Introduction. This is part #10, Summary (5), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. See the previous parts #10(1), #10(2), #10(3) and #10(4). Other previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, part #3, part #4, part #5, part #6, part #7, part #8 and part #9, which posts this part #10 will summarise. It is my emphases below unless otherwise indicated. See the update of this post in my "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #4".
5. TABLE 2 OF THE 1989 NATURE PAPER SUPPORTS MY THEORY THAT THE SHROUD'S DATES WERE HACKED [Part #5] Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper[2] (see next), is a very important item of evidence for my theory that the radiocarbon dates of the Shroud were not real dates of the Shroud samples, but were computer-generated within limits so that when calibrated to take account of past variations in atmospheric CO2, their combined averaged midpoint was 1325[3], only ~25 to ~30 years before the Shroud's first appearance at Lirey, France, in c. 1355[4].
[Above (enlarge): Carousel wheel of the CEDAD (CEntro di DAtazione e Diagnostica) AMS radiocarbon dating facility at the University of Salento, Italy[5].]
The Shroud and control samples were converted to pure carbon (graphite)[6] and then compressed into tiny carbon pellets inside the holder pits on the carousel wheel[7]. The CEDAD carousel wheel above has 12 target holders and is of unknown diameter. Arizona's carousel wheel (also Zurich and Oxford's since all three were effectively clones[8]) had ten holders and its diameter was "a little larger than a two pence coin" (about 26 mm or 1 inch)[9]. A beam of caesium atoms 
[Right (enlarge): A British two pence (or "new pence") held by fingers[10] to show how small the laboratories' "carousel that is a little larger than a two pence coin" was.]
was fired at the Shroud and control sample graphite targets[11]. Each run took 1 minute and was repeated 9 times, after which an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio was calculated for the Shroud and control samples[12]. "All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen." [13].
This small size of the carousel wheel, with all the samples being on it and irradiated together by the same caesium beam, is very important evidence for my theory that the Shroud's radiocarbon dates at each laboratory were hacked.
• The spread of the measurements for the Shroud sample was greater than that of the non-Shroud samples. Under Table 2 the Nature paper admits that, "...the agreement among the three 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"[14].
This is the exact opposite of claims by anti-Shroud propagandists, like Joe Nickell, that the "three different laboratories ... results were in close agreement":
"In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results were in close agreement and yield a date range of A.D. 1260-1390, about the time of the reported forger's confession (ca. A.D. 1355)"[15].
[Above: My scanned photo of the actual text of that part of page 613 of the 1989 Nature article, where it admits (albeit with understatement) that the spread of the carbon-dates of the Shroud sample between the three laboratories were, "greater than would be expected," unlike that of the "exceptionally good" spread of the control samples.]
This is inexplicable if the Shroud sample dates were real, given that the three laboratories' Shroud samples were all from the same `postage stamp' size sliver cut from the Shroud[16], and that at each laboratory
[Above (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[17]. Clearly there can be no significant difference between samples from such a tiny area.]
both Shroud and non-Shroud control samples were all together on the one small diameter (~26 mm or ~1 in.) carousel wheel at each laboratory and irradiated by the one caesium beam over a time-span of only 10 minutes. If there was a problem with the dating at a laboratory, then its Shroud and control samples dates would wrongly agree together, and disagree with the correct Shroud and control samples dates of the other two laboratories.
But it is explicable if the Shroud sample dates were not real, but were bogus dates, computer-generated by a hacker's (allegedly Timothy W. Linick's) program.
• Uncalibrated: comparison of the three laboratories' dates of Sample 1 (the Shroud) in Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper.
[Above (enlarge): Table 2 in the 1989 Nature paper[18] showing that Sample 1 (the Shroud)'s average uncalibrated radiocarbon age for each laboratory was widely different, unlike the non-Shroud samples (2, 3 and 4). See my comparison table and chart below.]
• Uncalibrated: Oxford's years don't overlap Arizona's or Zurich's, and Arizona's and Zurich's overlap by only 25 years. Below is my spreadsheet table, using the years in column 1 of Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper above, showing the age ranges (before 1950)[19] 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 above, Oxford's 780-720 (years before 1950) equates to a calibrated age range of 1170-1230, which doesn't overlap either Arizona's (1273-1335) or Zurich's (1250-1298). Moreover, 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 uncalibrated years in my spreadsheet table above, which in turn is based on the average age ranges for each laboratory's dating of Sample 1 (the Shroud) in Table 2.]
There are wide differences between the three laboratories' dating of the Shroud (Sample 1), as can be seen above. Oxford's year range of 1170-1230 does not overlap the year ranges of the other two laboratories. Moreover, Arizona's (1273-1335) and Zurich's (1250-1298) ranges only overlap by 25 years).
• Calibrated: wide variances between the laboratories' dates and lack of overlap still remain.The above are uncalibrated years (i.e. not calibrated to take account of past variations in atmospheric CO2), because that is all that is shown in the tables of the 1989 Nature paper. Yet the paper does not in its text refer to "uncalibrated" dates but only to "calibrated" dates:
"The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range ... for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260-1390 ... These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval"[20]
There does not appear to have been published each laboratory's dating of the Shroud in calibrated years. However, the Nature paper on page 614 has a calibration curve graph, Fig. 2[21] (see below), from which I have converted the above uncalibrated years into calibrated years.
[Above: Calibrated years 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.]
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.]
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 (see above) 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.]
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).
Conclusion. Again, this is inexplicable (and in fact no plausible explanation has been offered) that the agreement between the three laboratories in their non-Shroud control samples was "exceptionally good," but there was no agreement between the three laboratories in their Shroud samples. Given that:• The laboratories' Shroud samples all came from the one `postage stamp' size sliver of linen cut from the Shroud;
• The three AMS laboratories were effectively clones, so there was no essential difference in their dating machinery and processes;
• The Shroud and control samples at each laboratory were all together on the one small (~26 mm = ~1 inch diameter) carousel wheel, and were all irradiated together for 10 minutes by the one caesium beam;
• If there was a problem with a laboratory's dating, then the spread of measurements of its Shroud and non-Shroud control samples would agree together, and disagree with that of the other two laboratories' Shroud and non-Shroud control samples.
But again, it is explicable if the Shroud sample dates were not from the Shroud, but were computer-generated by a hacker's program. And as we shall see next, there is evidence that the hacker was Arizona laboratory physicist, Timothy W. Linick (1946-1989).
Continued in part #10 Summary (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. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.613. [return]
3. 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]
4. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
5. "Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," CEDAD, University of Salento, Italy, 27 June 2006. [return]
6. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.140. [return]
7. Sox, 1988, p.142. [return]
8. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178. [return]
9. "Two Pence Coin Designs and Specifications," The Royal Mint, 10 June 2014. [return]
10. "A List of All The Foreign Currency On My Table At This Very Moment," Open Urbanism blog, 28 February 2013. [return]
11. Sox, 1988, p.145. [return]
12. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
13. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
14. Damon, 1989, p.613. [return]
15. Nickell, J., 2005, "Voice of Reason: The Truth Behind the Shroud of Turin," Livescience, 18 March. [return]
16. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.94. [return]
17. Wilson, 1998, p.189. [return]
18. Damon, 1989, p.613. [return]
19. See note under "FIG.1 ... Ages are given in yr BP (years before 1950)." Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
20. Damon, 1989, p.614. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
Created: 11 February 2015. Updated: 21 February 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment