I was emailed on 13 January 2016 by leading pro-authenticist Joe Marino to let me know, and presumably for me to share on this blog, that he had "put online pt 1 of 3 part article dealing with the politics of the Shroud dating: http://newvistas.homestead.com/C-14PoliticsPt1.html."
[Above (enlarge): Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory staff and Rochester laboratory's Prof. Harry Gove (second from right) around the AMS computer control console terminal, after, or before it had, on 6 May 1988 displayed the alleged hacked radiocarbon age of the Shroud, "640 years", which was then calibrated to the `too good to be true' date "1350 AD" (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.176H, 264). The alleged leaker and hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is in the black shirt, most prominently in the foreground (which is presumably significant-see future part #6, "Evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the hacker").]
A few hours later I emailed Joe the following reply (with my emphases and minor corrections). This was a summary of my "Evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the leaker of Arizona laboratory's first `1350 AD' date" in my recent post, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #5." I did that because, even if one does not accept my full theory that Timothy W. Linick was the alleged hacker who computer-generated the Shroud's "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" radiocarbon date, one should at least accept that Linick was the primary leaker of Arizona's "1350" date, as that is (as can be seen below) simpler, straightforward, and free of complex `conspiracy theory' objections.
Joe emailed me back with no commitment to include it in subsequent parts of his three-part article (which is up to him and they may have already been written) but he did promise to "look closely at all the excerpts" I provided. Which is something!
Are you going to mention in subsequent parts that Timothy W. Linick (whom I allege was a hacker who computer-generated the 1325 +/- 65 radiocarbon date) was inexplicably mentioned in Sox's August 1988 book?:
"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?'" (Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147)And since Sox was undoubtedly the secondary source of the leak of Arizona's first-run "1350" date [added below in square brackets]:
"[Hardly had this wave of publicity died down before on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran as its front-page lead story `Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake'. Accompanying this was a seemingly authoritative article by librarian Dr. Richard Luckett of Magdalene College, Cambridge, cryptically remarking that `laboratories are rather leaky institutions' and `a probable date of about 1350 looks likely'. ...] On 18 September the Sunday Times carried the front page headline `Official: Turin Shroud is a Fake', accompanied inside by the Science Correspondent's full page feature `Unravelled: The Riddle of the Shroud'. This included some of the background material supplied by me, plus the new `leaked' information on the dating, which although described as `official' was backed up by no directly quoted source. Since checks with Professor Hall of Oxford and Dr. Tite of the British Museum again established that neither had been responsible, I complained to the Sunday Times Editor with particular regard to the `official' headline. This prompted a conciliatory phone call from the Science Correspondent who when challenged directly, admitted that his source had been the Revd. David Sox. He said he had in front of him the Revd Sox's already complete book about the Shroud's mediaeval date, awaiting publication the moment this news becomes formally released. Sadly, as evident from a Daily Mail article of September 19, Professor Gonella and Cardinal Ballestrero in Turin have attributed the succession of apparent `leaks' emanating from England to malicious breaches of confidentiality on the part of the Oxford laboratory scientists and Dr. Tite. It seems clear that they have been mistaken, and that the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman whose identity will now be self-evident.' (Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks' ...," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [Emphases "Revd. David Sox" added])the inference is irresistible that Linick was the original source of the leak of Arizona's first run "1350" date [to Sox].
And Gove at least (and presumably many others in the laboratories since Sox's was the first book published about the radiocarbon dating), who is mentioned in Sox's book, on that same page, as telling his partner Shirley Brignall the 1350 date:
"Donahue's wife, who believed the Shroud was genuine, was going for 2000 years. So was Shirley Brignall. She and Gove had a bet. Gove said 1000 years although he hoped for twice that age. Whoever lost was to buy the other a pair of cowboy boots. The calculations were produced on the computer, and displayed on the screen. Even the dendrochronological correction was immediately available. All eyes were on the screen. The date would be when the flax used for the linen relic was harvested. Gove would be taking cowboy boots back to Rochester." (Sox, 1988, p.147)had to admit in his 1996 book that he had done that:
"I had a bet with Shirley on the shroud's age-she bet 2000 ±100 years old and I bet 1000 ±100 years. Whoever won bought the other a pair of cowboy boots. Although my guess was wrong, it was closer than Shirley's. She bought me the cowboy boots. The reader, by now, will have guessed that despite the agreement I had signed, I told Shirley the result that had been obtained that day. She and I had been associated with this shroud adventure now for almost exactly eleven years-there was no way I could not tell her. I knew she would never violate my confidence and she never did. (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.265)must have realised that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first run "1350" date, since Gove by a process of elimination had worked out that the leaker was "someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement":
"I must say I wondered about Luckett's date of 1350 because it was the date Donahue announced to me when I was present at the first radiocarbon measurement on the shroud in 6 May 1988. Of course, it also corresponds very closely to the shroud's known historic date. However, I still assumed Luckett had said he got the number from Oxford. When I read that he claimed he got it from one of the other two labs I worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement. However, it did not really matter now since all three labs had submitted their results to the British Museum and so none of them could be influenced by this real or imagined leak. Shirley convinced me that it was, in fact, a guess as Hall had stated. After all, the historic date for the shroud was circa 1353 when de Charny founded the church in Lirey, France purportedly to house the shroud. (Gove, 1996, pp.279-280)but Gove pretended it "did not really matter" and was just "a guess."
"The next morning at about 8 am (6 May 1988) I arrived at the Arizona AMS facility. I had asked Donahue to let Shirley attend this historic event since she had been involved in the shroud dating enterprise from the beginning. He said he had been asked to allow the Bishop of Arizona to be present and had turned him down. Under these circumstances he regretted he could not make an exception for Shirley-a deep disappointment for her. 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." (Gove, 1996, p.262)which presumably contributed to Linick' suicide in 1989, mentioned in his half-brother Anthony's (they had the same father but different mothers) biography of his stepfather Ingolf Dahl):
"Ten years earlier, to follow some of the characters who peopled the early pages of this book, Dora Linick, my step-grandmother, if there is such a designation, died. Adolph Linick, my grandfather, died in 1967 at the age of 97. On my rare visits to Laurel Avenue during his old age he would always slip me a dollar bill. Once I heard him complain, in the wake of the Holocaust,`God must hate the Jews!' His son, my father Leroy, died in 1986. His son, my half-brother Timothy, took his own life at age 42 in 1989." (Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse, p.619. Emphasis original)[Anthony Linick confirmed to me by email that this "Timothy" was indeed the Arizona radiocarbon dating physicist Timothy W. Linick. But I already knew that because the "W" stands for "Weiler" and at page 539 of the book it states that Anthony Linick's father Leroy divorced his mother Etta and married again a "Delphine Weiler" who later gave birth to Timothy Weiler Linick.].
See my recent post, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #5."
Posted: 19 January 2016. Updated: 27 September 2016.