, the window is inaccessible. Was it through the chimney?' The grate is much too small,' he answered. `I had already considered that possibility.' `How then?' I persisted. `You will not apply my precept,' he said, shaking his head. `How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. Whence, then, did he come?' `He came through the hole in the roof,' I cried. `Of course he did. He must have done so. If you will have the kindness to hold the lamp for me, we shall now extend our researches to the room above, - the secret room in which the treasure was found'" (emphasis original)[30].

Which is not to say that there won't be comparatively minor, non-essential changes to it as new information comes to light. For example, Karl Koch is not essential to my theory, as Linick could have hacked Zurich and Oxford's 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.

Continued in part #6.

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. 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.7. [return]
3. Ibid. [return]
4. "Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," CEDAD, University of Salento, Italy, 27 June 2006. [return]
5. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.142. [return]
6. "Two Pence Coin Designs and Specifications," The Royal Mint, 10 June 2014. [return]
7. Sox, 1988, p.145. [return]
8. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.613. [return]
9. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
10. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
11. Damon, 1989, p.613. [return]
12. See note under "FIG.1 ... Ages are given in yr BP (years before 1950)." Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
13. Damon, 1989, p.614. [return]
14. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.94. [return]
15. Wilson, 1998, p.189. [return]
16. Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.178. [return]
17. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.32. [return]
18. Van Oosterwyck-Gastuche, M.C, 1991, "The Dating of the Shroud to the Middle Ages," BSTS Newsletter, No. 29, September, pp.8-9. [return]
19. "A List of All The Foreign Currency On My Table At This Very Moment," Open Urbanism blog, 28 February 2013. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
21. Damon, 1989, p.613. [return]
22. "Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin," Freer-Waters, R.A. & Jull, A.J.T., 2010, Radiocarbon, Vol 52, No 4. Note that the "dated" in the title is misleading, because to be "dated" by radiocarbon dating entails that the sample be reduced to pure carbon. What the authors presumably meant was that this undated sample is identical to a sample which was split from it and that sample was dated. [return]
23. "New Photographs Of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Samples," Shroud.com, November 21, 2012. [return]
24. Gove, 1996, p.265. [return]
25. Damon, 1989, p.613. [return]
26. Wilson, I., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. [return]
27. Gove, 1996, p.302. [return]
28. Wilson, I., 1989, "Lecture by Professor Hall of Oxford," BSTS Newsletter, No. 21, January/February, p.10. [return]
29. Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2008, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud," Chemistry Today, Vol 26, No. 4, July-August, pp.4-12, p.9. [return]
30. Doyle, A.C., 1923, "The Sign of Four," Penguin: London, reprinted, 2001, pp.42-43. [return]


Posted: 13 June 2014. Updated: 25 September 2016.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #4

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #4 of my series, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker." The previous posts

[Above (enlarge): Schematic of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating system at the University of Arizona in 2005[2]. Note the "Control Console" at bottom left next to the photograph of a computer. While this is presumably not the actual system used to radiocarbon date the Shroud of Turin in 1988[3], both then and now it is the control console computer which actually reports a sample's radiocarbon date.]

in this series were part #1, part #2 and part #3.

In those previous posts we saw:

  1. the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is authentic;
  2. therefore, the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "1260-1390" was wrong;
  3. the midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65 years, which `just happens' to be ~25-30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in the 1350s;
  4. the improbability that the 1st century Shroud has a radiocarbon date of 1290-1360 is "astronomical", about "a thousand trillion," indeed "totally impossible."
  5. Pro-authenticist explanations of how the 1st century Shroud samples had a radiocarbon date of 1325 ±65 years (e.g. contamination by newer carbon, invisible repairs by 15th century cotton, neutron flux caused by Christ's resurrection) all fail;
  6. therefore the radiocarbon date of 1290-1360 must be the result of fraud.
  7. However conventional fraud allegations such as sample switching are implausible.
  8. But there is a type of fraud that was prevalent in the 1980s, particularly at universities, with their poor computer and physical security, namely computer hacking.
  9. And there is evidence (but not yet proof) that Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-4 June 1989)[4] was allegedly the hacker, aided by with self-confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–3 June 1989[but see 17May15])[5], who both died by suspected suicide with a day of each other and possibly on the same day.

4. ARIZONA LABORATORY'S DATING OF THE SHROUD TO "AD 1350" Here again is the eyewitness account of Rochester University physicist Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), of Arizona Laboratory's very first (of all the laboratories) radiocarbon dating of the Shroud on 6 May 1988:

The first sample run was OX1. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The age of the control sample could have been calculated on a small pocket calculator but was not-everyone was waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue. His face became instantly drawn and pale. At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first. It had taken me eleven years to arrange for a measurement that took only ten minutes to accomplish! Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began" (my emphasis)[6].

Note the following from Prof. Gove's account above:

• "All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen" (my emphasis). There was a computer (the AMS control console computer) between the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer which actually carbon-dated the Shroud sample and the humans in the laboratory reading the computer's screen. A computer is controlled by a program and a program is hackable. A hacker with access to the AMS control console computer(s) could run a program which would intercept the output of the radiocarbon dating program, en route to the control console computer's screen and replace the Shroud's first (or early because of contamination) century date with "1350 AD," for this very first run of carbon dating of the Shroud. Thereafter for Arizona and the other two laboratories the hacker's program could replace the Shroud's date with random dates within limits which, after calibration, displayed dates clustered around 1325 ± 65. Finally the hacker's program could automatically order its own deletion when the dating of the Shroud would have been completed (e.g. after 3 months), leaving no trace of its temorary existence[7].

• "The first sample run was OX1. Then followed one of the controls. ... the next sample-the Shroud of Turin" As with the "OX1" (oxalic acid 1-see below) sample, each sample, including each of the two Shroud samples (see below) evidently had a unique identifier, since those reading the results on the computer screen knew which sample each was from. Prof. Gove had earlier explained what the order of the samples dated were:

"Eight of the ten samples in this first historic load were OX1, OX2, blank, two shroud and three controls. I did not note what the remaining two were. There may have been some duplicate controls and/or another OX. The OX1 and OX2 are standard samples made from oxalic acid ..."[8].

Table 1 in the 1989 Nature paper[9] lists what appears to be the unique identifiers of each of the three laboratories' Shroud ("Sample 1") and the other samples:

[Above (click to enlarge): Table 1 in the 1989 Nature paper showing the Shroud's unique identifying code as the first letter of each laboratories' name, a dot, and then the numeral "1". A note below the table explained:

"* The identification code for each measurement shows, in order, the laboratory, sample, measurement run, pretreatment and any replication involved" [10].

This code was allocated to each laboratory (e.g. A1, O1, Z1 for Arizona, Oxford and Zurich's Shroud samples)

[Left: Oxford radiocarbon laboratories' Shroud sample identification code "O1," one of their control samples "O3," and their stainless steel cylinders and wax seal[11].]

respectively ) by the British Museum's Prof. Michael Tite who gave them their Shroud and control samples with those identification codes:

"The representatives from the three laboratories left with their nine steel cylinders and a letter. The one to Zurich, for instance, read: The containers labelled Z1, Z2, and Z3 to be delivered to representatives of ETH contain one sample of cloth taken in our presence from the Shroud of Turin at 9.45am, 21 April 1988, and two control samples from one or both of the following cloths supplied by the British Museum: First-century cloth; eleventh century. The identity of the samples put in the individual containers has been recorded by a special notebook that will be kept confidential until the measurements have been made. ETH is short for the Federal Institute of Technology. The Oxford samples were labelled O1, O2 and O3 and the Arizona samples T1, T2 and T3. The letter was signed by the Archbishop and Michael Tite"[12].
If this code had been agreed to by all three laboratories, which seems highly likely, given that Prof. Tite needed to collate the results[13], then a hacker would be able to include in his program a simple test of which sample was from the Shroud, so that it could run automatically at all three laboratories.

• "the year the flax had been harvested ... was 1350 AD ... the time its historic record began"

Note how uncritical Gove, and indeed all present were, even by those who believed the Shroud was authentic, like Doug Donahue, a Roman Catholic[14]:

"I remember Donahue saying that he did not care what results the other two laboratories got, this was the shroud's age. Although he was clearly disappointed in the result, he was justifiably confident that his AMS laboratory had produced the answer to the shroud's age" (my emphasis)[15].
Gove even wrote approvingly of Donahue, the co-founder of Arizona laboratory[16], changing his mind and believing on the basis of one dating, at one laboratory, that "this was the shroud's age!

But they all chose to ignore that, according to Prof. Jacques Evin, then Director of the Radiocarbon Laboratory at the University of Lyon, it is not possible for radiocarbon dating to be "closer than a span of 200 years"[17] (see part #1).

And because they were all nuclear physicists[18] they did not realise how unlikely that date of 1350 was. Because the Shroud is known to have existed from at least 1355[19]

[Right (click to enlarge): Pilgrim's badge from the Shroud's historical debut at Lirey, France in c.1355[20].]

the flax would have to have been harvested in 1350, spun into fibre, woven into linen, and the image imprinted on the Shroud, all within 5 years!

And it would mean that the Arizona laboratory's pretreatment of their Shroud sample would have had to have been perfect, removing all non-original carbon. But that is unlikely because in the 1532 fire at least, some younger carbon would probably have been absorbed "into the flax fibres' very lumen and molecular structure" and "have become part of the chemistry of the flax fibres themselves and would be impossible to remove ... by surface actants and ultrasonic cleaning" (my emphasis):

"In the wake of all the rumours of a mediaeval date, the Society's textile specialist John Tyrer has been making some enquiries whether, in the wake of the 1532 fire, it may have been impossible for the carbon dating laboratories' pre-treatment procedures to have removed all potentially misleading forms of contamination. This is his report:

`In 1532 the Shroud was being kept inside a silver casket stored in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, when a fire nearly destroyed the building. The intense heat melted a corner of the casket, scorching the folded linen within, and producing the now familiar scorch marks on the Shroud. Since silver melts only at 960 degrees centigrade, the heat inside the casket must have been intense. In these circumstances moisture in the Shroud would turn to steam, probably at superheat, trapped in the folds and layers of the Shroud. Any contaminants on the cloth would be dissolved by the steam and forced not only into the weave and yarn, but also into the flax fibres' very lumen and molecular structure. The Shroud is now known to contain all kinds of contaminants, including microscopical fungi and insect debris as well as pollens and dust of all kinds. Furthermore the carbon test sampling appears to have been taken from an area where the Shroud would be handled and held during displays by hands soiled with perspiration and grease. Under the circumstances, contaminants would have become part of the chemistry of the flax fibres themselves and would be impossible to remove satisfactorily by surface actants and ultrasonic cleaning. More drastic treatments to destroy the contaminants would inevitably damage the flax fibres themselves.'"[21].

And being nuclear physicists they would probably be unaware that in 1350 the Shroud was was owned by the most honourable knight in France, Geoffrey I de Charny (c. 1300-1356):

"Geoffrey I was well-recorded historically, and virtually entirely favourably, as the very epitome of Chaucer's `verray, parfit gentil knyght'. He wore on his epaulettes the motto `honour conquers all'. He wrote deeply religious poetry ... He was chosen by France's king to carry into battle his country's most sacred banner, the Oriflamme of St Denis, an honour accorded only to the very worthiest of individuals. Not least, he died a hero, defending his king with his own body in the closing moments of the battle of Poitiers, and fourteen years after his death he was duly accorded a hero's tomb, at royal expense, in the Paris Church of the Celestines. It is extremely difficult to understand how such a man would have lent his name, still less the authority of his armorial shield, to the sort of fraud claimed by Pierre d'Arcis ["the dean of a certain collegiate church ... of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice ... procured for his church a certain cloth, cunningly painted"[22].

So the 1350 date must be wrong. But if a hacker wanted to break down pro-authenticity psychological resistance then 1350 was the date he would have used for that very first dating.

• That the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in the 1350s was well-known Indeed the 1989 Nature paper stated that the Shroud "was first displayed at Lirey in France in the 1350s" (my emphasis):

"The Shroud of Turin, which many people believe was used to wrap Christ's body, bears detailed front and back images of a man who appears to have suffered whipping and crucifixion. It was first displayed at Lirey in France in the 1350s ..."[23]

Leading Shroud sceptic Denis Dutton (1944-2010) had in 1986 publicly "predicted that if the cloth ever were to be carbon-dated it would come in at A.D. 1335, plus or minus 30 years" (my emphasis):

"In 1986, reviewing Ian Wilson's Evidence of the Shroud for the Christchurch Press, I predicted that if the cloth ever were to be carbon-dated it would come in at A.D. 1335, plus or minus 30 years. When the Shroud was finally dated and the results came back from the participating laboratories, the collated result was A.D. 1325, plus or minus 65 years. I was ten years off"[24]
Another leading Shroud sceptic, microscopist Walter McCrone (1916-2002) predicted of the Shroud in 1981 that "the image ... was painted on the cloth .. about 1355" (my emphasis):
"My conclusions published in October 1980-March 1981 (McCrone and Skirius 1980) (McCrone 1981) were as follows: `Our work now supports the two Bishops 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.'"[25].

So a hacker would know what date to `give' the Shroud for maximum effect: shortly before 1335-1355! And, as we shall see, there is evidence that Linick was at least familiar with McCrone's prediction.

• When Gove found out the number of laboratories had been cut fron 7 to 3 he wanted to cancel the dating Before the 1988 dating, Gove, the co-inventor of the Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method[26] used to date the Shroud, when he found out that the number of laboratories had been cut by Turin from seven to three, and the number of methods from two to one, he was so worried that at least one of the three laboratories would produce an outlier date, making it impossible to determine which (if any) laboratory's date was correct, that he drafted a letter to the Pope, calling on him "not to date the Shroud at all":

"The draft letter to the pope read as follows: ... The procedure that the Cardinal of Turin is suggesting is bound to produce a result that will be questioned in strictly scientific terms by many scientists around the world who will be very skeptical of the arbitrarily small statistical basis when it is well known that a better procedure was recommended. Since there is great world expectation for the date of the Shroud, the publicity resulting from a scientifically dubious result will do great harm to the Church. ... Rather than following an ill advised procedure that will not generate a reliable date but will rather give rise to world controversy, we suggest that it would be better not to date the Shroud at all'" (my emphasis)[27].

Gove had good reason to be worried. Two years years before the Shroud tests, in 1986, three British radiocarbon laboratories, including Oxford, dated Lindow man a range of 800 years apart:

"Although radiocarbon-dating laboratory scientists are notoriously chary of admitting it, carbon dating can produce results with errors considerably wider than their quoted margins, a fact well known to archaeologists. A prime example of this was Lindow Man, the well-preserved body of a sacrificial victim unearthed from a peatbog in Cheshire, England in 1984. Samples from this body were sent to three different British radiocarbon-dating laboratories: Harwell, which dated him to around the fifth century AD; Oxford, which dated him to around the first century AD, and the British Museum, which dated him to the third century BC. Although each laboratory claimed its dating to be accurate to within a hundred years, in actuality their datings varied between each other by as much as 800 years, the discrepancy remaining unresolved to this day, with each institution insisting that its estimate is the most accurate" (my emphasis)[28].

Then a year after the Shroud's dating, in 1989, an intercomparison test of 38 radiocarbon dating laboratories (with Oxford abstaining), only 7 of the 38 dated the artifacts of known date correctly, with the AMS laboratories being among the furthest out:

"Nor are such examples isolated and anecdotal. In the same year of 1989 Britain's Science and Engineering Research Council commissioned a special inter-comparison trial for radiocarbon-dating laboratories in which altogether thirty-eight different laboratories took part, collectively representing both the conventional Libby method and the accelerator mass spectrometer one. Each laboratory was given artefacts of dates known to the organisers, but unknown to them. The shock finding of this totally scientific trial was that the laboratories' actual margins of error were on average two or three times greater than those that they quoted. Of the thirty-eight who participated, only seven produced results that the organisers of the trial considered totally satisfactory, with the laboratories using the new accelerator mass spectrometer technique faring particularly badly. It is also a matter of record that the Oxford laboratory, inevitably the highest profile of any, actually declined to take part. Yet this is the method that we are supposed to believe `conclusively' proved the Shroud a mediaeval fake" (my emphasis)[29].

After the 1988 tests, when the three AMS laboratories claimed to have reached agreement that the Shroud was dated 1260-1390, Gove admitted that before the tests he thought the "new [AMS] procedures seemed to me to be fraught with peril" but he was relieved that the "three laboratories performed their measurements flawlessly":

"My main concern was that this highly public application of the AMS technique, which I had played a major role in inventing and developing, be successful. The new procedures seemed to me to be fraught with peril. If one of the three laboratories obtained an outlier result as one did in the British Museum inter-laboratory comparisons [that was in 1985 when Zurich laboratory was 1000 years out] it would be impossible statistically to identify it and the three measurements would all have to be included in the average thereby producing an incorrect result. The inclusion of the other laboratories would have obviated this potential risk. As it turned out my fears were not realized. The three laboratories performed their measurements flawlessly and the final result is a public triumph for AMS if not for the `true believers'" (my emphasis)[30].

Continued in part #5.

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. "Basic Principles of AMS," NSF-Arizona AMS Facility, University of Arizona, 2005. [return]
3. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
4. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
5. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
6. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
7. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991, p.9. [return]
8. Gove, 1996, p.263. [return]
9. Damon, 1989, p.612. [return]
10. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
11. de Castella, T., 2010, "Unshrouding the science of the Shroud," BBC News, 12 April. [return]
12, Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.11. [return]
13. Wilson, I., 1986, "Trondheim Radiocarbon Dating Conference," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 13, April, pp.5-6. [return]
14. 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.188. [return]
15. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
16. "Accelerator Mass Spectrometer Group: Our Team: Douglas J. Donahue," NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory, 17 August 2004. [return]
17. Evin, J., 1988, "In anticipation of carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 27, June. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 1990, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 26, September/October, p.18; Wilson, I., 1991, "From Professor Harry Gove," BSTS Newsletter, No. 27, December 1990/January 1991, p.14. [return]
19. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.221-222. [return]
20. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
21. Wilson, I., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. [return]
22. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.21,14. [return]
23. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
24. Dutton, D., 1984, "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review 23, pp.243-255. [return]
25. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.138. [return]
26. Wilson, 1998, p.230. [return]
27. Gove, 1996, pp.218-219. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, p.192. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, p.193. [return]
30. Gove, H.E., 1989, "Letter To The Editor: The Turin Shroud," Archaeometry, Vol. 31, No. 2, August, pp.235-237, p.237. [return]

Posted: 8 June 2014. Updated: 27 July 2017.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #3

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #3 of my series, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker." Previous posts in this new series were, part #1 and part #2. As we saw in those previous posts:

[Right: Clifford Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg" (1989)[2], which documents the hacking due to poor computer and physical security at universities in the 1980s (see below).]

• The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is authentic.

• Therefore the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "AD 1260-1390" was wrong.

• But the improbability that the 1st century Shroud has a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 is "astronomical," about "one in a thousand trillion," indeed "totally impossible";

• The midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ± 65, which `just happens' to be ~25-30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in the 1350s.

• Pro-authenticist explanations of the discrepancy (e.g. contamination with newer carbon, invisible repairs with 16th century cotton, neutron flux, etc) fail.

• Therefore fraud of some kind in that radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is the only plausible explanation.

• But claims that the carbon-dating project leaders (e.g. the British Museum's Prof. Michael Tite) switched samples are implausible.

• However, there is a type of fraud which does not seem to have previously occurred to anyone: computer hacking, which was rife in the 1980s.

• There is evidence (not yet proof) that each of the three laboratories' AMS control console computers was hacked, to replace the Shroud's first (or early because of contamination) century date, with dates which, when calibrated, clustered around 1325; and

• that the hacker allegedly was Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick

[Left: Timothy W Linick (1946-4 June 1989)[3].]

assisted by Karl Koch (1965–3 June 1989 [but see 17May15]), a self-confessed hacker who had worked for, and was probably executed by, the KGB in a simulated suicide[4].

[Right: Karl Koch. "He was involved with the KGB scandal that involved hackers being bought by drugs in exchange for breaking into key NATO and corporate installations ... Koch, of Hanover, West Germany, died Friday, June 3 [1989] [but see 17May15]"[5].

within days (or even on the same day) of Linick's "suicide in mysterious circumstances"[6].


3. COMPUTER HACKING IN THE 1980S Computer hacking was rife in the 1980s (see below).

[Above (click to enlarge): Extract of "Timeline of computer security hacker history"[7]. As can be seen, 1988, the year the Shroud was claimed to have been radiocarbon dated as "medieval ... AD 1260-1390" was also a peak year for early computer hacking against poorly secured, online computer systems.]

• Computer and physical security was poor at universities in the 1980s Clifford Stoll was a astronomer turned computer Systems Manager (who earned

[Left: Clifford Stoll[8].]

his Ph.D at Arizona University)[9] and was in 1986 redeployed to manage a large computer network at Berkeley University's Lawrence National Laboratory. In his "The Cuckoo's Egg" (1989), Stoll explained from personal experience (which includes Arizona University) how lax was the computer security at universities in the 1980s:

"Our laboratory's computers connect to thousands of other systems over a dozen networks. Any of our scientists can log into our computer, and then connect to a distant computer. Once connected, they can log into the distant computer by entering an account name and password. In principle, the only thing protecting the networked computer is the password, since account names are easy to figure out. (How do you find account names? Just use a phone book-most people use their names on computers)" (my emphasis)[10].

Stoll recounts that it was easy to hack into computers at "universities where no security was needed" (both computer and physical):

"Every few months, I'd hear a rumour about someone else's system being invaded; usually this was at universities, and it was often blamed on students ... Sure, it's easy to muck around computers at universities where no security was needed. After all, colleges seldom even lock the doors to their buildings" (my emphasis)[11].
German hacker ring. The hacker whom Stoll detected, Markus Hess, was actually a German, in Germany,

[Right: Markus Hess in 2013[12]. Hess was, like Karl Koch, selling Western computer secrets to the KGB. But Koch, unlike Hess, was murdered in a simulated suicide probably by the KGB (see above).]

dialing in via a pre-Internet network to the USA, from where he could hop from one university and military network to another, due to their then lax security in the 1980s. Hess hacked into about "400 U.S. military computers":

"Hess's initial activities started at the University of Bremen in Germany ... via ... the Tymnet International Gateway. Tymnet was a `gateway' service that a user called into that routed him to any one of a number of computer systems that also used the service. Tymnet ... provided local telephone numbers, where directly accessing the computer would have been a long distance call. ... Once he accessed Tymnet, Hess branched out to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California and to the Tymnet Switching System. It was through this switching system that he accessed the LBL [Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory] computers. Hess was able to attack 400 U.S. military computers by using LBL to `piggyback' to ARPANET and MILNET. ARPANET was a civilian wide area network created by the Department of Defense which would later become what is now known as the Internet. MILNET was its military counterpart"[13].
Hess had for several years been selling information gained through his hacking to the KGB":
"The hacker's name was Markus Hess, and he had been engaged for some years in selling the results of his hacking to the Soviet KGB" (my emphasis)"[14].
Hess was an associate of Karl Koch, who was also "involved in selling hacked information ... to the KGB":
"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"[15].
Note that "Pengo [Hans Heinrich Hübner] and Koch subsequently came forward and confessed to the

[Left: Hans Heinrich Hübner (Pengo) in 2011[16].

authorities" (in mid-1988)[17].


Karl Koch's `suicide' But (again) "Koch was found burned to death" in a simulated suicide while neither Hübner nor any of the other KGB hackers who also confessed were harmed. It is a reasonable inference that "Koch was killed in order to keep him from confessing more to the authorities" but then "Why Koch would be targeted, and not Pengo [Hübner] and Urmel [Hess], is unknown" (my emphasis):

"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"[18]
My theory is that Koch (and Linick) was murdered by the KGB to prevent him talking to the authorities about his role in hacking into the AMS control console computers in the radiocarbon laboratories at Zurich and Oxford universities, to install Linick's program which Linick had used at Arizona laboratory to ensure that the 1st century Shroud of Turin returned a 13th/14th century date. Only that explains why: 1) Koch `suicided' and none of the other hackers did; and 2) Linick `suicided' only a few days after Koch (and it could have been on the same day).

Continued in part #4.

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.Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Amazon.com. [return]
3. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
4. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 30 March 2014. [return]
5. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
6. Galeazzi, G., 2013, "Never solved the enigma that still divides the Church," Vatican Insider, 1 April . [return]
7. "Timeline of computer security hacker history: 1980s," Wikipedia, 16 February 2014. [return]
8. "Clifford Stoll and The Cuckoo's Egg," David Bolton Strikes Again, 6 July 2007. [return]
9. Stoll, 1989, p.ii. [return]
10. Stoll, 1989, p.8. [return]
11. Stoll, 1989, p.12. [return]
12. Jangra, A., 2013, "Famous Hacks that made Headlines," 20 August. [return]
13. "Markus Hess," Wikipedia, 18 November 2013. [return]
14. "The Cuckoo's Egg," Wikipedia, 8 February 2014. [return]
15. "Karl Koch," Wikipedia, 2014. [return]
16. Guasch, J.A., 2011, "Interview with Hans Hübner (Pengo)," February 18. (See English translation following the Spanish original). [return]
17. Clough. B. & Mungo, P., 1992, "Approaching Zero: Data Crime and the Computer," Faber & Faber: London & Boston, p.183. [return]
18. "Karl Koch," Wikipedia, 2014. [return]

Posted: 3 June 2014. Updated: 26 September 2016.