Monday, February 22, 2016

The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #6

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction. This is part #6 of 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, #4 and #5. I will link the main headings in these posts 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 #7.

[Above (enlarge): Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory staff and Rochester radiocarbon dating laboratory's Prof. Harry Gove (second from right) around the AMS computer's control console terminal[5], just before or after it had, on 6 May 1988 displayed the alleged hacker's computer-generated radiocarbon age of the Shroud, "640 years"[6] before 1950[7], i.e. 1310, which was then calibrated to "1350 AD"[8]. The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is the one in a black shirt standing (significantly - see below) most prominently in the foreground[9].]

■ Evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the primary hacker [#10(7) & #7]

• Linick was an extreme anti-authenticist who would not have accepted that the Shroud was authentic, even if its radiocarbon date was "back 2000 years," as he was quoted in David Sox's 1988 book (see previous):

"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?'"[10].
By contrast, anti-authenticists like Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001) and Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), would have accepted that the Shroud was authentic if its carbon-date was first century[11].

• 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 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."[12].
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"[13]. 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[14]; 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"[15].

• Linick was the leaker of Arizona's "1350" first date of the Shroud. As we saw in part #5, 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"[16]. 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[17], 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"[18]. 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"[19] as Linick was (see above)[20].

• Linick's role at Arizona laboratory included the AMS carbon-14 measurement procedures. Linick was mentioned in footnote 9 of the 1989 Nature paper[21] as the lead author of a 1986 Radiocarbon journal paper which gave the "specific measurement procedures" of the AMS radiocarbon dating system at Arizona laboratory[22]. In that paper Linick described in intricate technical

[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 dating measurement procedures for Arizona laboratory.]

detail how the AMS system at Arizona laboratory measured the carbon-14 content of samples[23]. Included in this intricate technical detail supplied by Linick is evidence that the current Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, who as "C.R. Bronk" was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper, is hiding something about Linick being the alleged hacker of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating, as we shall see in part #8 of this series.

• Linick would have had access to Arizona's AMS computer, and would understand fully how its carbon 14 measurement program worked, and may even have written or at least modified 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 from the Shroud. And as we saw, a unique identifying code for the Shroud and control samples was given to the laboratories by the coordinator of the dating, Dr. (later Prof.) Tite of the British Museum[24]. It would therefore not be difficult for a competent programmer, as the "extremely mathematically gifted"[25] Linick presumably was, to write a program which could detect that a sample was of the Shroud and then substitute the radiocarbon 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 produced the `too good to be true', calibrated, "1350 AD" date[26]. This looks like it was a `hard-wired' straight substitution of 640 years BP ("1350 AD" calibrated) for the actual Shroud date, by Linick's alleged program. The hacker, allegedly Linick, presumably wanted the very first run to yield a `perfect' calibrated "1350" date for its psychological and media leak value. He would have wanted to create a climate of expectation that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was medieval, so his program's combined average 1325 ±65 calibrated date of the Shroud across the three laboratories would be accepted unquestionably, as it was with Arizona's first run "1350 AD".

• Linick was in charge of the AMS computerised dating process. That Linick is standing in front of his laboratory leaders and colleagues in the historic group photograph (above) of the dating of the Shroud at Arizona laboratory, can only be plausibly explained by Linick having been in charge of the actual AMS computerised dating process, and those present were, by giving Linick the most prominent place in that historic photograph, acknowledging that. Also, Linick was the second-last person present to sign the confidentiality agreement:

"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 [Donahue] 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."[27]
indicating that he had been commencing the AMS dating process immediately before.

• 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[28], that their number had been reduced to three laboratories using only one method, AMS: Arizona, Oxford and Zurich[29]. 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[30]), 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[31]. On 22 January 1988, the leaders of all three laboratories, Professors Hall (Oxford), Wolfli (Zurich) and Donahue (Arizona), met in London with Turin's Prof. Luigi Gonella to "work out the final details of how and when they would take the samples"[32]. 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[33]. The first actual dating of the Shroud was over six weeks after that when Arizona carried out its first run on 6 May 1988[34]. Zurich was next with its first dating on or about 26 May[35], nearly three weeks after Arizona's. Eight weeks after Zurich, on 21 July, Oxford completed its dating of the Shroud[36]. 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. The leaders of all three laboratories: Professors Hall (Oxford), Wolfli (Zurich) and Donahue (Arizona), were all together in Turin with the British Museum coordinator Dr Tite at the cutting of the samples[37]. They would surely have then (if not before on 21 January) prearranged the order and approximate timeframe in which each laboratory would conduct its dating. If so, Linick would have known from then (if not before) in order and approximately when each laboratory would date the Shroud.

• Linick was found dead of assumed suicide on 4 June 1989 Linick was found dead in Tucson, Arizona[38] on 4 June 1989[39], at

[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"[40]. This is consistent with my theory that the KGB murdered confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch between 23 and 30 May 1989 (see part #8) and the day after the German police had publicly released the identity of a burnt body as Koch's on 3 June 1989[41], the KGB murdered Linick on 4 June 1989 and as with Koch (see part #9), made it look like suicide. This was to prevent Koch and Linick revealing that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" was the result of a KGB- sponsored computer hacking by Linick, aided by Koch.]

the age of 42[42]. Linick's obituary in Arizona laboratory's journal Radiocarbon stated that his death was "untimely"[43], and the lack of details (e.g. "after an illness," "in a road accident," etc) suggests that Linick's death was sudden, unexpected and embarrassing (as a suicide would be). Moreover, there must have been something about the manner and/or circumstances about Linick's suicide which caused those at the time to describe them as "very unclear circumstances" (see above). Ian Wilson recorded Linick's death in his chronology of the Shroud for 4 June 1989, that it was "in unclear circumstances"[44]. Vatican Insider reported that Linick's death was "suicide in mysterious circumstances"[45]. 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[46], suspected that Linick was murdered to cover up his part in the radiocarbon dating fraud[47]. Linick's death occurred shortly after a campaign in the Italian press reporting Bonnet-Eymard's accusations of fraud in the radiocarbon dating[48]. No other signatory to the 1989 Nature paper appears to have met an untimely death[49].

Yet, despite my 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[50]. 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"[51].]

"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) would have been sufficiently unusual to have been newsworthy. Unless Linick's death was suicide which tends not to be reported to prevent `copy-cat' suicides.

As mentioned at the start of part #5, on 2 January 2016 I discovered that Timothy W. Linick had a half-brother Anthony Linick (1938-) and that Anthony had written a biography of his (not Timothy's) stepfather, the composer and conductor (Ingolf Dahl (1912–70), titled, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl" (2008). [Right: Amazon.com]. I didn't have that book then (I do now) but I was able to read online Google books snippets about Timothy in it. In 1952 Dahl took a year's sabbatical in Europe with his wife and Anthony's mother, Etta. Anthony chose to remain in Los Angeles and live with his father Leroy, his second wife Delphine and their six-year old son, Timothy[52]. Anthony recorded that Timothy, "was a bright little boy doomed to grow up in a family of losers" and over the ensuing years he sank so deeply into introversion that Anthony had difficulty connecting with him:

"I also enjoyed having a little sibling and Timmy doted on me ... He was a bright little boy doomed to grow up in a family of losers ... Eight years my junior, Timmy was just too young to be a real pal and ... we soon resumed our separate existences. As he sank deeper into what seems to have been the family's hereditary introversion he became harder and harder for me to connect with"[53]
And near the end of the book, I read online where Anthony Linick confirmed that "my half-brother Timothy, took his own life at age 42 in 1989":
"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" Emphasis original)[54]
Having posted my discovery on 2 January 2016 at the start of part #5, on that same day, 2 January 2016, I sent a message to Anthony Linick in England through his website, with the quote of his half-brother Linick in David Sox's 1988 book (see above) and other evidence that Timothy was the leaker of Arizona's first run "1350" date of the Shroud[55]. I did not mention anything about Timothy being a hacker, or that I had read Anthony's book online, or that Timothy had committed suicide, because I did not want to put Anthony Linick off in my first message to him. In his reply of 3 January, Anthony wrote:
"Only a few hours after receiving your email I also heard from Mr. Hugh Farey [the anti-authenticist editor of the BSTS Newsletter] on the same topic. I am sending him as well, therefore, the same response ..."[56]
Anthony 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"[57]
Remember I mentioned nothing about Timothy Linick being a hacker or about his death. So presumably Farey tried to "poison the well" against me by telling Anthony Linick about my hacker theory, including falsely, that it is merely a "conspiracy theory." Nevertheless, it is revealing that Anthony Linick had "encountered materials on the controversies surrounding the Turin Shroud ... including those on the death of my half-brother, Timothy Linick, in 1989."

He continued:

"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 had very little to do with my father Leroy's second family ... 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"[58].
Linick's "I can't remember" sounds evasive. It was in October 1987 (see above) when it was announced that Arizona laboratory was going to be one of the three laboratories to date the Shroud. And since Anthony says he did learn that Timothy "was part of the team charged with dating the shroud," it had to have been between October 1987 and May 1988 when Arizona did date the Shroud. So why the evasiveness, unless Anthony Linick has something to hide (see below)?

His email concluded:

"When my step-mother, Del (Delphine) [Timothy'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. This is all I have to add and I hope therefore that I can be spared any more inquiries"[59].
Again, I had not mentioned anything in my message to Anthony about Timothy's death, let alone that it was suicide. I respected Anthony's request that he "be spared any more inquiries" and thanked him for what information he had provided[60].

However, on 22 February 2016, I discovered in Anthony Linick's Wikipedia entry, that he had worked at the American School in London for 20 years from 1982 to 2002:

"In 1982 Linick began a twenty-year tenure as a member of the faculty of the American School in London (ASL) in St John's Wood. There he taught courses for both the social studies and the English departments, moving permanently to the latter in 1988 and serving as its chair for the last eight years of his teaching career, 1994-2002"[61].
And David Sox, whose quote of Timothy Linick I had sent to Anthony in my email of 2 January (see above) was a teacher at the American School in London from at least 1978 to 1995:
"Sox, an American Anglican priest, teaches [in 1995] at the American School in London, England. He has long been interested in the Turin Shroud and has authored several books about it"[62]

"On 11 May 1978 I phoned the Reverend H David Sox at his home in London to find out what the latest interest was in carbon dating the shroud. ... A few days later I got another letter from Sox saying that he was planning to visit his parents in North Carolina sometime around the end of June and he would also like to visit Rochester. ... he is an American-an Anglican-who teaches [in 1995] at the American School in London"[63]

"On 12 May [1988] I flew to London. David Sox had made a reservation for me at the Abbey House Hotel, which was not far from where he lived. ... The next morning, I was to appear at the American School. Cameron had decided that he would film the part of the Timewatch programme on the shroud which involved me at David Sox's school, and to make believe that it was my laboratory"[64]
Since the last date in Gove's book is "September 1995"[65], that is an overlap of at least 13 years from 1982 to 1995 when Anthony Linick worked at same school as Sox. And, since I had prefaced my above quote of Sox in my first message to Anthony Linick with:
"Your late half-brother Timothy W. Linick, who was a member of the team at Arizona Radiocarbon dating laboratory which radiocarbon dated the Shroud of Turin in 1988, was quoted by the Rev. David Sox as follows: ..."[66]
I felt I was owed an explanation why Anthony had not mentioned that he knew Sox. So I emailed Anthony Linick again on 23 February, with the above quotes from Wikipedia and Gove's book, putting those questions to him:
"So did you know David Sox? And that he was deeply involved in seeking to discredit the Shroud of Turin? Including being the secondary source of leaks to the media of Arizona's first "AD 1350" date:
"[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' ... When in a telephone enquiry to Dr. Luckett I asked whether the Revd. David Sox had been his source, he hastily changed the subject.] ... I complained to the Sunday Times Editor ... 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. This individual's means of obtaining his `inside' information (which can only have come from Arizona or Zurich), and his motives for flouting the confidentiality that all others have respected, can only be guessed at." (The words in square brackets mentioning the "1350" date were omitted in my email) [67]
which date presumably Timothy was the source of Sox's "`inside' information ... which can only have come from Arizona ..." Not Zurich because it turned out that "1350" was not Zurich's date."[68]
I concluded my email to Anthony Linick with:
"It seems an amazing coincidence that your half-brother Timothy was in contact with David Sox, who presumably you worked with? Did you put Timothy in touch with Sox or vice-versa?"[69]
In his reply email the next day, 24 February, Anthony claimed that he only had "a suspicion" that the "David Sox" whom I and "others [plural] mentioned" was the same David Sox "who worked at the American School in London":
"You have confirmed for me a suspicion that began to grow when you and others mentioned David Sox. I had wondered if this was the same chap who worked at the American School in London and this is now confirmed. I did meet him once or twice and, indeed, my first long-term assignment at ASL was in the middle school, where he was a faculty member. This was in the spring of 1982."[70]
This seems most implausible, on several counts: 1) "David Sox" is an unusual name. 2) In my first message of 2 January to Anthony Linick, I wrote that in "1988 ... Sox was in England"[71]. 3) In my experience as a relief (substitute, supply) teacher for 6 years from 2010-2015 at over a dozen different high schools, it would be highly unlikely that two teachers could work in the same school for 13 years and indeed in the same middle school faculty, and only "meet ... once or twice."

Anthony's email continued:

"I also knew that he [Sox] wrote on religious topics. However I do not recall his ever seeking me out (in spite of a rather uncommon last name) or putting any questions to me about Timothy Linick and I certainly did not know of his interest in the shroud nor did I have anything to do with putting him in contact with my half-brother."[72].
The implausibilities continue: 4) how would Anthony Linick know that Sox wrote on "religious topics" and not know that most (if not all) of Sox's religious writings (including three books in 1978, 1981 and 1988) were on the topic of the Shroud? 5) Sox was well-known at ASL for "his interest in the shroud." In his first 1978 book on the Shroud, Sox wrote that his "associates (i.e. fellow teachers) and students at the American School in London have had to suffer through much of this project":
"My associates and students at the American School in London have had to suffer through much of this project and I appreciate their forbearance and good humour"[73]
6) As we saw above, in May 1988 the BBC filmed part of its Timewatch program about dating the Shroud, arranged by Sox, in an ASL science laboratory, which Anthony must surely have been aware of. 7) Linick's "I do not recall" again sounds evasive (see his "I can't remember" above) Sox's ever seeking him out. And 8) Since Sox was communicating in 1988 with an American Timothy Linick, with the same "uncommon last name," it is hard to believe that Sox would not have asked his work colleague, Anthony Linick, if he was related to a Timothy Linick who worked at the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory which had been chosen to date the Shroud?

His email concluded:

"I would also continue to maintain that the depression that my step-mother referred to, at the time of Tim's death, was not linked by her to any work crisis; it may have been a long-standing condition."[74]
The "work crisis" being the repercussions that would have followed when it was discovered by Timothy Linick's laboratory leaders and colleagues that he had been quoted in Sox's 1988 book about Arizona's radiocarbon dating of the Shroud and was therefore almost certainly the leaker to Sox of Arizona's first "1350" date (see part #5). Anthony Linick's dismissal of this as a factor in his half-brother's suicide, when he had claimed he hardly knew him, and that his step-mother (Timothy's mother) Delphine "said only that he [Timothy] took his own life and that he had been suffering from depression" and "never alluded to any mysteries or controversies involving Tim’s death or work" (see above) does not mean that it was not. Timothy's mother might not have known about his "work crisis," for starters. Anthony Linick's attempt to downplay this even when it would have helped support the case that Timothy was not murdered by the KGB (which Farey presumably told him was my theory - see above), adds weight to my impression gained from the first part of his email (above) that Anthony Linick did know Sox and was involved in putting his half-brother Timothy in touch with Sox (or vice-versa).

In my reply email of 24 February 2016 to Anthony Linick, I pointed out that Timothy Linick's suffering from chronic depression and then committing suicide following a "work crisis" are not mutually exclusive, because "a major crisis" can turn "chronic depression" into "acute" depression followed by suicide":

"My understanding is that chronic depression can become acute and lead to suicide when the sufferer encounters a major crisis. As Timothy finding his name in Sox's book, and the censure that would have followed from his laboratory leaders and colleagues when they also read it, would have been."[75]
In the same email, I asked Anthony if he knew "by what means Timothy" [it was assumed] "took his own life?":
"Do you know by what means Timothy took his own life?"[76]
In asking this key question I was prepared to receive an answer from Anthony which would falsify my theory, e.g., "Timothy overdosed on his medication," etc. That is because the KGB would be unlikely to use a means to kill Timothy that would take a long time to work (because someone might find him unconscious and save his life), and might not even be fatal.

So I was relieved to receive the answer from Anthony Linick on 25 February that Timothy Linick died from gunshot:

"As far as I know, Tim shot himself."[77]
Making it appear that a victim shot himself is a known (or at least suspected) KGB method of execution. For example, Walter Krivitsky (1899–1941) was a Soviet intelligence officer whose death by gunshot in the USA may have been an execution made to look like suicide by the NKVD, the predecessor of the KGB[78]. A recent example is the death by gunshot in 2012[79] of former KGB chief Leonid Shebarshin (1935–2012), even though he left a `suicide note'[80], (which was merely a diary entry[81]), his death was reported in the news media as an "apparent suicide"[82] implying that he may have been executed by the KGB.

On the same day, 25 February, I emailed Anthony Linick with two more key questions:

"Do you know if Timothy left a suicide note? Failing that, do you know if there any suspicion that he had been murdered?"[83]
Expecting that he may not answer, I disclosed what I always had intended to do (and I assumed that Farey already had from the beginning - see above):
"I apologise for what must seem like gross impertinence by me, but as you may know (see my "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking"), it is my theory that Timothy was murdered by the KGB on 4 June 1989, to ensure his silence for his part in the hacking of the Shroud of Turin's radiocarbon dating fully computerised process, that he was the resident expert on at Arizona laboratory ..."[84]
On 28 February Anthony Linick replied in his final email to me, that he did not know if there was a suicide note:
"I don't know if there was a suicide note or not but can I have a break from this topic now?"[85]
If Timothy Linick had left a suicide note, then his mother Dephine, who also lived in Tucson (see funeral notices above), would have known and told Anthony about it when she phoned him to inform him that Timothy "took his own life" (see above). I therefore take it that Timothy Linick did not leave a suicide note. While the lack of a suicide note does not prove that Timothy was murdered (since only about 25–30% of suicides leave a note)[86], if he had left a note it would have been a problem (if not a falsification) of my theory that Timothy Linick was murdered by the KGB. But that Timothy Linick died of gunshot and left no suicide note is fully consistent with my theory that he, and his alleged accomplice Karl Koch (see above and future part #8), were killed by the KGB and that their murders were made to look like suicide, to ensure their silence for their part in the Soviet sponsored hacking of the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud.

In my reply of 28 February, in what I expect was my last email to Anthony Linick, I thanked him again for the information he had given me[87].

Continued in part #7 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, 31 January 2016. [return]
5. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176H. [return]
6. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
7. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
8. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
9. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
10. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147. [return]
11. Gove, 1996, pp.184-185. [return]
12. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.138, 141. [return]
13. Ibid. [return]
14. McCrone, 1999, p.245. [return]
15. McCrone, 1999, p.178. [return]
16. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, pp.8, 20, 267. [return]
18. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
19. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
21. Damon, 1989, p. 613. [return]
22. Ibid. [return]
23. 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]
24. Sox, 1988, pp.138-139. [return]
25. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
26. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
27. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
28. Gove, 1996, pp.8, 155, 187. [return]
29. Gove, 1996, pp.213-214. [return]
30. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178. [return]
31. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
32. Gove, 1996, pp.260-261. [return]
33. 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.184, 308; Gove, 1996, p.324. [return]
34. Gove, 1996, pp.263-264. [return]
35. Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.131. [return]
36. McDonnell, D.J., 2003, "The Great Holy Shroud Dating Fraud of 1988," 4 November. [return]
37. Sox, 1988, pp.131, 133; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E. 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.58-60. [return]
38. 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]
39. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
40. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
41. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010h; and Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
42. 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]
43. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, p.311. [return]
45. Galeazzi, G., 2013. "Never solved: The enigma that still divides the Church: The Shroud," Vatican Insider, 1 April. Translated from Italian by Google. No longer online. English translation, "Unsolved Enigma that Still Divides the Church: The Shroud." Also no longer online. [return]
46. 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]
47. "Examination of the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud," Wikipedia, January 4, 2014. Translated from Italian by Google. [return]
48. Bonnet-Eymard, 2000. [return]
49. From my Google searches on the name of every signatory to the 1989 Nature paper (Damon, 1989, p.611). [return]
50. "Who Can Obtain a Death Certificate,"Arizona Department of Health Services: Office of Vital Records, April 15, 2014. [return]
51. Email reply from the Library of Congress, received on 2 May 2014. [return]
52. Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse: Bloomington IN, p.226. [return]
53. Linick, 2008, p.250. [return]
54. Linick, 2008, p.619. [return]
55. Jones, S.E., Message, "A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," January 2, 2016, 6:19 am. [return]
56. Linick, A., Email "Re: A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 3 January 2016, 11:08 PM. [return]
57. Ibid. [return]
58. Ibid. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. Jones, S.E., "Re: A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 3 January 2016, 11:16 pm. [return]
61. "Anthony Linick: Academic life," Wikipedia, 18 February 2016. [return]
62. Gove, 1996, p.8. [return]
63. Gove, 1996, pp.20-21. [return]
64. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
65. Gove, 1996, p.309. [return]
66. Jones, 3 January 2016. [return]
67. Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks' ...," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [return]
68. Jones, S.E., Email "Re: David Sox," 23 February 2016, 10:20 PM. [return]
69. Ibid. [return]
70. Linick, A., Email "Re: David Sox," 24 February 2016, 1:04 AM. [return]
71. Jones, 2 January 2016. [return]
72. Linick, 24 February 2016. [return]
73. Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, p.14. [return]
74. Linick, 24 February 2016. [return]
75. Jones, S.E., Email "Re: David Sox," 24 February 2016, 7:26 AM. [return]
76. Jones, 24 February 2016. [return]
77. Linick, A., Email "Re: David Sox," 25 February 2016, 3:58 PM. [return]
78. "Walter Krivitsky," Wikipedia, 11 January 2016; Giffin, F.C., 1979, "The Death of Walter Krivitsky," Social Science, Vol. 54, No. 3, Summer, pp. 139-146. [return]
79. "Leonid Shebarshin," Wikipedia, 25 February 2016. [return]
80. "Former KGB chief a suicide, police say," CNN, March 31, 2012. [return]
81. "Key Soviet spy who headed KGB found shot dead," RT News, 31 Mar, 2012. [return]
82. Anishchuk, A., 2012, "Former Soviet KGB Leonid Shebarshin found dead in apparent suicide," The Independent, 31 March. [return]
83. Jones, S.E., Email "Re: David Sox," 25 February 2016, 9:17 PM. [return]
84. Jones, 25 February 2016, 9:17 PM. [return]
85. Linick, A., Email "Re: David Sox," 28 February 2016, 7:50 PM. [return]
86. "Suicide note," Wikipedia, 3 March 2016. [return]
87. Jones, S.E., Email "Re: David Sox," 28 February 2016, 10:43 PM. [return]

Posted: 22 February 2016. Updated: 26 September 2016.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

From Joe Marino: Some recent articles

Joe Marino has asked me to post the following.


Some recent articles

February 17, 2016

Dear Researchers,

I just found reference in a posting by Massimo Olmi on a Shroud group on Facebook to a 12 page article called "Why Jesus carried the whole cross and not only the patibulum," which can be accessed at https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/why-jesus-carried-the-whole-cross.pdf. Science, including the use of computers, is applied throughout.

I'm working on a 3 part article on the politics of the C-14 dating of the Shroud. It was mentioned in Barrie's Jan 21st update but for those of you who perhaps didn't check out Barrie's update, which also includes mention of Mario Latendresse's rebuttal to the October editorial by Garlaschelli, among others, in Thermochimica Acta (Comments on the mass spectrometry analysis of a sample of the Shroud of Turin by Bella et al.), the link to part 1 of my article can be found at http://newvistas.homestead.com/C-14PoliticsPt1.html. Although it is about the politics, it shows how the scientific approach to the dating was affected. I'm actually still adding to part 1. I wanted to get a version out in time for the update since Dan's blog is no longer around to help alert others. It's going to take me a long while to complete and there's an immense about of data so I felt getting it out piecemeal would be better than waiting until all the material was in place It's done in a chronological format so can easily take on new entries without much rewrite of previous material. I've actually noted when new entries are added to make it easier for readers to find new material.

Regards,

Joe


I am happy to allow my blog to be used to disseminate Shroud pro-authenticity material. As long as my posting them is not taken as implying that I agree with everything in that material (I don't agree that Jesus carried the whole cross). If there are comments under such posts, I will leave it to the author of each respective post to respond and will try to stay out of it. But my policies on comments will still apply:

"MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts."
Although if I don't have to get involved, I will relax the "only one comment per individual under each one of my posts" policy.

Posted: 21 February 2016. Updated: 21 February 2016.

Monday, February 15, 2016

"Is The Shroud Of Turin Genuine?": Shroud of Turin News, January 2016

Shroud of Turin News, January 2016
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is part #3 of the January 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. See part #1, Editorial and Contents, for other items as they are posted in this issue. I had decided to add fully referenced footnotes to my statements in this and other posts, in place of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia and Turin Shroud Dictionary, which are `on the backburner,' because I found them to be time-consuming duplications. I had a self-imposed deadline of midnight 20 February to complete this post and series, which I didn't meet(!), so I will complete it in the background [since updated to footnote 42].

[Previous: January 2016, part #2] [Next: February 2016, part #1]


"Is The Shroud Of Turin Genuine?" Hiding the Truth, January 21, 2016, WhoReallyKnows. This organisation which calls itself "Hiding the Truth" and claims to be against those "who don't want us to know something":
"How many times have your wondered what truths are being hidden from you? How many times have you felt that punctuated feeling of doubt or emptiness because you know something just doesn't feel or seem right? The truth may lie within all of us; however there are many people, agencies and organizations that make it their job to deny us of just that! Hiding the truth liberally unveils the lies, deceptions, schemes and plots that are put into motion by people who don't want us to know something."[2]
is hiding the truth about the Shroud, because it doesn't even have a photograph of it in this article. Instead it has an off-topic photograph of a statue of Jesus carrying His cross, when they could at least have provided this public domain Wikipedia photograph of the Shroud:

[Right (enlarge): "Full-length image of the Turin Shroud before the 2002 restoration"[3].]

Few relics provoke more passion than the Shroud Of Turin. None do! At the last 2015 exposition of the Shroud in Turin, "more than two million visitors came to Turin from around the world to view the Shroud" (my emphasis). No other Christian relic comes anywhere near that.

Lovingly cared for and stored by the Roman Catholic church in the Cathedral of St. John at Turin, the 14-1/2 x 3-1/2 foot The Shroud's dimensions are 437 x 111 cms[4] which equates to 14ft 4in. x 3ft 8in. linen cloth is claimed to be the actual burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, also called the Christ. It is not just "claimed to be the actual burial shroud of Jesus" - it is "the actual burial shroud of Jesus"! See my ongoing series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!"

A blood-colored image on its surface is purported to be the image of Christ, This journalist (if even that because he/she hides the truth of his/her identity behind a pseudonym) evidently knows little about the topic he/she is writing about. The Shroud's image is not "blood-colored." The most common descriptor of the colour of the image is "straw-yellow":

"Yet another of the surprises arising from viewing the Shroud directly rather than via a photograph is discovering just how pale and subtle the two body imprints appear. First-hand assessments of their colouring range from straw-yellow to sepia, much depending on the prevailing light conditions."[5]
burned into the cloth at the moment of the Resurrection. Although "burned" is an understandable term to describe how Jesus' image was imprinted on the Shroud "at the moment of the Resurrection," the Shroud image does not fluoresce under ultravioletlight (left), unlike heat scorches[6],

[Left (enlarge): "The Shroud face, as seen in fluorescent light."[7]. This STURP ultraviolet photograph shows shows that while the Shroud's bloodstains fluoresce, as blood does, the image does not fluoresce, as all heat scorches do [8].]

so it cannot have been literally "burned" onto the cloth.

There are those who revere the cloth as a Sacred Object, and an equal number of skeptics who insist that it is a fake. It is not true that there are "an equal number of [Shroud] skeptics." There are only a comparative handful of published Shroud anti-authenticists, compared to many hundreds (if not thousands) of their pro-authenticist counterparts. What the pro-authenticist archaeologist William Meacham wrote in 1983 is even more true today:

"The skeptics are certainly out in full array among the commentators - out of all proportion, I might add, to either their real numbers or the force of their case." (my emphasis)[9]

The controversy has been raging for over 700 years, despite any and all evidence either way. Presumably he/she means the ~627 years since Bishop d'Arcis' 1389 memorandum (see part #2)? Because there was no known controversy about the Shroud before then. And the writer gives the erroneous impression, that there is an equal amount of "evidence either way," when again the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic, whereas what evidence there was on the anti-authenticist side either has been discredited (the d'Arcis memorandum - again see part #2) or is in the process of being discredited (the "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" radiocarbon date of the Shroud (see part #2 again).

You would think that in this day of high technology and very sophisticated forensic investigative methods that this would be an easy job, proving its pedigree one way or another. Yes and no. It "would be an easy job" to disprove the Shroud's "pedigree" (e.g. show that the Shroud is a medieval work of art and how it was done), and it is itself evidence for the Shroud's authenticity that that hasn't been done (see the Copi quote in part #2). It was by contrast not "an easy job" to prove the Shroud's "pedigree", that it really is Jesus' burial Shroud. However, that has now been done, beyond reasonable doubt.

In 1349, the Hundred Years War was raging between France and England, and the Black Death had finished ravaging Europe. A returning French knight, Geoffery de Charny, His name was Geoffroy I de Charny (see this copy of the brass effigy over the tomb of his son, Geoffroy II de Charny on which he spelled his name "Geoffroy" - see below). who had been an English Prisoner Of War, was in possession of the Shroud, which he acquired in Constantinople by unknown means. Ludicrous! The Shroud disappeared in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, i.e. 145 years before. The Shroud was probably taken from Constantinople to Athens by a Fourth Crusade Burgundian leader Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234). The Shroud was probably given to Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300-56) in 1341-43 by the French King Philip VI (1293–1350), who in turn was given it by the Besançon descendants of Othon de la Roche. See my "Lirey (1): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia."

He built a church at Lirey, France, and the Shroud was exhibited there as Christ's Burial Linen. It draws the faithful from all over Europe to view it. That was in c.1355. Ironically, until the mid-19th century the only historical reference to that first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France in c.1355 was Bishop d'Arcis' memorandum of 1389, in which he wrote that the Shroud had been first exhibited at Lirey "thirty-four years or thereabouts" before "the present year"[10], i.e. c. 1355. In 1855 a pilgrim's badge [Right (enlarge)[11].] was recovered from the mud under a bridge of the Seine river in Paris[12]. It clearly depicts the Shroud's front and back, head to head, double body image[13], and bore the coats of arms of Geoffroy I de Charny and his wife, Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332-1428)[14].

In 1355, Geoffery de Charny was once again sent into battle, and was killed in action at the Battle of Poitiers. It was in 1356. It seems that `near enough is good enough' for this pseudonymous writer. His estate, including the church, and Shroud was passed down to his son, Geoffery II. Again, it was Geoffroy II de Charny (c.1352-98), as can be seen on the drawn copy [Left[15] (enlarge)] of the brass effigy over his tomb at Froidmont, Belgium, which was destroyed in WWI[16].

In 1389, the Shroud was seized by the Bailiff of Troye, pursuant to a direct order from King Charles VI. It is Troyes. And the Shroud was not "seized." The Dean and canons of Lirey church refused to hand the Shroud over to King Charles VI's Bailiff:

"The bishop [d'Arcis] ... complained to Charles VI, and on August 4, 1389, the king withdrew the permission to expose the Shroud that he had previously granted. Furthermore, Charles wrote to the bailiff of Troyes, Jean de Venderesse, instructing him to confiscate the Shroud in the name of the crown. The bailiff's visit to Lirey is commemorated in a memorandum drawn up and signed by him on August 15 ... At Lirey, the good bailiff was met with a bewildering mass of sophisms, with appeals to the authority of Geoffroy [II] de Charny and of Clement VII, and finally with a flat refusal to surrender the Shroud"[17]
It was allowed to be kept in the church at Lirey, but no further exhibitions were allowed. No. This is doubly contradictory. First, if the Shroud had been "seized" by the King's bailiff, it would not have remained "in the church at Lirey" but would have been taken by the bailiff to the King in Paris. Second, if "no further exhibitions were allowed" then why would Bishop d'Arcis have "appealed to Pope Clement VII" about the Shroud being exhibited (see next)?

Bishop Pierre d' Arcis of Tryes appealed to Pope Clement VII at Avignon, describing the shroud as having the very image of Christ on it. The Pope ordered to Bishop to keep silent on the Shroud, under the threat of ex-communication. After a series of letter to Geoffery de Charny II, the Pope allows the exhibitions to resume under agreed upon conditions. This was in January 1390:

"Next, sent from Avignon on 5 January 1390, arrived a stern letter from Pope Clement VII, ordering d'Arcis to keep silent about the Shroud, under threat of excommunication. On the same date Clement sent a letter to Geoffrey [II de Charny] stating that he could continue to hold the Shroud expositions, though he should limit the lavishness of the accompanying ceremonial. There was not even any mention that Geoffrey was required to describe the Shroud as a 'figure or representation' of Jesus's shroud."[18]
This attracted many pilgrims to view the Shroud. In 1390, a Papal Bull was issued granting Indulgences for anyone visiting the church at Lirey, and viewing its artifacts. That was in June 1390[19]. Geoffery II died in 1398, and his daughter Margaret took the Shroud on a tour of Europe until her death in 1460. No. Marguerite de Charny (c.1392-1460) transferred the Shroud to the House of Savoy in 1453[20]. The Shroud wound up in the custody of Duke Louis I of Savoy, and was transferred to storage in the Sainte Chapelle at Chambréy. It was and is Chambéry. In 1473, the Shroud was transferred to Turin. No. This is more than a century too early! It was in 1578 that the Shroud was transferred to Turin, Italy from Chambéry, France. Over the ensuing years, the shroud was carried around Europe and displayed. No. After the Shroud was taken to Turin in 1578, it has never left Italy.

[Right (enlarge): Extract from Ian Wilson's "Travels of the Shroud" map[21]. As can be seen, from 1578 the Shroud has never left Italy.]

The Shroud has survived two fires, and several wars. The first fire was in 1532, in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, when a drop of molten silver on the Shroud's casket burned through one corner of all 48 folds of the cloth[22]. The Shroud was rescued from the burning chapel by the the heroism of the village blacksmith, Guglielmo Pussod, and others[23]. Miraculously (literally!) the Man's image was only slightly affected[24]. In 1534 the burns were removed by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns[25] and the triangular patches they sewed over the burn holes into the Shroud's backing cloth[26] can be seen in the pre-2002 restoration photograph of the Shroud (above). The second fire was in 1997, when the Turin Royal Chapel which had housed the Shroud since 1694 was extensively damaged[27]. In a repeat of history, the Shroud was rescued from the burning chapel through the heroism of a layman: fireman Mario Trematore[28]. But this

[Left (enlarge): Fireman Mario Trematore on the night of 11 April 1997, breaking through the Shroud reliquary's `unbreakable' glass (watch video)[29]]

time the Shroud was not affected at all[30].

Wars the Shroud has survived include the French invasion of Savoy in 1535[31]. As the map above partly shows, the Shroud was taken from Chambéry to Savoy properties in Italy, including Turin, Milan, Vercelli, Aosta and Nice and didn't return to Chambéry until 1561[32]. In World War II (as the map above shows) the Shroud was moved from Turin to the Abbey of Montevergine located near Avellino in southern Italy from 1939 to 1946[33].

In the late 1980s, ownership of the Shroud was transferred from the Dukes of Savoy to the Roman Catholic Church. It was in 1983 when ex-King Umberto II (1904–83) of Savoy died and in his will left the Shroud to "the Pope and his successors" as its Owner, but the Shroud was to remain in Turin with the Archbishop of Turin the Shroud's Custodian[34]

Many attempts to date the Shroud were attempted, using the best technology of the times, They were not "attempts." Before the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in 1988 as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390," the Shroud had already been reliably dated by various methods including:

1) The Iconographic Theory[35] was proposed by artist/biologist Paul Vignon (1865-1943)[36] in 1938[37]. From a study of hundreds of depictions of Christ's face in churches, libraries and museums[38], Vignon discovered a common core of 20 oddities, later refined down by Ian Wilson to 15[39] and called "Vignon markings"[40]). Most (but

[Right (enlarge): "The Vignon markings-how Byzantine artists created a living likeness from the Shroud image. (1) Transverse streak across forehead, (2) three-sided `square' between brows, (3) V shape at bridge of nose, (4) second V within marking 2, (5) raised right eyebrow, (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, (10) heavy line under lower lip, (11) hairless area between lower lip and beard, (12) forked beard, (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair"[41].]

not all[42]) of these 15-20 oddities were present in any of these depictions of Christ's face[43] but most were in all of then, and all are found on the Shroud face[44]. Since they served no artistic purpose[45] and some were flaws in the Shroud's weave[46] or wrinkles in its cloth[47], and others were evidently attempts to render a negative dead face into a positive[48] living one[49], Vignon proposed what was the simplest explanation[50] (as per Ockham's Razor), that they all were ultimately derived from the Shroud face original[51]. And since these 15-20 Vignon markings are found in Byzantine artworks dating from the fifth century[52], this is evidence (if not proof beyond reasonable doubt[53]) that the Shroud was in existence from at least the fifth century[54].

2) Pontius Pilate coins over the Man's eyes[55]. In 1977 STURP's Jackson, Jumper and Mottern[56], discovered that a VP-8 Image Analyser[57] uniquely displayed an Enrie 1931 photograph of the Shroud in three-dimensional relief[58]. They noticed that over each eye was an object resembling a small button[59]. They theorised that these might be coins to keep the eyelids closed[60] and they realised that this would be a way of determining the date of the Shroud[61]. Ian Wilson confirmed that the `buttons' were the same size as Jewish coins called leptons[62] which were struck only during the rule of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judaea from AD 26–36[63] who sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixions[64] in AD 30[65]. Wilson pointed out that the lepton, since it bore no image of the Emperor Tiberius (r. 42 BC–37 AD), was acceptable to the Jews for Temple offerings (Mk 12:42; Lk 21:2)[66]. Jackson, et al., while they could not determine any letters on the `buttons,' significantly (see below) they did observe what appeared to be a "backward question mark" on the object over the right eye[67]. In 1982 Fr Francis Filas (1915-85) discovered on a high-quality enlargement of an Enrie 1931 photograph of the Shroud face[68], over the right eye[69] the letters "U CAI" and a lituus (astrologer's staff)[70]. These were in the same relative location and angular rotation[71] as a variant of the Greek inscription "TIBERIOU KAISAROS" = "Of Tiberius Caesar"[72] on a Pontius Pilate lepton struck in AD 29-31[73]. Later it was found that the letters were actually "U KAI" and matched those on a Pontius Pilate

[Above (enlarge): Letters "KAI" and lituus on an enlargement by me of an Enrie 1931 sepia photograph of the Shroud face[74] (left) compared to a Pontius Pilate lepton coin (right) with its lituus cut, reversed and pasted to simulate the reversed question mark on a Pontius Pilate dilepton[75] (left) compared to a Pontius Pilate lepton coin with lituus cut, reversed and pasted to simulate the reversed question mark on a Pontius Pilate dilepton.]

dilepton struck in AD 29-31[76]. Filas was unable to determine any letters or design on the `button' over the left eye[77] but later computer enhancement revealed part of the inscription letters and a simpulum (ladle)[78] which were on a Pontius Pilate Julia lepton coin which was struck only in AD 29 to mark the death of Tiberius' mother in that year[79]. This is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Man on the Shroud was crucified under Pontius Pilate no earlier than AD 29[80] and adds to the already overwhelming evidence that He was Jesus[81]

but it wasn't until the advent of radiocarbon dating in the late 1960s that reliable dating was possible. Radiocarbon dating is not necessarily "reliable". Archaeologist William Meacham pointed out that "even in the best of circumstances rogue [radiocarbon] dates are common in archaeology[82] and of the 115 samples he had submitted for radiocarbon dating, 78 he considered credible, 26 he rejected as unreliable and a further 11 he regarded as problematic[83].In 1977, a committee of scientists was formed, called the Shroud Of Turin Research Project (STURP). So far so good ... ! Development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) technique in 1977 allowed more precise dating, No. In 1977, Richard A. Muller at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory wrote a paper in Science showing how particle accelerators "could be used for detection of ... radiocarbon"[84]and was selected as the best way to date the Shroud. That was ten years later in 1987[85]. After years of study and examination, the STURP released it's findings in 1988. Incredibly, this writer thinks that STURP did the 1988 radiocarbon dating! Nothing could be further from the truth. STURP scientists, who knew more about the Shroud than anyone, were deliberately excluded from the 1988 radiocarbon dating by the machinations of the arrogant, anti-Christian, Prof. Harry Gove[86].

[To be completed in the background]

The Shroud was created between 1260 AD, and 1390 AD. This coincides with the time of it's first appearance. Also, exhausting testing of the ‘blood-stains' proved them to be red ochre, a common reddish pigment used in the Middle Ages. As to be expected, the results of the tests were immediately attacked. Detractors came up with all sorts of reasons why the proven scientific tests were inaccurate, including a type of fungus present on the cloth (that no one had ever heard of before, and must only exist on the Shroud, and not the hundreds of other things the method was tested on first…) that made the shroud appear younger than it actually was. Others say that there is pollen on the Shroud that could only come from Jerusalem, and that the pollen dates from the Crucifixion (but no one ever states when the pollen was tested, and by whom, and what methods…). Other accusations are that the Shroud had been repaired after one of the fires, and that the samples had been taken from the repaired area (but this would still not account for the date, since the first fire was at a much later date…). The majority of the scientific community is satisfied that the dating of the Shroud is accurate, as are all the other tests preformed on it . No further tests have been proposed, and the Shroud is still put on display periodically. It remains to this day as one of the most persistent forgeries in history.

This concludes the January 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. "Hiding the Truth: About us," n.d. [return]
3. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 6 February 2016. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.7. [return]
6. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.204; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, pp.14-15,22; Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.103-112, 104-105. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.14G. [return]
8. Wilson, 1986, pp.66, 126. [return]
9. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 305-306. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.267. [return]
11. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
12. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.20-21; 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.126-127. [return]
13. Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.103; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, p.194; Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.13; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.42-43; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.49, 52-53; Wilson, 2010, pp.221-222. [return]
15. "Geoffroi de Charny: Brass effigy of his son Geoffroi II de Charny," Wikipedia, 30 December 2015. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 2007, "The Tombstone of Geoffrey II de Charny at Froidmont," BSTS Newsletter, No. 66, December. [return]
17. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.98. Also Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.102; Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.53-54; Crispino, D.C., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, #28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, 35-36; Wilson, 2010, pp.231-231. [return]
18. Wilson, 2010, pp.234-235. [return]
19. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.13; Wilson, 1998, p.280; Oxley, 2010, p.59. [return]
20. Wilson, 1979, pp.214-215; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, pp.44-45; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.130; Wilson, 1998, pp.117-118, 283; Guerrera, 2001, p.16; Scott, 2003, p.13; Wilson, 2010, pp.241,244. [return]
21. Wilson, I. 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Gollancz: London, inside cover. [return]
22. Humber, 1978, p.105; Wilson, 1979, p.24; Iannone, 1998, p.3; Wilson, 1998, pp.64-65; Oxley, 2010, p.4; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
23. Humber, 1978, p.105; Wilson, 1998, pp.65, 289; 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.67-68; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.16; Wilson, 2010, p.252. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Wilson, 1998, p.65; Oxley, 2010, p.4; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.162; Iannone, 1998, p.142; Wilson, 1998, pp.65, 289-290; Tribbe, 2006, p.49; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
26. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.22; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
27. Iannone, 1998, p.142; Wilson, 1998, pp.111-112. [return]
28. Iannone, 1998, p.142; Wilson, 1998, pp.2, 111-112; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, pp.175-176; Wilson, 2010, pp.14, 283. [return]
29. de la Piedra, R.G., 2006, "Shroud 1997," YouTube, November 26. [return]
30. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.3; Whiting, 2006, p.176; Wilson, 2010, pp.2, 283 [return]
31. Wilson, 1979, p.263; Iannone, 1998, p.143; Wilson, 1998, pp.116, 290; Scott, 2003, p.53). [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, pp.116, 290-291. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.265; Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.32; Guerrera, 2001, p.20; Wilson, 2010, p.307. [return]
34. Wilson, 1986, p.125; Wilson, 1998, p.112; Tribbe, 2006, p.5; Whiting, 2006, p.128; Wilson, 2010, p.308. [return]
35. Walsh, 1963, pp.154-155; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.15; Adams, 1982, p.85; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.124. [return]
36. Shepard, L., "New Foreword," in Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.vii; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.15, 57, 89. [return]
37. Walsh, 1963, p.155; Adams, 1982, p.84. In Vignon's book, Le Saint Suaire de Turin devant la Science, l'Archeologie, l'Histoire, l'Iconographie, la Logique ("The Holy Shroud of Turin in the light of Science, Archaeology, History, Iconography and Logic," Wilson, 1991, pp.161-162. [return]
38. Walsh, 1963, p.157; Adams, 1982, p.20; Scavone, 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.23. [return]
39. Walsh, 1963, p.157-158; Wilson, 1979, pp.104-105; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.15-16; Tribbe, 2006, pp.249-250. [return]
40. Wilson, 1979, p.103-106, 116, 160H, 192A-C,E; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, pp.76-87; Wilson, 1986, pp.105-110; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.58; Scavone, 1989, pp.24-25; Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, 1991, pp.171-204, 185-189; Wilson, 1991, pp.46H, 159-169; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.110-111; Wilson, 2010, p.142-143. [return]
41. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82E. [return]
42. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.58; Maher, 1986, p.77; Scavone, in Berard, 1991, p.189. [return]
43. Reference to be provided. [return]
44. Reference to be provided. [return]
45. Reference to be provided. [return]
46. Reference to be provided. [return]
47. Reference to be provided. [return]
48. Reference to be provided. [return]
49. Reference to be provided. [return]
50. Reference to be provided. [return]
51. Reference to be provided. [return]
52. Reference to be provided. [return]
53. Reference to be provided. [return]
54. Reference to be provided. [return]
55. Reference to be provided. [return]
56. Reference to be provided. [return]
57. Reference to be provided. [return]
58. Reference to be provided. [return]
59. Reference to be provided. [return]
60. Reference to be provided. [return]
61. Reference to be provided. [return]
62. Reference to be provided. [return]
63. Reference to be provided. [return]
64. Reference to be provided. [return]
65. Reference to be provided. [return]
66. Reference to be provided. [return]
67. Reference to be provided. [return]
68. Reference to be provided. [return]
69. Reference to be provided. [return]
70. Reference to be provided. [return]
71. Reference to be provided. [return]
72. Reference to be provided. [return]
73. Reference to be provided. [return]
74. Reference to be provided. [return]
75. Reference to be provided. [return]
76. Reference to be provided. [return]
77. Reference to be provided. [return]
78. Reference to be provided. [return]
79. Reference to be provided. [return]
80. Reference to be provided. [return]
81. Reference to be provided. [return]
82. Wilson, 2000; Wilson, 2010, p.84. [return]
83. Ibid. [return]
84. "Accelerator mass spectrometry: History," Wikipedia, 11 December 2015. [return]
85. Reference to be provided. [return]
86. Reference to be provided. [return]

Posted: 15 February 2016. Updated: 8 March 2016.

Sunday, February 14, 2016

"'Shroud Encounter' coming to Bradenton big screen Jan. 14": Shroud of Turin News, January 2016

Shroud of Turin News - January 2016
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is part #2 of the January 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. See part #1, Editorial and Contents, on this new multi-part format and for other items as they are posted in this issue.

[Previous: January 2016, part #1] [Next: January 2016, part #3]


"'Shroud Encounter' coming to Bradenton big screen Jan. 14," Bradenton Herald, January 5, 2016. ... BRADENTON -- The "Shroud Encounter " ... a production of the Shroud of Turin Education Project Inc. , will be presented by

[Right (enlarge): Click here to watch this 1 minute promo video]

international expert Russ Breault ... Yet another example of Breault's tireless work in promoting the Shroud. The Shroud of Turin is the most analyzed artifact in the world yet remains a mystery. This alone proves that the Shroud is authentic, because if it were a medieval forgery, modern science would have long ago discovered it by working out how it was done. It is a corollary of the Argument from Ignorance, that "if a certain event had occurred [the Shroud was forged in the Middle Ages], evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators," in which case "the absence of proof of its occurrence ... [is] positive proof of its nonoccurrence" [the Shroud was not forged in the Middle Ages]:

"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) ... A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators. In such a case it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence."[2]
The 14-foot-long linen cloth has been in Turin, Italy, for more than 400 years and bears the faint front and back image of a 5-foot-10 bearded, crucified man with apparent wounds and bloodstains that match the crucifixion account recorded in the Bible. While the Man on the Shroud's wounds and bloodstains are consistent with the Gospels, there is not enough information in them to tell a medieval artist how to forge those wounds and bloodstains. For example, Roman crucifixion had been abolished by the Emperor Constantine in 337 so the hypothetical, unknown, medieval forger of the Shroud "would ... have been the only human being between the time of the emperor Constantine and our own to have been completely conversant with the details of Roman crucifixion":
"A medieval forger would also need to have been the only human being between the time of the emperor Constantine and our own to have been completely conversant with the details of Roman crucifixion."[3]
Millions of people over the centuries have believed it be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. With good reason: the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic! The historical trail tracks back through Italy, France, Asia Minor (Turkey) and it may have originated in the Middle East, according to botanical evidence. And also human DNA evidence. See my posts of 18Oct15, 25Oct15, 10Nov15, 24Nov15, 30Nov15 & 04Dec15. A team of 24 scientists in 1981 concluded it was not the work of an artist. That was the 1981 Final Report of STURP. They found no visible trace of paint, pigment, dye or other artistic substances on the cloth. That is, STURP found no "paint, pigment, dye or other artistic substances on the cloth" which comprises the Man's image. STURP did find random flecks of paint on the Shroud, from artists pressing their copies against it to `sanctify' them, and also from frescoes in the Savoy royal palaces the Shroud has been in since 1453 (see 05Jan16). The blood is type AB with human DNA as determined in 1995. The major point here is not that the Man on the Shroud's blood is type AB, which may or may not have been more prevalent in Jews of the 1st century (see "Blood type distribution by country)." It is that the Shroud's bloodstains are blood, which leading Shroud sceptic Walter McCrone (1916-2002) for one refused to accept. Because that (for starters) invalidates a key plank of Shroud sceptic propaganda, the 1389 memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (†1377–1395), which claimed that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" in c. 1355 and that "the artist who had painted it" had confessed. But since the Shroud is not painted, then at best Bishop d'Arcis was mistaken and at worst, he was lying. Skeptics have mounted numerous attempts to show how a medieval artist could have produced the image but all have been inadequate to fully explain how it was formed. Shroud sceptics themselves tacitly admit that, in that they are a rabble of mutually contradictory alternatives, which was Wilson's key point in 1998, and is even more true today:
"Indeed, if anyone had come up with a convincing solution as to how and by whom the Shroud was forged, they would inevitably have created a consensus around which everyone sceptical on the matter would rally. Yet so far this has not even begun to happen."[4].
If the cloth indeed wrapped a corpse, there are no stains of body decomposition. Which is consistent with the body having separated from the Shroud within 3 days, as Jesus' resurrected body did, within 36 hours. The Shroud was largely dismissed in 1988 when three carbon dating labs indicated a medieval origin. The three laboratories, Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, all used the same AMS method of radiocarbon dating, and they each dated one-third of the same sample which had been cut from the Shroud. So one would expect the dates across the three laboratories to closely agree with each other. And they did: for the non-Shroud control samples! The Shroud samples differed markedly across the three laboratories. This was admitted under Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper:
"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 [non-Shroud control samples] is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted"[5]
See my post, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #4" for why this is further evidence that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was computer-generated by a hacker's (allegedly Timothy W. Linick's) program. Chemical research published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2005 showed the single sample cut from the outside corner edge may not have been part of the original Shroud material. This is the paper by STURP chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005)[6]. While Rogers provides evidence from the lack of vanillin in the Shroud sample that the Shroud is much older than 1260-1390, his claim in the Abstract that, "... the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin," does not follow from the article itself and moreover is self-evidently false (see photomicrograph below of part of Arizona's sample). In violation of the sampling protocol, only one sample was used for dating and was cut from the most handled area of the cloth, an area that should have been avoided. This is often claimed, but it is not true. At the 1986 Turin workshop pro-authenticist archaeologist William Meacham argued for samples to be taken from different parts of the Shroud but regrettably this was not accepted and so it was not included in the protocol[7]. The sample may have been part of a section that was repaired sometime during the Middle Ages. While there may have been some repairs with dyed cotton, this was only about one percent of the sample, yet it would require about sixty percent of the sample to have been 16th century to shift the radiocarbon date of the authentic 1st century Shroud, 12-13 centuries into the future. This was clearly not the case because Arizona laboratory still has an undated part of its Shroud sample as it came from Turin, and it has "no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants"[8]. See photomicrograph [Left (enlarge) and 16Jul15] taken by pro-authenticist Barrie Schwortz in 2012, of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated part of its Shroud sample[9]. The true explanation of the 1st century Shroud's false "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" is that it was the result of a computer hacking (see my "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail"). Many scientists now believe the carbon dating result is inconclusive. Agreed, but even most Shroud pro-authenticists fail to grasp that: 1) since the Shroud is authentic; 2) the improbability that the first-century Shroud could by chance have a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 (i.e. 1325 ±65) is "astronomical," "about one in a thousand trillion," "totally impossible," and indeed "a miracle," 3) so there had to have been some form of fraud in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud; and 4) one form of fraud that had not been previously considered but was rife in the 1980s, is computer hacking, which the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating system was vulnerable to (see my series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking"). Adding more doubt to the carbon dating tests, new chemical and mechanical tests published in 2013 by Italian scientists with Padua University indicate a date range of 280 BC to 220 AD. Indeed! See my post, "New tests by Prof. Giulio Fanti show the Shroud of Turin could date from the time of Christ." National Geographic called it: "One of the most perplexing enigmas of modern times." That was in June 1980:
"THEY CALL IT the Shroud of Turin. You may never have heard of it; few had, until recent years, outside of Italy. Yet this treasured strip of linen cloth-an object of veneration by millions-is one of the most perplexing enigmas of modern times."[10]
which was ~35 years ago, so considering all the advances in science that could have disproved the Shroud since then, it is even more true today! Shroud Encounter will cover all aspects of the history, science, art and theories of how the image may have been formed.I envy those who can easily get to these Shroud events. But because I live in a suburb of Perth, Western Australia (one of the most isolated cities in the world), I have never met another Shroudie, let alone been to a Shroud conference, nor seen the Shroud, and now because of my wife's MS, I expect I never will.

To be continued in part #3 of this January 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News.


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. Copi, I.M., 1953, "Introduction to Logic," Macmillan: New York NY, Seventh Edition, 1986, pp.94-95. [return]
3. Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese/Doubleday: New York NY, p.292. [return]
4. 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.235. [return]
5. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 613. [return]
6. Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, 425, pp.189–194. [return]
7. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, pp.75,86; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.153, 155, 170. [return]
8. Freer-Waters, R.A. & Jull, A.J.T., 2010, "Investigating a Dated [sic] Piece of the Shroud of Turin," Radiocarbon, Vol 52, No 4. [return]
9. Schwortz, B.M., 2012, "New Photographs of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Samples," Shroud.com, November 21. [return]
10. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve...The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.730-753, 730. [return]

Posted: 14 February 2016. Updated: 2 April 2016.