[Index: #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 & #11]
A happy New Year to all my readers! Will 2016 be the year when the anti-authenticists world will finally realise that it had been duped by a computer hacker (allegedly the late Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick), these last ~27 years, into thinking, falsely, that the authentic, first century Shroud, had a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390?
Since I wrote that yesterday (1 January 2016) it is suddenly looking more likely! I have discovered that Timothy W. Linick was the son of a Dr Leroy M. Linick (18Oct63, 10Jun64, 29May65, 16Aug75) and was a much younger half-brother to an Anthony Linick (1938-). Leroy Linick (1907-67) and his wife Etta (nee Gordon) (1905-70) divorced and she married "the composer and conductor Ingolf Dahl" (1912–70). Anthony grew up with his stepfather Dahl (who was a homosexual). Leroy Linick married a Delphine Weiler (1911-93), and she gave birth to Timothy Weiler Linick in 1946. Anthony wrote a biography of his stepfather titled, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl" (2008) [Left: Amazon.com]. I don't have that book but have now ordered it [since arrived]. However, I was able to read online Google books snippets about Timothy in it, that he became so deeply introverted that Anthony had difficulty connecting with him (p.249). There was one page (p.619) in the index about Timothy near the end of the book which was not hyperlinked, but I was able to tab through the online book until I found it. And it confirmed that Timothy Linick "took his own life at age 42 in 1989" (see below).
I will go into this in more detail when I get to Timothy W. Linick's suicide in the next part #6 of this series. I note that Linick's family were Jewish (which might furnish an anti-Christian motive to Timothy Linick's alleged hacking of the Shroud). Also, I don't rule out that Linick might have killed himself out of remorse on 4 June 1989, when he learned that German police had announced a day earlier on 3 June 1989, that the charred body made to look like suicide was that of German hacker Karl Koch, who Linick may have known. See my previous posts in this series for references. I had sent a message to Anthony Linick on 2nd January, setting out the evidence that his half-brother Timothy was the leaker of Arizona's "1350" date and asking if he knew anything about that. I did not mention hacking or Timothy Linick's suicide. Anthony replied on 3rd January, mentioning that "a few hours after receiving" my message he "also heard from Mr. Hugh Farey [the anti-authenticist Editor of the BSTS Newsletter] on the same topic." Anthony Linick's reply continued:
"Of course I have encountered materials on the controversies surrounding the Turin Shroud, including theories of conspiracy – including those on the death of my half-brother, Timothy Linick, in 1989. I have to say that I have nothing to add to these matters. I spent only one year under the same roof as Tim – and that was when he was six years old. ... I never visited any member of this family after their move to Arizona nor did I have any direct contact with my half-brother while he was there. I knew, of course, that he was a specialist in carbon dating but I don’t remember when I learned that he was part of the team charged with dating the shroud. When my step-mother, Del (Delphine) [Timothy Linick's mother] called to share the news of his passing she said only that he took his own life and that he had been suffering from depression. I called her every few months but from this point until her death in 1993 she never alluded to any mysteries or controversies involving Tim’s death or work."I found this helpful in that, even though (again), I did not mention hacking or suicide (although Farey may have), Anthony Linick was aware of "theories of conspiracy – including those on the death of my half-brother, Timothy Linick, in 1989" and that his half-brother was "suffering from depression." This adds weight to the alternative that Linick "killed himself out of remorse" (see above).
Introduction. This my concluding summary of the evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[2] was the result of a computer hacking, allegedly by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[3], aided by German hacker Karl Koch (1965–89)[4], on behalf of the former Soviet Union, through its agency the KGB. Previous posts in this series were parts: #1, #2, #3 and #4. I will link the main headings back to my previous, "My theory ..." posts on those topics. It is my emphasis below unless otherwise indicated. The next post in this series is part #6.
[Right (enlarge): Rev. H. David Sox's book, "The Shroud Unmasked," states in its Introduction that it was written by "August 1988"[5], and the London Sunday Times had a copy of it by 18 September 1988[6], more than three weeks before the official announcement on 13 October 1988[7] that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!"[8]. In the book Sox surprisingly (to put it mildly) quotes "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist" (see below), and while Sox cites no date of the Shroud in the book, it is clear (as we shall see) that he knew the result of Arizona's first carbon dating of the Shroud was "1350"[9] up to two months before the official announcement[10].]
■ Evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the leaker of Arizona laboratory's first "1350 AD" date [#10(6) & #6] As part of my evidence that Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[11] was allegedly the primary hacker who allegedly wrote and installed on Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS computer a program which, when also passed on to KGB for which he was allegedly working, to be installed on Zurich and Oxford's identical AMS computers, by confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–89)[12], ensured that the Shroud samples' actual radiocarbon dates would be replaced by dates which, when calibrated, combined and averaged clustered around 1325; here is my evidence that Linick allegedly leaked Arizona's "1350" first radiocarbon date of the Shroud to the Rev. H. David Sox, an American Episcopalian priest, teaching at the American School in London[13]; and that Sox in turn leaked that date to the
[Left (enlarge): David Sox (centre), meeting with Harry Gove (right) and a BBC representative (left) in 1986[14].]
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[15], but later turned anti-authenticist[16], 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?'"[17].
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 future below).
Indeed Linick's quoted words are similar to what the extreme Shroud anti-authenticist, the late Dr Walter McCrone (1916-2002) wrote in 1981, "A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ...":
"Our work now supports the two Bishops [Henri de Poitiers and Pierre d'Arcis] and it seems reasonable that the image, now visible, was painted on the cloth shortly before the first exhibition, or about 1355. Only a carbon-dating test can now resolve the question of authenticity of the 'Shroud' of Turin. A date significantly later than the first century would be conclusive evidence the `Shroud' is not genuine. A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ, would, no doubt, be so accepted by nearly everyone."[18]This is evidence that 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"[19]) 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[20], which more plausibly would have been a few decades 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[21], on 3 July 1988, columnist Kenneth Rose (1924-2014) in the London Sunday Telegraph reported on the then ongoing radiocarbon
[Right: The late Kenneth Rose[22], 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[23]. 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"!]
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"[24]. The story was picked up by news media around the world[25]. Suspicion fell on Oxford laboratory having leaked the results, but Oxford's Prof. Hall and Dr. Hedges[26] in letter to The Times of 9 July denied that, pointing out that Oxford had not yet begun its dating of the Shroud[27].
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[28] and 13th May 1988[29], accompanied by Sox[30] as the program's sole consultant[31], that Cameron had "gleaned ...that the shroud dated to the 13th century"[32]. Zurich carried out its dating on 26 May[33], twenty days after Arizona[34] and, according to Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper[35], Zurich's average age of the Shroud was 676 ± 24 years, which is 700-652 years before 1950[36], 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"[37], 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"[38], 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"[39].
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[40]. It was generally assumed that the Oxford laboratory, which had completed its dating on 6 August, had leaked the "1350" date to Luckett[41]. But not only was Oxford's mean date "several decades less than 1350 AD"[42], 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"[43].
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)[44]. In May 2014 I was told by someone who knew Sox, that a possible connection between Luckett and Sox was "pillow-talk." That Luckett died "unmarried" (see above), Rose "never married" (see above and Sox was a homosexual (later confirmed 15Aug17s), supports my theory that the explanation of how Luckett knew the "1350" date of the very first dating run of the Shroud at Arizona laboratory, was that Rose, Luckett and Sox were members 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"[45]. 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"[46]. 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"[47].
And since, according to Table 1 of the 1989 Nature paper, none of Zurich's dates were anywhere near 1350[48], 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"[49].
• 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
leader who might be more widely known, but merely an ordinary `back room' scientist. And Sox could have been known to Linick from a 1981 Washington Post article, which mentioned demands for the Shroud to be radiocarbon dated and Sox as Secretary of the BSTS, but now sceptical of the Shroud's authenticity:
"The Shroud of Turin ... will soon come under severe scientific and historical criticism. The shroud, allegedly the burial cloth of Christ, bears the marks of a crucified human figure and of the face of a man which became fully visible only during this century, when it was treated as a photographic negative. Since the shroud was publicly displayed in Turin in 1978, there has been a widespread demand for scientific analysis of it, particularly by carbon dating, to seek to establish if it is 2,000 years old ... The big blow to its authenticity is the imminent publication by the microscopist, Dr. Walter McCrone of Chicago, of evidence that he has found traces of iron oxide on it, indicating that the image was painted on ... By this reasoning, the shroud was the creation of some unknown medieval artist. The Rev. David Sox, an American Episcopal priest working in London, is the secretary of the British Society for the Shroud of Turin. His book, `The Image of the Shroud,' to be published next month, is a good deal more sceptical than most on the subject. `So far as I am concerned, if the existence of paint is proved, that is the end of the shroud as a miraculous object,' he said. ... Sox believes that future study of the shroud may have to concentrate on exactly how it and other medieval Christian relics were produced." [50]
Sox's book has at the end of its Introduction its last date before publication, "August 1988"[51], and the book had its official launch on 15 October 1988[52]. So the 16 February 1989 Nature paper to which Linick was a signatory[53] 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"[54].
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[55]. 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[56]. Then Gove in his book records that he had dinner with Sox in London on 12 May[57].
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."[58]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 control console 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."[59]and Gove must have told Sox that Arizona's first dating was closer to 1000 years than 2000. But Gove insisted that he never divulged to Sox that Arizona's first date was "1350"[60], and Gove was puzzled when Luckett quoted the date of the Shroud as "1350"[61]. And indeed Sox, in a letter of 12 October 1988, to Fr Peter Rinaldi (1910-93), a copy of a which was forwarded to Gove, stated:
"Woelfli [Zurich laboratory's Director] did not tell me [the "1350" date of the Shroud], Gove didn't and I will never say how I came to have an inkling about the results"[62].Moreover, Gove would be most unlikely to quote Linick's words to Sox, given again that Linick was just another Arizona scientist. Gove would have said it directly to Sox with more weight than Linick. And, 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."[63], 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 1988, or after Zurich's dating on 26 May and before his book was completed in August 1988. 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 again why would another scientist do that when he could say it himself?), 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 checked with Sox to make sure that Linick said those words directly to Sox. And 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, and 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.
Moreover, Gove must have, after Sox's 1988 book was published on 15 October 1988 (two days after the official announcement[64]!), read that Sox had quoted Linick, and therefore Linick must have been the leaker of Arizona's "1350" date to Sox. Gove's confession above that he had revealed that date to his partner Shirley Brignall, and therefore had breached his signed confidentiality agreement, would have been unnecessary otherwise. And so presumably would Linick's Arizona colleagues have read that Sox quoted Linick, not to mention the staff at the other two laboratories. Sox's book was the first out on the 1988 radiocarbon dating and it beggars belief that no one at the Arizona laboratory (let alone at the other two laboratories) read it. Which means that Gove suppressed that information in his 1996 book, presumably because of Linick's suicide. And Linick would surely have had to `please explain' to the Arizona laboratory leadership why he: 1) breached the signed confidentiality agreement in communicating with Sox; and 2) leaked Arizona's "1350" date to Sox. The pressure that would have put Linick under and the guilt of having further secretly betrayed his colleagues in (allegedly) hacking their radiocarbon dating, may in part explain why Linick "had been suffering from depression" (see above), and why he took his own life (if he was not executed by the KGB).
That Linick was the primary leaker of Arizona's first run "1350" date to Sox and through him the media, does not in itself 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[65]) century radiocarbon dates with computer-generated dates which, when calibrated, and averaged, yielded the `bull's eye' date of 1325 ±65, but it is consistent with, and evidence for, that he was. And as we shall see next, there is further evidence that Linick was allegedly the primary hacker of the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, which produced its bogus, computer-generated "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" date.
Continued in part #6 of this series.
Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
3. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
4. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 5 May 2015. [return]
5. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.6. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1988a, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.19. [return]
7. Ibid. [return]
8. 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]
9. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
10. Wilson, 1988a, p.19. [return]
11. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
12. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
13. Gove, 1996, p.176G. [return]
14. Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Ibid. [return]
17. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
18. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.138, 331. [return]
19. Gove, 1996, p.49. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
22. "Kenneth Rose - obituary," The Telegraph, 29 January 2014. [return]
23. Shawcross, W., 2014, "Kenneth Rose: we'll miss his wit, warmth and wry sense of humour," The Telegraph, 1 February. [return]
24. Wilson, I., 1988b, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [return]
25. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
26. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
27. 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]
28. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
29. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
30. Sox, 1988, p.160. [return]
31. Wilson, I., 1988c, "Two Recent B.B.C. Television Programmes," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.23. [return]
32. Gove, 1996, p.274. [return]
33. Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.131. [return]
34. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.87. [return]
35. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.613. [return]
36. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
37. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
38. "Birthdays: Dr Richard Luckett," The Times, July 1 2010. [return]
39. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
40. Ibid. [return]
41. Gove, 1996, p.277. [return]
42. Gove, 1996, pp.277-278. [return]
43. Gove, 1996, p.278. [return]
44. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
45. Wilson, I., 1988b. [return]
46. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
47. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
48. 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]
49. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
50. "Shroud of Turin to Undergo Close Scientific Criticism," The Washington Post/London Observer, January 2, 1981. [return]
51. Sox, 1988, p.6. [return]
52. Wilson, 1998, p.311. [return]
53. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
54. Sox, 1988, pp.143,145. [return]
55. Gove, 1996, pp.261-262. [return]
56. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
57. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
58. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
59. Gove, 1996, p.265. [return]
60. Gove, 1996, pp.267, 276, 281, 283. [return]
61. Gove, 1996, pp.277-281. [return]
62. Gove, 1996, p.283. [return]
63. Gove, 1996, pp.184-185. [return]
64. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.109. [return]
65. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.87. [return]
Posted 30 December 2015. Updated 8 September 2024.
