My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (7)

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction. This is part #10, Summary (7), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. My next post in this series will be part #10, Summary (8). See the previous parts #10(1), #10(2), #10(3), #10(4), #10(5) and #10(6). Other previous posts in this series were parts #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9, which posts this part #10 will summarise. It is my emphasis 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 #6".

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

7. EVIDENCE THAT TIMOTHY W. LINICK WAS THE HACKER [#7] In #10(6) we saw that:

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

"Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'"[6].

By contrast, anti-authenticists like Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall and Prof. Harry Gove, would have accepted that the Shroud was authentic if its carbon-date was first century[7].

• Linick was aware of McCrone's prediction that the Shroud's carbon date would be "about 1355." Linick's words above, coupled with his extreme anti-authenticism, indicate that he was aware of the prediction of the late extreme anti-authenticist Walter McCrone (1916-2002) who wrote in 1980 of a future "carbon-dating test" that, "A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ... a first century cloth could have been found and used by a 14th century artist to paint the image."[8]. This was in the context of McCrone's claim that "the image [on the Shroud] was painted on the cloth shortly before the first exhibition, or about 1355"[9]. That McCrone regarded what he wrote in 1980 as a prediction is evident from: 1) he later claimed it was a prediction: "I could predict with complete confidence what the result of the radiocarbon dating of the linen cloth would be ..." followed by an excerpt from the above 1980 quote[10]; and 2) in a 1980 letter to David Sox, McCrone wrote: "The carbon date will be helpful here; I predict the range of dates found will include the 1350's but it could be earlier"[11].

• Linick was the leaker of Arizona's "1350" first date of the Shroud. The above quote of Linick by Sox is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Linick was the leaker, who told Sox that Arizona's first calibrated radiocarbon date of the Shroud was "1350"[12]. Linick was not a laboratory leader, but an ordinary `back room' Arizona laboratory scientist, who would have been unknown outside of radiocarbon dating circles. So Sox, who lived in England, would not even know that Linick existed, let alone quote him, unless Linick had contacted Sox, in breach of his signed undertaking "not to communicate the results to anyone ... until that time when results are generally available to the public"[13]. Gove had, by a process of elimination, concluded that the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date had to have been "someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement," as Linick was[14].

• Linick was found dead of suspected suicide on 4 June 1989 Linick was found dead in Tucson, Arizona[15] on 4 June 1989[16], at the age of 42[17].

[Right: Photograph of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances, shortly after the campaign of the Italian press reporting our [Bonnet-Eymard's] accusations"[18].This is consistent with my theory that the KGB executed confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch between 23 and 30 May 1989, and Linick the day after[19] the German police had publicly released the identity of a burnt body as Koch's on 3 June 1989[20] [see 17May15], to prevent them revealing that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to 1325 ±65[21] was the result of a KGB-sponsored computer hacking by Linick, aided by Koch.]

Linick's obituary in Arizona laboratory's journal Radiocarbon stated that his death was "untimely"[22], and the lack of details (e.g. "after an illness," "as a result of a road accident," etc) suggests that Linick's death was sudden, unexpected and embarrassing (as a suicide would be). Ian Wilson recorded Linick's death in his chronology of the Shroud for 4 June 1989, that it was "in unclear circumstances"[23]. Vatican

[Above: Extract from Ian Wilson's "Chronology of the Shroud," under "1989," on page 311 of his, "Blood and the Shroud" (1998), noting that Linick's death was "in unclear circumstances" and that he was "one of the authors of the Nature report on the Shroud radiocarbon dating."]

Insider reported that Linick's death was "suicide in mysterious circumstances"[24]. Those who correctly concluded that since the Shroud is authentic, there had to have been fraud in its radiocarbon dating, such as Roman Catholic scholar Br. Bruno Bonnet-Eymard[25], suspected that Linick was murdered to cover up his part in the radiocarbon dating fraud[26]. Linick's death occurred shortly after a campaign in the Italian press reporting Bonnet-Eymard's accusations of fraud in the radiocarbon dating [27]. No other signatory to the 1989 Nature paper[28] appears to have met an untimely death.

Yet, despite my trying (e.g. emailing Arizona news media, police departments, etc), I have been unable to find any further information on Linick's death. Arizona is a "closed record" state, which means that death records are not normally available to the public[29]. The US Library of Congress could only find for me two newspaper items about Linick's death, a funeral notice in the Arizona Daily Star of June 6 and a death notice in the Los Angeles Times of June 9 (see below). That Linick's death was apparently not reported in at least the local Tucson or Arizona state newspapers, suggests that there was something mysterious about Linick's death. The sudden

[Left: Timothy W. Linick's funeral and death notices sent to me by the Library of Congress. In the words of the librarian: "I am attaching two death notices, one from the Arizona Daily Star (June 6), and one from the Los Angeles Times (June 9)" and "I have not been able to find any additional information on the cause of Linick's death"[30]].

"untimely" death of a 42 year-old local scientist (especially one who had only a year before been involved in carbon-dating the Shroud of Turin) is sufficiently unusual to have been newsworthy, so there may have been a high-level suppression of news about Linick's death, due to its circumstances which may have made US security agencies suspect the KGB's involvement. Another possibility is that Linick's `suicide' was by a method that tends not to be reported to prevent `copy-cat' suicides, such as suicide by train. Clearly the KGB could have executed Linick on the pretext of meeting him and then arranging for him to be run over by a train, in a simulated suicide.

• Linick's role at Arizona laboratory included the AMS carbon-14 measurement procedures. Linick was mentioned in footnote 9 of the 1989 Nature paper[31] as the lead author of a 1986 Radiocarbon paper which gave the "specific measurement procedures" for Arizona laboratory[32]. In that paper Linick described in

[Above (enlarge): Excerpts from page 613 and footnotes on page 615 of the 1989 Nature paper, which states that Linick was the lead author of a 1986 Radiocarbon paper which described the radiocarbon measurement procedures for Arizona.]

minute technical detail how the AMS system at Arizona measured the carbon-14 content of samples[33]. It may be significant that Linick is the only one of the three lead authors who originally described the AMS carbon-14 measurement procedures at each of the three laboratories, who was also a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper.

• So Linick would have had access to Arizona's AMS computer, would understand what its carbon 14 measurement program did, and may even have written that program! Also, the previously mentioned standard order of samples explains how Linick could write a program, not only for Arizona, but also for the other two laboratories, Zurich and Oxford, and the program would know which sample was of the Shroud. Each laboratory knew which, of their supposedly `blind' samples, was of the Shroud, by its distinctive weave. As we saw, a unique identifying code for the Shroud and control samples was imposed upon the laboratories by the coordinator of the dating, Prof. Tite of the British Museum[34]. It would therefore not be difficult for a competent programmer, as the "extremely mathematically gifted"[35] Linick presumably was, to write a program which could detect that a sample was of the Shroud and then substitute the date of that Shroud sample with random dates within limits which, when they were calibrated, totalled and averaged, would make the flax of the Shroud appear to have been harvested a plausible period of time before McCrone's prediction of "about 1355" above.

The sole exception may have been Arizona's very first run which was the `too good to be true', when calibrated, "1350 AD" date, which looks like a `hard-wired' straight substitution of "640" uncalibrated, for the actual Shroud date, by Linick's alleged program. The hacker, allegedly Linick, presumably wanted the very first run to yield a calibrated "1350" date for its psychological and media leak value. He would have needed to create a climate of expectation that the Shroud was medieval, so his program's combined average 1325 ±65 calibrated date of the Shroud across the three laboratories would be unquestioned. Also, the hacker, allegedly Linick, may have needed some actual Shroud and control sample data to test his program against to ensure there were no `bugs' in it.

• Linick had sufficient time to prepare and carry out the hacking. On 10 October 1987 the Archbishop of Turin advised the seven laboratories which had originally been agreed would carbon-date the Shroud, using two different methods, that their number had been reduced to three laboratories using only one method, AMS: Arizona, Oxford and Zurich[36]. So after that the hacker (allegedly Linick) would have realised that it was feasible for him to write a program to be installed on the AMS computers at the three laboratories (which were effectively clones of each other[37]), to replace the Shroud's carbon 14 dates coming from their AMS systems, with computer-generated dates which would ensure the Shroud appeared to date from a plausible time before the Shroud's debut in undisputed history at Lirey, France, about 1355[38]. On 21 April 1988 the sample was cut from the Shroud and sub-samples in turn were cut from it and distributed to leaders of the three laboratories[39]. The first actual dating of the Shroud was over six weeks after that when Arizona carried out its first run on 6 May 1988[40]. Zurich was next with its first dating on or about 26 May[41], nearly three weeks after Arizona's. Eight weeks after Zurich, on 21 July, Oxford completed its dating of the Shroud[42]. So Linick, the alleged hacker, had plenty of time, after he had proved his program worked at Arizona, to have it installed on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers. Although because Linick may have been unsure when each laboratory would date the Shroud, he could have written his alleged program and had it installed on all three laboratories' AMS computers even before, or shortly after, the sample was cut from the Shroud. However, since the laboratories were in contact with each other during the tests[43], it is likely that they had prearranged the order and approximate timeframe in which each laboratory would conduct its dating, and if so Linick would have known that order and timeframe.

Continued in part #10, Summary (8).

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176H. [return]
3. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
6. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, pp.184-185. [return]
8. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.138, 141. [return]
9. Ibid. [return]
10. McCrone, 1999, p.245. [return]
11. McCrone, 1999, p.178. [return]
12. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
13. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
14. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
15. Suess, H.E. & Linick, T.W., 1990, "The ¹⁴C Record in Bristlecone Pine Wood of the past 8000 Years Based on the Dendrochronology of the Late C. W. Ferguson," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 330, April 24, pp.403-412. [return]
16. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
17. de Nantes, G. & Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2014, "The Holy Shroud of Turin: II. The conclusion of a new trial," The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st Century, 27 March. [return]
18. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XX^th Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
19. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
20. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010h; and Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
21. The cited radiocarbon dating range "1260-1390" of the Shroud is equivalent to "the year AD 1325, give or take sixty-five years either way." (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]
22. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
23. Wilson, 1998, p.311. [return]
24. Galeazzi, G., 2013. "Never solved: The enigma that still divides the Church: The Shroud," Vatican Insider, 1 April. Translated from Italian by Google. See English translation, "Unsolved Enigma that Still Divides the Church: The Shroud." [return]
25. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.128-129. [return]
26. "Examination of the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud," Wikipedia, January 4, 2014. Translated from Italian by Google. [return]
27. Bonnet-Eymard, 2000. [return]
28. "9. Linick, T. W., Jull, A. J. T., Toolin, L. J. & Donahue, D. J. Radiocarbon 28, 522-533 (1986).[return]
29. "Who Can Obtain a Death Certificate,"Arizona Department of Health Services: Office of Vital Records, April 15, 2014. [return]
30. Email reply from the Library of Congress, received on 2 May 2014. [return]
31. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p. 613. [return]
32. Ibid. [return]
33. Linick, T.W., et al. , 1986, "Operation of the NSF-Arizona accelerator facility for radioisotope analysis and results from selected collaborative research projects," Radiocarbon, Vol. 28, No. 2a, pp.522-533. [return]
34. Sox, 1988, pp.138-139. [return]
35. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
36. Gove, 1996, pp.213-214. [return]
37. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178. [return]
38. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, pp.260-261. [return]
40. Gove, 1996, pp.263-264. [return]
41. Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.131. [return]
42. McDonnell, D.J., 2003, "The Great Holy Shroud Dating Fraud of 1988," 4 November. [return]
43. Kersten, H. & Gruber, E.R., 1994, "The Jesus Conspiracy: The Turin Shroud and the Truth About the Resurrection," Element Books: Shaftesbury UK, Reprinted, 1995, p.69; Wilson, I., 1988, "Ian Wilson Writes," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 19, April, p.4. [return]

---

Posted: 31 March 2015. Updated: 25 September 2016.

"D": Turin Shroud Dictionary

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

"D"

This is page "D" of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. For more information about this dictionary see the "Main index A-Z" and page "A."

[Index] [Previous: "C"] [Next: "E"]

---

[Above[2]: Dirt on the Shroud man's feet, particularly on his right heel (arrowed). See below.]

da Vinci (see "Leonardo").

Damon, Paul E. (1921-2005) was Professor of Geosciences at Arizona University, Director of the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory, and the lead author of the 1989 Nature paper on the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, which (wrongly-see future "hacking") claimed that: "... the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390." [1, 2, 3.]

Danin, Avinoam (1939-) is Professor Emeritus of Botany at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He is a world authority on the flora of Israel, being an editor of the "Flora Palaestina" and author of "Flora of Israel Online." In 1995 when Dr Alan Whanger visited Prof. Danin in Jerusalem and asked him to confirm from photographs Whanger's identification of flower images found on the Shroud, Danin immediately did so. And in 1997, when Danin visited Whanger's North Carolina home, Danin identified the images of more flowers and plant parts that Whanger had not noticed. From then on, Danin although a non-religious Jew, became a Shroud pro-authenticist. Danin later pointed out that the flowers he had identified on the Shroud bloom only in March-April in Palestine, which covers the date of Jesus' crucifixion in April AD30. Danin also discovered that three of those flower species Zygophyllum dumosum, Gundelia tournefortii and Cistus creticus, are only found together in a limited area, around Jerusalem. Danin initially supported the identification by Swiss pioneering criminologist Max Frei (1913-83) of pollen on the Shroud as Palestinian and Turkish, but due to problems in verifying Frei's work posthumously, Danin felt he had to withdraw that support (which does not mean that Frei was wrong). Prof. Danin is the author of two books on the Shroud: "Flora of the Shroud of Turin" (1999) and "Botany of the Shroud" (2010). See future "Flower images," "Frei," and "Pollen." [1, 2, 3.]

d'Arcis (see "Pierre").
de Charny (see "Geoffroy," etc).
de Savoie, di Savoia (see Amadeus IX, etc).
death.
decomposition.

Delage, Yves (1854–1920) was a French zoologist at the Sorbonne, Paris, specialising in comparative anatomy. Delage was also a self-declared agnostic, who rejected supernatural explanations. Yet, after studying the first photographs of the Shroud taken in 1898 by Secondo Pia, Delage found the image of the man on the Shroud was anatomically flawless. So in in 1902 Delage read a paper by his protégé Paul Vignon (1865-1943) to the French Academy of Sciences arguing that the Shroud was Christ's, estimating the probability that the image on the shroud was not caused by the body of Jesus Christ as 1 in 10 billion. While the Academy members heard Delage out and examined Vignon's photographs, the Secretary of the Academy, atheist Marcellin Berthelot (1827-1907), edited out all reference in Delage's paper to the Shroud and Christ and published it as mentioning only the vaporography of zinc. In protest, Delage sent an open letter to the editor of the Revue Scientifique, pointing out the double-standard (which continues to this day), "...if instead of Christ, there was a question of some person such as a Sargon, an Achilles or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making an objection..."!

directionality (see "non-directional").

dirt.There is dirt on the Shroud man's feet (see above), detected by the reflectance spectroscopy of husband and wife team Roger and Marty Gilbert, as part of STURP's 1978 examination of the Shroud in Turin. This is consistent with the man being Jesus, who wore sandals (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Acts 13:25) on the dusty unsealed roads of first century Palestine (Mt 10:14; Mk 6:11; Lk 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51). But it is inconsistent with the Shroud being a medieval forgery, because a forger would not likely add such realism, especially since the dirt was not noticed until 1978. Moreover, the dirt contains a rare form of limestone, travertine Aragonite, which is the type of limestone in the cave tombs around Jerusalem, in one of which Jesus was buried (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:52-53; Jn 19:41-42). Furthermore, the chemical signature of the limestone on the Shroud near the man's feet and its underside matches that of the Jerusalem cave tombs and nowhere else, as far as is yet known. [See 1, 2.]

DNA.
doubled-in-four (see "tetradiplon").

Dukes of Savoy (including Princes and Kings) who owned the Shroud, were: Louis I (1413-1465); son Amadeus IX (1435-72); son Philibert I (1465–82); brother Charles I (1468-90); son Charles II (1489-96); granduncle Philip II (1438-97); son Philibert II (1480-1504); half-brother Charles III (1486-1553); son Emmanuel Philibert (1528-80). To be continued.

dye.

---

Notes:
1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "dirt," not the whole page "D"), provided a link and/or reference is provided back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return]
2. Based on Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical. [return]

Created: 30 March, 2015. Updated: 1 May, 2015.

Locations of the Shroud: Chambéry 1471-Turin 1578: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones

Locations of the Shroud: Chambéry 1471-Turin 1578

This is the entry "Locations of the Shroud: Chambéry 1471-Turin 1578" in my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. It is a continuation of "Locations of the Shroud: Lirey c.1355 - Chambéry 1471." I am working through the topics in the entry, "Shroud of Turin, expanding on them.

[Index] [Previous: Locations: Lirey c.1355-Chambéry 1478] [Next: Locations: Turin 1578-1694.]

---

Introduction. This is the second of a five-part series of entries which will briefly trace the locations of the cloth today known as Shroud of Turin, from its first appearance in undisputed history (see previous) at Lirey, France in c.1355, to its current location since 1578 (apart from short periods due to wars) in or around St John the Baptist Cathedral, Turin, Italy. It is partly based on my 2012 post, "The Shroud's location."

Chambéry-Vercelli, Italy (1471-73). In 1471 began the enlargement of the Savoys private Royal Chapel at Chambéry, which later would become the Sainte Chapelle, a permanent home for the Shroud. In September that year the Shroud was transferred from Chambéry over the Alps to Vercelli, Italy (see map below). On 30

[Right (enlarge)"[1]: The ruins of a Savoy fortress-castle at Verrua, Italy, about 30 kms (19 miles) from Vercelli. Presumably the Shroud was kept here from September 1471 to July 1473.]

March 1472, Duke Amadeus IX (1435-1472) died, and his eldest surviving son, six year-old Philibert I (1465-1482), became Duke of Savoy. Amadeus IX had refused to honour the agreement of his father Duke Louis I (1413–65), to pay the Lirey canons an annual rent as compensation for them losing the Shroud (see previous). So upon his death the Lirey canons in 1472 complained to King Louis XI (1423–83) about Amadeus IX's failure to honor his father's agreement, and they requested that the King reinstate the revenues to them. The king responded by sending letters to three of his bailiffs, presumably to seize the Shroud. It presumably was forewarning of this action which prompted dowager Duchess Yolande (1434-78), Louis XI's estranged sister, to move the Shroud out of Louis XI's jurisdiction over the Alps into Italy. But the Lirey canons were rebuffed by Louis XI, because in 1473 they approached Yolande, who was acting as regent for her now eight year-old son Duke Philibert I, claiming eight years of arrears of the income promised them by Louis I in 1464. But Yolande had been living with the Savoys as Amadeus IX's betrothed future wife in 1453 (see previous) when Louis I received the Shroud from Marguerite de Charny (c.1390-1460) and she would have known that the Shroud never was the property of the Lirey church, and so she also rebuffed them, ending their lucrative extortion racket (see previous)! In 1473, Pope Sixtus IV (1414–1484), who as Francesco della Rovere was one of Duke Louis I's Franciscan retinue, published his De sanguine Christi, in which he referred to the Shroud as:

"... the Shroud in which the body of Christ was wrapped when he was taken down from the cross. This is now preserved with great devotion by the Dukes of Savoy, and is coloured with the blood of Christ"[2].

Under the ownership of the House of Savoy, with their royal and papal connections, the Shroud had achieved a respectability that had been all but lost after its wrongful condemnation as a painted forgery by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (c.1300-95) in 1389. Which in the providence of the Man on the Shroud (who is ruling over all - Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9), saved His burial cloth, bearing His image and blood, from being seized, especially when Marguerite de Charny travelled around France with it for ~35 years from ~1418-53, on a mule!

Vercelli-Chambéry (1473-1475). On 2 July 1473 the Shroud began a return to Chambéry via a circuitous route involving stays of weeks

[Left (enlarge)[3]: The rear of the Palazzo Madama, Turin, which in the 14th century was a Savoy castle. Presumably the Shroud was kept here from ~2 July-5 October, 1473.]

and months at the nearby towns of Turin (1473), Ivrea (1473-75) and Moncalieri (1474).

[Right (enlarge)[4]: 14th century Savoy castle in Ivrea, Italy. Presumably the Shroud was here from ~5 October 1473-18 July 1474 and ~25 August 1474-5 October, 1475.]

[Left (enlarge)[5]: Savoy Castle of Moncalieri. The twin round towers were part of the 15th century castle where the Shroud was presumably kept between ~18 July-25 August 1474.]

The Shroud returned from Moncalieri to Ivrea on ~25 August 1474 and over a year later departed from there back to Chambéry on 5 October, 1475.

Chambéry (1474-1502). Yolande, wife of the late Duke Amadeus IX, died at Chambéry on 23 August 1478, leaving her 13 year-old son, Duke Philibert, I the sole ruler of Savoy. But 4 years later Philibert himself died in a hunting accident near Lyon on 22 Apr 1482, aged 16. Philibert was married to Bianca Sforza (1472-1510) but as she was then only 10(!) the marriage had not been consummated, and so she returned to Milan. Philibert was succeeded as Duke by his 14 year-old brother Charles I (1468-1490). In 1485 Charles I married Bianca (Blanche) de Montferrat (1472-1519). A miniature by Jean Colombe (c.1430-93) added to John Duke of Berry (1340–1416)'s Les Très Riches Heures, shows Charles and Bianca looking at a Man of Sorrows art work [right (enlarge)[6]] which depicts the dead Christ with the Shroud's distinctive wounds, bloodstains and crossed hands. The Shroud continued to be carried around with the Savoys in their journeys from castle to castle; for example, Susa - Avigliano - Rivoli (1477-8). Exhibitions of the Shroud were held at Savigliano (1488) and Vercelli (1494). Charles I and Bianca had two children, Yolande Louise (1487–1499) and Charles II (1489–96). In 1490 Duke Charles I died at the age of 23, believed to have been poisoned by Ludovico II, Marquess of Saluzzo (1438-1504), with whom he was at war. The Dukedom and the Shroud passed to Charles I's 7 month-old son, Charles II, with dowager Duchess Bianca acting as regent. But on 1496 Duke Charles II died aged 7. Since there were no surviving males from Amadeus IX's line, the Dukedom and the Shroud passed to Amadeus' 58 year-old brother, Philip II (1438-97). Philip was married to his second wife Claudine de Brosse of Brittany (1450–1513). But only a year later, in 1497, Philip II died and the Dukedom and the Shroud passed to his 17 year-old son Philibert II (1480-1504), from Philip II's first marriage to Margaret of Bourbon (1438–83). In 1501 Philibert II, at 21, married the widowed Margaret of Austria (1480–1530).

Chambéry (1502-32). On 11 June 1502, at the request of Duchess Margaret, the Shroud was to be no longer moved around with the Savoys during their travels, but was given a permanent home in the royal chapel at Chambéry. The Shroud was moved from Chambéry's Franciscan church to the

[Left (enlarge): The repaired Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry, as it is today[7], after it was all but destroyed by a fire in 1532 (see below).]

Royal Chapel which became the Sainte-Chapelle (Holy Chapel). The Shroud in its casket was deposited behind the high altar, in a cavity in the wall, and secured by an iron grille with four locks,

[Right (enlarge): The cavity in the wall of the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry[8], where the Shroud was held from 1502-32.]

each opened by a separate key, two of which were held by the Duke. A public exhibition of the Shroud was held on Good Friday, 1503 in the market place at Bourg-en-Bresse, arranged by Margaret of Austria for her brother, Philip I of Castile (1478–1506). On 10 September 1504, Duke Philibert II died aged 24, from drinking too much iced wine after hunting, leaving Margaret of Austria twice-widowed and childless at 22. He was succeeded as Duke by his 18 year-old half-brother Charles III (1486-1553), from Philip II's second marriage to Claudine de Brosse. Dowager Duchess Margaret relinquished custody of the Shroud in 1505 to the new Duke's mother, the pious dowager duchess Claudine, who was also devoted to the Shroud and temporarily kept it with her in her castle at Billiat, near Nantua, France. The copy of the Shroud in St. Gommaire church, Lierre, Belgium [left (enlarge)[9]], attributed to Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528) and dated 1516, is probably Margaret of Austria's copy, mentioned in her 1507 inventory, "The picture of the Holy Shroud of Our Lord made on cloth."[10] In 1506 Pope Julius II (1443–1513) formally approved the name "Sainte-Chapelle of the Holy Shroud," after the chapel of the same name in Paris which St King Louis IX (1214–70) built to house the Crown of Thorns. The Pope also declares the 4th May the annual Feast of the Holy Shroud. Three years later in 1509 the Shroud was installed in a new silver casket which had been commissioned by Margaret of Austria, now regent of the Netherlands (see next on the fire of 1532). Charles' mother, dowager duchess Claudine de Brosse died at Chambéry in 1513 and was buried behind the high altar of the Sainte Chapelle, facing the Shroud's casket. Public exhibitions of the Shroud were held on the balcony of the Sainte Chapelle, probably at least every year on the 4th of May until 1533 (see next), as depicted retrospectively by Carlo Malliano in his "Ostension of the Holy Shroud" (1579) [right (enlarge)][11]. In 1516 King Francis I of France (1494–1547), a son of Duke Philip II's daughter Louise of Savoy (1476–1531), came from Lyon to Chambéry to venerate the Shroud. In 1521 Charles III married Beatrice of Portugal (1504-1538), a daughter of Spain's King Manuel I (1469–1521) and Queen Maria of Aragon (1482–1517). They had nine children, one of whom, Emmanuel Philibert (1528-80), would become Duke. Margaret of Austria died in Belgium in 1530, mercifully having been spared from what was to happen only two years later (see next).

Chambéry (1532)-Piedmont (1535). On 4 December 1532 a fire nearly destroyed the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry. Because the Shroud was behind an iron grille, secured by four locks with separate keys, there was no time to obtain them all to unlock the grille. So a local blacksmith, Guillaume Pussod, was called and with the help of the chapel's canons, at great risk to their lives, he prised open the grille and removed the casket from the burning chapel. But by that time the casket had begun to melt and a drop of molten silver had burned through a corner of the Shroud which was folded in 48 layers. The inside of the casket was doused with buckets of water and the fire extinguished. The casket was then taken into the nearby Treasury and when the Shroud was extracted it was found that miraculously the burn marks had paralleled the image (see below) and apart from part of the shoulders and upper arms, the image was not affected. The Shroud was not exhibited on 4th May 1533, seemingly confirming rumours that it had been totally destroyed. In April 1534 the Shroud was carried in a procession, including Duke Charles III, the local cardinal Cardinal Louis de Gorrevod (c.1473-1535), two bishops, an ecclesiastical notary and many other clergy, to Chambéry's convent of the Poor Clare nuns (founded by Duchess Yolande in 1471). After the Shroud had been laid out on a table, to counter the above rumours, Cardinal Gorrevod, invited those present to testify that the cloth before them was the same as the one they knew before the fire. After three bishops and ten noblemen did so testify, the Cardinal himself testified:

"It is the same sheet as we ourselves before the fire have many times held in our hands, seen, touched and shown to the people"[12] (my emphasis).

The Cardinal's words indicate that he had been one of the clerics who had held the Shroud at its Chambéry exhibitions (see above) and that there had been many such exhibitions, the records of which have not survived. The Poor Clare nuns then sewed a Holland cloth backing on to the Shroud and covered the unsightly burn holes with triangular linen patches, sewed into the backing cloth. An insightful report by Abesse Louise de Vargin, who had unparalleled access to the Shroud, is online. The repairs were completed on 2 May, just in time for the Shroud's annual exhibition on 4th May 1454.

[Left (enlarge)[13]: The Shroud, as it was before the 2002 restoration, showing the triangular burn patches sewn on by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns in 1534. Compare it with the post-2002 restoration.]

In late 1535 Francesco II Sforza (1495–1535), the Duke of Milan, died with no heir. This sparked a fresh outbreak of the Italian Wars between France's King Francis I and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (1500–1558). The latter took charge of the Duchy of Milan, and announced that his son, King Philip II of Spain (1527–98), was the new Duke of Milan. At this, Francis I invaded Italy through Savoy, in March 1536. Savoy was aligned with Charles V and so it passed into French control. Charles III and his family, seeing what was coming, had already left Chambéry in late 1535, taking the Shroud with them over the Alps into Piedmont, Italy.

Piedmont (1535)-Chambéry (1561). The Shroud was taken by Duke Charles III to Piedmont, Italy, passing through the Lanzo valley. On 4 May 1535, the Feast Day of the Holy Shroud, the Shroud was exhibited in Turin, possibly at

[Right (enlarge): Extract from Ian Wilson's "Travels of the Shroud" map[14], showing some of the locations the Shroud (1535-61).]

Turin's Castle of Rivoli, a Savoy castle on the

[Left (enlarge)[15]: The Savoy Castle of Rivoli, on the outskirts of Turin, where the Shroud was possibly exhibited on 4 May 1535 and probably kept between then and the French capture of Turin a year later.]

outskirts of Turin, where the future Duke Charles Emmanuel (1562-1630) was later born. The French Army captured Turin in April 1536, but it failed to take Milan. The next record of the Shroud is just over a year later, when it was exhibited on 7 May 1536, at Milan, now safe in Charles V's territory. However, because of the ongoing threat of a French invasion of Milan, in 1537 the Shroud was taken to Vercelli. Then on Good Friday 1537 the Shroud was exhibited further south at Nice. Charles III's wife, Duchess Beatrice died in January 1538 in Nice. And it was in Nice, in June 1538, that the Truce of Nice was signed by Charles V and Francis I, temporarily ending the war, but leaving Turin in French hands. In 1541 the Shroud returned to Vercelli where it will stay for the next twenty years, in the treasury of St. Eusebius Cathedral. In 1542 Francis I, allied with the Muslim Ottoman Empire, declared war on Charles V's Holy Roman Empire. In August 1543 a Franco-Ottoman fleet captured the city of Nice. For Christian and Islamic troops to jointly attack a Christian town was regarded as shocking. Francis I died in 1547 and was succeeded to the throne by his son, King Henry II of France (1519-59), who continued his father's war. The future Duke Emmanuel Philibert served in Charles V's army in the war against France, and distinguished himself by capturing the northern France town of Hesdin in July 1553. In August 1553 Charles III died in Vercelli and his eldest surviving son Emmanuel Philibert succeeded him as Duke. In November 1553 the French sacked Vercelli but the Shroud was hidden in the house of Antoine Claude Costa, one of the canons. Emperor Charles V abdicated the Western part of his Empire in 1556 and gave it to his son Philip II, who continued his father's war with France. Duke Emmanuel Philibert personally led an invasion of northern France and decisively defeated the French at Battle of St. Quentin on 10 August 1557, the Feast Day of St Lawrence. This important victory secured for the Duke a place at the conference table when the terms of peace were deliberated. In April 1559 Henry II of France and Philip II of Spain signed the Treaty of Chateau-Cambrésis which ended the 60 year-long Italian Wars. Under its terms, amongst others, France restored Piedmont and Savoy to the Duke of Savoy, and Duke Emmanuel Philibert was to marry Marguerite of Valois (1523–74), the sister of Henry II, in July 1559.

[Right (enlarge)[16]: Miniature by Christophe Duch (1559), in the prayer-book of Duchess Marguerite, presumably a wedding present, depicting a private exhibition of the Shroud, probably in the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry, before the 1532 fire.]

But just before the wedding, Henry sustained a fatal injury in a jousting tournament. Henry insisted that the wedding go ahead and and died a day after it. In 1560 the Shroud was exhibited from a balcony in Vercelli castle, and then after 25 years of exile of the Savoys from their own lands, the Shroud returned to Chambéry in 1561.

Chambéry (1561)-Turin (1578). On 3 June 1561 the Shroud was returned to Chambéry, and deposited in the Franciscan convent. The next day Duke Emmanuel Philibert led a procession accompanied by trumpeters and torches, to the now restored Sainte Chapelle. On 15 August the first exposition of Shroud in a quarter of a century was held in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry's high altar. On 17 August, because of the huge crowds and the confined space in, and in front of, the Sainte Chapelle, the Shroud was exhibited from the walls of Chambéry and also above the piazza of the castle. But the days of the Shroud in

[Above (enlarge)[17]: Simulated exhibition of the Shroud (white rectangle) from a temporary scaffolding platform outside the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry's apse window[18], overlooking the piazza of Chambéry Castle, where the Shroud was presumably exhibited on 17 August 1561.]

Chambéry were numbered. Following the Treaty of Chateau-Cambrés, Chambéry was no longer suitable for the capital of the dukes of Savoy. Moreover, there still was the likelihood of further French aggression and as an experienced military man, the Duke knew that Chambéry was indefensible. In 1562 Charles Emmanuel I (1562-1630), the future Duke of Savoy, and the only child of the 38 year-old Marguerite and the 34 year-old Emmanuel Philibert, was born. But significantly his birth was in the Castle of Rivoli, Piedmont, not in Chambéry. By 1563 Duke Emmanuel Philibert had moved his administration to Turin. In 1566 there was a private exposition of the Shroud in the Sainte-Chapelle for the new duchess of Savoy from Nemours, the important and influential Anna d'Este (1531-1607), who had married that year Jacques de Savoie, Duke of Nemours (1531-85), a descendant of both Duke Louis I's sister Agnes de Savoie (1445-1509) and Louis' brother Duke Philip II. The Shroud was recorded as being kept in an iron box as the silver casket had been destroyed in the 1532 fire. Duchess Marguerite de Valois died in 1574, again significantly, not in Chambéry but Turin. The Duke saw Turin as the logical center of his dominions but needed an excuse to bring the Shroud there. In 1578 that excuse came in the form of an announcement by the saintly Cardinal Charles Borromeo (1538–1584), the Archbishop of Milan, that he was intending to make a pilgrimage on foot to Chambéry to revere the Shroud, because of a vow he had made during a plague that had afflicted Milan. Duke Emmanuel Philibert volunteered to have the Shroud brought from Chambéry to Turin, ostensibly to save the relatively young (~40 years old) but sickly Borromeo the rigors of the journey over the Alps to reach Chambéry. On 14 September 1578, the Shroud arrived in Turin, never to return to Chambéry again.

Continued in "Locations of the Shroud: Turin 1578-1694.

Notes
1. "Rocca di Verrua," Wikipedia, 22 November 2014. Translated from Italian by Google. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1994b, "A Chronology of the Shroud 1452-1509," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 38, August/September, pp.20-25, p.20. [return]
3. "Palazzo Madama in Turin," Aree Protette del Po e della Collina Torinese, 2015. [return]
4. "Castello di Ivrea," Turismo Torino e Provincia, 2015. [return]
5. "Castle of Moncalieri," Wikipedia, 11 March 2015. Photo by Marrabbio2, February 2007. [return]
6. "Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry," Wikipedia, 6 February 2015. [return]
7. "File:Sainte-Chapelle (Chambéry).jpg," Wikipedia, 1 June 2013. [return]
8. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.19. [return]
9. Moretto, 1999, p.18. [return]
10. 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.286. [return]
11. "Books," Geocities, October, 2009. [return]
12. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.253-254. [return]
13. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 21 March 2015. [return]
14. Wilson, I. 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Gollancz: London, inside cover. [return]
15. "Rivoli, Piedmont," Wikipedia, 1 May 2014. [return]
16. Powell, A.K, 2012, "Depositions: Scenes from the Late Medieval Church and the Modern Museum," Zone Books/MIT. Amazon.com. [return]
17. Chambéry Palace piazza, La Savoie, terre d'accueil de la Fédération Française de Gymnastique, www.savoie-ffgym.com. [return]
18. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.50. [return]

References
• Crispino, D.C., 1982, "The Report of the Poor Clare Nuns," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 2, March, pp.19-28, p.20.
• Crispino, D.C., 1983, "Louis I, Duke of Savoy," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 7, June, pp.7-14, pp.8-9, p.13.
• Crispino, D.C., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, #28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, pp.38-39.
• de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.16.
• Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.16-17.
• Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, pp.104-105.
• Jones, S.E., 2015, "de Charny Family Tree" and "Savoy Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au (members only).
• Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.163.
• Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, pp.66-68.
• Scott, 2003, pp.47-48, 60, 365 n.79.
• Van Haelst, R., 1986, "The Lier Shroud: A Problem in Attribution," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 20, September, pp.7-24.
• Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, pp.53-54.
• Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.217-220, 262-263.
• Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.70.
• Wilson, I., 1994a, "A New Finding - A Hitherto Unknown Shroud Image From 1486," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 38, August/September, pp.16-19, p.16.
• Wilson, 1994b, pp.19-25.
• Wilson, I., 1996a, "News from France: CIELT to hold Pre-Exposition International Shroud Symposium in Nice, 11-14 May 1997," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 43, June/July.
• Wilson, I., 1996b, "A Calendar of the Shroud for the years 1509-1694," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 44, November/December.
• Wilson, 1998, pp.64-66, 116, 282-286.
• Wilson, 2010, pp.242-257.

Created: 14 March 2015. Updated: 19 April 2021.

"C": Turin Shroud Dictionary

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

"C"

This is page "C" of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. For more information about this dictionary see the "Main index A-Z" and page "A."

[Index] [Previous: "B"] [Next: "D"]

---

calcium carbonate (see limestone)
camera obscura
capillary action
carbon-14 dating (see radiocarbon dating)

[Right: Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (see below) depicted being crowned by Christ[2].]

Carter, Giles
catacombs of Rome
Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Turin
cellulose
Cesalpino, Andrea
Chambéry
Charny (see de Charny)
chemical tests
Chevalier, Ulysse
chin band
Christ (see Jesus Christ)
Christ Pantocrator
Christianity
Clement VII, Pope
cloth
cloth-collapse theory
Code of Jewish Law
coin images
Constantine I

Constantine VII, Porphyrogenitus (905–959). Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII received the Shroud (as the Image of Edessa / Mandylion "four-doubled" - tetradiplon - with only the face one-eighth panel visible), at Constantinople's Golden Gate on 8 August 944, as dictated in his eyewitness testimony, "Narration about the Edessan image," on 16 August 944. In it Constantine described the Edessa Mandylion as a "moist secretion not made with, artists' paints," which is a precise description of the Shroud. In the 10th century icon that Constantine commissioned, which is preserved at St. Catherine's monastery Sinai, depicting King Abgar V of Edessa (4BC–AD50) receiving the Mandylion from the disciple Thaddeus (see "Abgar V"), it is Constantine VII's face on Abgar's body. Constantine instituted the date of the Image of Edessa's official arrival in Constantinople, 16 August 944, as a permanent annual feast day in the Eastern Orthodox Church calendar, and it continues to be observed down to the present, despite it losing the Mandylion over 800 years ago in the Fourth Crusade's Sack of Constantinople in 1204! A gold solidus coin of Constantine VII struck in 945, has many points of congruence with the Shroud face. In 958, a year before he died, Constantine sent a letter of encouragement to his troops, stating that he is sending them holy water consecrated by contact with relics of the Passion of Christ held in Constantinople's Pharos Chapel, including the theophoron sindonos, the "God-worn linen sheet." This, together with the other evidence above, can only be the Shroud, over 300 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in 1988.

Constantinople
contaminants
Coon, Carleton S.
coronal discharge
cotton
Craig, Emily A.
cross
crown of thorns
crucifixion
crurifragium
Crusade, Fourth
Currer-Briggs, Noel
Cyprus

---

Notes:
1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "blood," not the whole page "B"), provided a link and/or reference is provided back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return]
2. "Byzantine literature," Wikipedia, 25 January 2014. [return]

Created: 12 March, 2015. Updated: 30 March, 2015.

"B": Turin Shroud Dictionary

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

"B"

This is page "B" of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. See the "Main index A-Z" and page "A" for more information about this dictionary.

[Index] [Previous: "A"] [Next: "C"]

---

[Above: A photomicrograph of a blood area on the Shroud[2]. See "blood" below.]

Ballestrero, Anastasio
Barbet, Pierre
Baruch, Uri
beatings
Besançon
Bible
bilirubin
bioplastic coating
Blachernae, church

blood. The bloodstains on the Shroud are real, human blood. The bloodflows are anatomically perfect and preserve the distinction between arterial and venous blood, which was discovered in 1593 by Andrea Cesalpino (1519–1603). In ultraviolet light each blood clot can be seen to have a surrounding serum halo, due to syneresis, the retraction of the blood into the centre of clot as it dries, which would be unknown to a medieval forger and impossible to forge. There is no image under the blood, which means that the blood was on the cloth before the image. This is consistent with Jesus' bloody dead body having been laid on the Shroud and then the image having been formed by His resurrection days later. This alone refutes all forgery theories, since it would be impossible for a forger to apply blood first and then forge the Man's image around the blood, and in fact all forgery theories simply ignore this fact and propose that the image was on the cloth first and then the blood was applied to it. The blood clots on the cloth are intact, which could only occur if the cloth separated from the body without smearing or tearing the clots, which is impossible, unless the body became "mechanically transparent," as in the resurrection of Jesus.

body images
Bourg-en-Bresse
Braulio, St.
British Society for the Turin Shroud
Bucklin, Robert
Bulst, Werner
burial
burial cloths
burns
Byzantine curve
Byzantine icons

---

Notes:
1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "blood," not the whole page "B"), provided a link and/or reference is provided back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return]
2. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.75. [return]

Created: 10 March, 2015. Updated: 6 April, 2015.

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (6)

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction. This is part #10, Summary (6), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. See the previous parts #10(1), #10(2), #10(3), #10(4) and #10(5). 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 #5".

[Index [#2] [#3] [#4][#5][#7][#8][#9][#10(1)][#10(2)][#10(3)][#10(4)][#10(5)][#10(6)][#10(7)][#10(8)][#10(9)][#10(10)].]

[Right (enlarge): Rev. H. David Sox's book, "The Shroud Unmasked," states in its Introduction that it was written by "August 1988"[2], and the London Sunday Times had a copy of it by 18 September 1988[3], more than two weeks before the official announce- ment of the carbon dating result[4] on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud's carbon date was "1260-1390!"[5]. In it Sox surprisingly (to put it mildly) quotes "Timothy Linick" (see below), and while Sox cites no date of the Shroud in it, it is clear that he knew the result of Arizona's first carbon dating of the Shroud was "1350"[6] up to two months before the official announcement[7].]

6. EVIDENCE THAT TIMOTHY W. LINICK WAS THE LEAKER OF ARIZONA'S FIRST "1350 AD" DATE. [ part #6] As part of my evidence that Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-4 June 1989)[8] was allegedly the primary hacker, who: 1) allegedly wrote and installed on Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS 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])[9] on the AMS computers at Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories; here is my evidence that Linick leaked Arizona's 1350 radiocarbon date of the Shroud to the Rev. H. David Sox, an American Episcopalian priest, teaching at the American School in London[10];

[Left (enlarge): David Sox (centre), meeting with Harry Gove (right) and a BBC representative (left) in 1986[11].]

and that Sox in turn leaked that date to the media through others (see next), 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[12], 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?":

"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?'"[13].

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, both of whom would have accepted that 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..."[14], 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". But Linick (unlike McCrone who was "unschooled in carbon dating"[15]) 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[16], which more plausibly would have been well before 1355.

• Sox was allegedly the secondary leaker of Arizona's "1350 AD" date. In the first of many leaks of the Shroud's carbon dating results[17], on 3 July 1988, columnist Kenneth Rose (1924-2014) in the London Sunday Telegraph reported on

[Right: The late Kenneth Rose[18], 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[19]. 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"!]

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"[20]. The story was picked up by news media around the world[21]. Suspicion fell on Oxford laboratory having leaked the results, but Oxford's Prof. Hall and Dr. Hedges[22] in letter to The Times of 9 July denied that, pointing out that Oxford had not yet begun its dating of the Shroud[23].

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[24] and 13th May 1988[25], accompanied by Sox[26] as the program's sole consultant[27], that Cameron had "gleaned ...that the shroud dated to the 13th century"[28]. Zurich carried out its dating on 26 May[29], twenty days after Arizona[30] and, according to Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper[31], Zurich's average age of the Shroud was 676 ± 24 years, which is 700-652 years before 1950[32], 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"[33], 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"[34], 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"[35].

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[36]. It was generally assumed that the Oxford laboratory, which had completed its dating on 6 August, had leaked the "1350" date to Luckett[37]. But not only was Oxford's mean date "several decades less than 1350 AD"[38], 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"[39].

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)[40]. I had been told privately that a possible connection between Sox and Luckett was "pillow talk." So, on discovering evidence that Sox was a homosexual (see later 15Aug17) and that Luckett and Rose were not married, I proposed that the connection between Sox, Rose and Luckett was that they were part of an informal network of homosexuals.

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"[41]. 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 that 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 the source of the leaks"[42]. The next day, 24 September, in La Stampa, Sox was quoted as admitting he was partly to blame for the leaks: "May I be damned if I were to let the entire blame fall on myself"[43].

And since, according to Table 1 of the 1989 Nature paper, none of Zurich's dates were anywhere near 1350[44], 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"[45].

• Linick was allegedly the primary leaker of Arizona's "1350" date. How would Sox even know that Linick existed, to quote him unless Linick contacted Sox? Linick was not an Arizona laboratory

[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."].

leader who might be more widely known, but merely an ordinary `back room' scientist. Sox's book has at the end of its Introduction its last date before publication, "August 1988"[46], and the book had its official launch on 15 October 1988[47]. So the 16 February 1989 Nature paper to which Linick was a signatory[48] 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. ... 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"[49].

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[50]. 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's 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, either over the phone, by email, or letter? 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[51]. Then Gove in his book records that he had dinner with Sox in London on 12 May[52].

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."[53]. 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 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"[54] 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"[55], and he was puzzled when Luckett stated the radiocarbon date of the Shroud was "1350"[56]. And indeed Sox, in a copy of a letter forwarded to Gove, stated, "Gove didn't [tell me the 1350 date of the Shroud]"[57].

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:"[58], 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 alleged primary hacker, who wrote and installed a program on Arizona's AMS 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, and averaged, yielded the `bull's eye' date of 1325 ±65, it is consistent with, and evidence for, my theory that he was. And as we shall see next, there is further evidence that Linnick was allegedly the primary hacker.

Continued in part #10(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. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
7. Wilson, 1988a, p.19. [return]
8. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
9. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.176G. [return]
11. Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
14. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.138. [return]
15. Gove, 1996, p.49. [return]
16. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
18. "Kenneth Rose - obituary," The Telegraph, 29 January 2014. [return]
19. Shawcross, W., 2014, "Kenneth Rose: we'll miss his wit, warmth and wry sense of humour," The Telegraph, 1 February. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1988b, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
22. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
23. 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]
24. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
25. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
26. Sox, 1988, p.160. [return]
27. Wilson, I., 1988c, "Two Recent B.B.C. Television Programmes," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.23. [return]
28. Gove, 1996, p.274. [return]
29. Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.131. [return]
30. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.87. [return]
31. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.613. [return]
32. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
33. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
34. "Birthdays: Dr Richard Luckett," The Times, July 1 2010. [return]
35. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
36. Ibid. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, p.277. [return]
38. Gove, 1996, pp.277-278. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.278. [return]
40. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
41. Wilson, I., 1988b. [return]
42. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
43. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
44. 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]
45. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
46. Sox, 1988, p.6. [return]
47. Wilson, 1998, p.311. [return]
48. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
49. Sox, 1988, pp.143,145. [return]
50. Gove, 1996, pp.261-262. [return]
51. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
52. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
53. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
54. Gove, 1996, p.265. [return]
55. Gove, 1996, pp.267, 276, 281, 283. [return]
56. Gove, 1996, pp.277-281. [return]
57. Gove, 1996, p.283. [return]
58. Gove, 1996, pp.184-185. [return]

Posted 5 March 2015. Updated 7 September 2024.