Saturday, September 23, 2017

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Twelfth century (1)

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
© Stephen E. Jones

This is the split part #12, "Twelfth century (1)" of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. See also 29Mar14. For more information about this series see part #1, "1st century and Index." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. I decided to split this my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Twelfth Century" (1101-1200) into two parts 1101-1150 (1) and 1152-1200 (2), and insert a summary of the c. 1150 Chartres Cathedral stained glass windows [see 29Nov18a], into this first part (1). [See below and "c.1150"]. Part (2) is at 20Dec18.

[Index #1] [Previous: 11th century #11] [Next: 12th century (2) #13]

12th century (1) (1101-1150).

[Above (enlarge). Photograph of the "Crucifixion panel," in the "Window of the Passion and Resurrection," Chartres Cathedral, emailed to me by Prof. Roberto Falcinelli[2]. In this "Crucifixion panel," Jesus is depicted with a realistic reversed `3' or epsilon (ε) bloodflow on his forehead [see also 29Nov18b], and also a nail wound in his right wrist [see below and 29Nov18c], both exactly as on the Shroud!].]

1119 Formation of the Knights Templar[3]. The Order of Knights Templar was founded by noblemen from north-eastern France to defend Christianity against the Saracens at the beginning of the twelfth century[4]. It reached the height of its power and wealth during the thirteenth century and was finally suppressed in 1307 by King Philip IV of France (r.1285-1314)[5] [See "1307"]. In 1314 France's two leading Templars,

[Right (enlarge): Minia- ture (1380) depiction of the burning at the stake on 18 March 1314, of Templars Jacques de Molay and Geoffroi de Charney on an island (Île des Juifs - Isle of the Jews) in the Seine River, Paris[6].]

Jacques de Molay (c.1243–1314) and Geoffroi de Charney (c.1240–1314), were burned at the stake for recanting their confessions extracted under torture and proclaiming their, and the Templar Order's, innocence of the false charges brought by King Philip IV[7, 8, 9]. See my 09May15 that this Geoffroi de Charney was the great-uncle of Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300–1356), the first undisputed owner of the Shroud [See "1314"] Pro-authenticist historian Ian Wilson theorised that the Templars acquired

[Above (enlarge): Composite map illustrating Ian Wilson's theory that the Shroud was taken from Constantinople in 1204 to Acre, in today's Israel, and from there to France after 1291[10]. Wilson no longer holds that theory (see below).]

the Shroud after it was looted from Constantinople in 1204 by soldiers of the Fourth Crusade[11], and took it to their fortress at Acre[12]. Then after the Fall of Acre in 1291 the Templars took the Shroud to France and hid it in their network of fortresses and castles[13]. However, there is little evidence for Wilson's Templar theory[14] (see "1185") and at the 2012 Valencia Shroud conference, Wilson announced that he no longer held it[15].

Pre-1130 Before 1130, Vatican Library codex 5696, folio 35[16], is a Latin update of an original Greek[17] Easter Friday sermon by Pope Stephen III (r.768-772), delivered in 769[18]. [see "769"]. Stephen's original 8th century sermon quoted Jesus' supposed letter in response to Edessa's King Abgar V's request for healing [see "50"]:

"Since you wish to look upon my physical face, I am sending you a likeness of my face on a cloth ..."[19]
The twelfth-century Vatican version contains an interpolation (in italics):
"Since you wish to look upon my physical face, I am sending you a likeness of not only of my face but of my whole body divinely transformed on a cloth ..."[20]
Clearly the twelfth century copyist knew that the Edessa cloth now in Constantinople had an image not only of Jesus' face, but of His entire body, and he updated Pope Stephen's 769 sermon according to the new information he had[21]. [see "950" [11May14]

c.1130 An English-born Normandy monk Ordericus Vitalis (1075–c.1142)[22], in his History of the Church, written by 1130, when he came to an important event near his own day, the capture of Edessa in the First Crusade [see "1095], he retold the Abgar story, but with a new twist:

"Abgar the ruler reigned at Edessa; the Lord Jesus sent him a sacred letter and a beautiful linen cloth he had wiped the sweat from his face with. The image of the Saviour was miraculously imprinted on to it and shines out, displaying the form and size of the Lord's body to all who look on it"[23].
As with the above Pope Stephen III's sermon interpolation, this is an altered version of the Abgar story which substituted an image of Jesus' face, with an image of Jesus' whole body, imprinted onto a cloth[24].

1140a "The Song of the Voyage of Charlemagne to Jerusalem" (known by various names in French, including "Chanson du Voyage de Charlemagne à Jerusalem"[25], or "Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne"[26]), is an Old French epic

[Left: The front cover of a 1965 reprint of the poem[27]. The oldest known written version was probably composed around 1140"[28].]

poem about a fictional expedition by Emperor Charlemagne the Great (c.742-814) and his knights, composed around 1140[29]. Although imaginary it bears historical testimony to the existence of the Shroud at the time, in that it reflects the accounts then given by pilgrims[30]. In it the Emperor asks the Patriarch of Jerusalem if he has any relics to show him, and the Patriarch replies:

"I shall show you such relics that there are not better under the sky: of the Shroud of Jesus which He had on His head, when He was laid and stretched in the tomb ..."[31].
While this contains an inaccuracy in that the Shroud was not in Jerusalem in Charlemagne's time (c.742-814) but continuously in Edessa from 544 to 944[see "544"] and ["944b"]. See also ["670a"] where the pilgrim French Bishop Arculf had reported seeing a shroud in Jerusalem in c.670, but this cannot have been the Shroud [see below]. So The Voyage of Charlemagne evidently reflects genuine but mistaken pilgrims' reports of a shroud in Jerusalem in the Early Middle Ages. The word for "Shroud" in The Voyage of Charlemagne is the Old French equivalent of "sindon"[32], the Greek word, used in the Gospels for Jesus' burial shroud (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53)[33]. Moreover this Old French word (presumably sydoines) is the same word used by crusader Robert de Clari (1170-1216) of the shroud with "the figure of Our Lord on it" that he saw ~63 years later in Constantinople in 1203[34] (see future "1203"). So this is evidence that in 1140, over a century before the earliest, 1260, radiocarbon date of the Shroud, it was common knowledge that the burial shroud of Jesus existed, upon which He had been laid stretched out in the tomb, and which had then covered His head!

1140b Peter the Deacon (c. 1107-c.1159), a monk of Monte Cassino, Italy[35], claimed that in 1140 he had seen the Shroud in Jerusalem[36]. From his description of the ceremony, Peter's belief that this was Jesus' burial shroud was shared by the authorities in Jerusalem[37], as they were in Arculf's day [see above] and "670a"]. But the Shroud was continuously in Constantinople from 944 [see "944b"] to 1204 [see "1204"]. The shroud that Peter and Arculf saw in Jerusalem was only eight feet long[38], so it cannot have been the Shroud which is over fourteen feet long[39]. However, it could have been the Besançon shroud which had a painted frontal image only[40] and was eight feet long[41]. See future ["c. 1350"] and ["1794"].

1144 Edessa, having been captured in 1098 by Christian forces under Baldwin of Boulogne (1058-1118), who became the first ruler of the Crusader state, the County of Edessa [see "1095"], fell to Turkish Muslim forces[42] in the 1146 Siege of Edessa[43]. The bones

[Right (enlarge)[44]. A stone Christian cross over a lion's head in a former fountain in modern Sanliurfa (ancient Edessa), which has survived the almost complete eradication of Edessa's Christian history since the Muslim recapture of Edessa in 1144. The lion was the symbol of the Abgar dynasty[45], which ceased ruling over Edessa after Abgar VIII's death in 212 [see "212"].]

of Abgar V and Addai (Thaddeus) were thrown out of their coffins in the Church of St John the Baptist and scattered, but were retrieved by Christians and reinterred in the Church of St Theodore[46].

1146 After a temporary Crusader recapture under the former Count of Edessa, Joscelin II (1113-59), Edessa was again taken by the Turks in 1146[47]. This time there was much bloodshed[48], with more than 30,000 Christians killed, and 16,000 women and children enslaved[49]. Edessa was systematically looted[50], its Records Office destroyed[51], and its famous churches, including the Hagia Sophia cathedral, regarded as one of the wonders of the world[52], were reduced to rubble and many replaced with mosques[53]. Almost every

[Above (enlarge): Another rare survivor of the obliteration of almost all of Edessa's Christian history since 1144. A 6th-7th century mosaic copy of the Image of Edessa/Shroud, found in the wall of a house[54] in Bireçik, a small town in Sanliurfa Province about 69 kilometres (43 miles) west of Edessa/Sanliurfa [see 25Apr16].]

vestige of Christian imagery in Edessa was ruthlessly destroyed as an offence to the Koran, making any survival of pictorial evidence of the Image of Edessa/Shroud's former presence in Edessa highly unlikely[55]. From this time on Edessa became a wholly Muslim city, with almost all traces of its former Christianity obliterated[56].

1147a In 1147 Louis VII, King of France (r. 1137-80) and Conrad III King of Germany (r.1138-52), enroute to Jerusalem in the Second Crusade (see 1147b below)[57], visited Constantinople[58, 59].

[Left (enlarge): Louis VII, King of France and Conrad III, King of Germany, entering Constantinople in 1147. Miniature by Jean Fouquet (1420–1481) in the Chronicles of St. Denis, 15th century.]

However Manuel was unable to contribute any Byzantine troops to the Second Crusade because his empire had just been invaded by Roger II of Sicily (r. 1130-54) and the Byzantine army was needed in the Peloponnese[60].

1147b The Second Crusade (1147-49) was the response by Latin (Roman Catholic) Christian Europe to the fall of the County of Edessa in 1144 and 1146 to Turkish Islamic forces[61]. (see above "1144" and "1146"). The crusade was announced by Pope Eugene III (r.1145- 53)[62] with the aim of restoring Edessa as the northern bulwark of the

[Right (enlarge): The Crusader States c.1140[63]. This map shows the strategic impossibility of Western European Latin Christianity (without help from Byzantine Eastern Greek Christ- ianity), defending Jerusalem as a Crusader state against the more numerous and organised Turkish Islamic forces.]

crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem[64]. Eugene commissioned the French abbot Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) to preach the case for a second Crusade[65]. Bernard in turn enlisted Kings Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany in 1146[66]. From Constantinople [see above], rather than taking the coastal road through Christian territory, Conrad took his army across Muslim-controlled Anatolia where it suffered heavy losses by the Seljuk Turks at the second Battle of Dorylaeum (1147)[67].

1147c In Constantinople Louis was entertained lavishly by the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (r.1143-80)[68]. The Emperor took Louis to the Blachernae palace where he was shown the Shroud and venerated it[69]. Louis, after merging with the remains of Conrad's army followed a route closer to the Mediterranean coast but they were still attacked and weakened by the Turks along the way[70].

1148 The remnant of Louis' and Conrad's combined army reached Antioch by sea in 1148[71]. The military objective was Edessa but Louis wanted to complete his pilgrimage to Jerusalem[72]. However, in Jerusalem the preferred military target of King Baldwin III (1143–63) and the Knights Templar was Damascus[73]. But the Siege of Damascus in 1148 was another heavy defeat for the Crusader armies[74]. So the Second Crusade ended a disastrous failure[75], which left a bitter feeling in the West toward the Byzantine empire, because it could have done more to help[76]. This bitterness between West and East was no doubt a factor in the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 by Western troops enroute to the Fourth Crusade[77] [see "1204"].

c.1149 A copy of the Shroud face on a Crusader period (1131-69) painted column in the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem! "In the nave of the

[Above (enlarge): Extract from the cover of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, issue #54, August 1989. [See 04Aug16]. The caption is, "Crusader period painting of Christ in the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Another copy from the Shroud?" The photo was taken by the late archaeologist, Eugenia Nitowski (1947-2007) (aka Sr Damian of the Cross).]

Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem are twenty-seven polished columns containing paintings of holy figures (c. 1130 and 1169)"[78]. Until 1131, the Church of the Nativity was used as the primary coronation church for crusader kings[79]. That is, from the coronation in 1100 of Baldwin I of Jerusalem (r.1100-1118)[80] to the coronation in 1131 of Baldwin I's granddaughter, Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem (r.1131-53)[81]. During this time and up to 1169, the crusaders made extensive decoration and restorations of the church and grounds[82].

This icon of Jesus' face dates from between c.1130 and 1169, and has, by my count, at least ten of the fifteen Vignon Markings: nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 - especially no. 8 "enlarged left nostril", and therefore

[Above (enlarge): The Vignon markings: (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." [83]. [See 25Jul07, 29Jul08, 11Feb12, 22Sep12, 14Apr14, 09Nov15 and 15Feb16]

it is indeed "Another copy from the Shroud"! There are photos of the column online (e.g. "Jesus Christ Image on Pillar of Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem") but they are not high quality. Nevertheless, despite the poor quality of the photographs, it can be seen that this icon is very significant! Here is an icon on a pillar in the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem, which has at least 10 of the 15 Vignon Markings that are on the Shroud, and therefore it is beyond reasonable doubt this icon was based on the Shroud. Yet the icon is securely dated c. 1130-69, i.e. between 91 and 130 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[84]! So this is yet another of the "lot of other evidence that" Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Prof. Christopher Ramsey, who was involved in the 1988 dating and was a signatory to the 1989 Nature article admitted, "suggests [to put it mildly] ... that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow" (my emphasis):

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information."[85]
c. 1150a A Christ Pantocrator ("Ruler of all"[86]) fresco, dating back to the twelfth century, in the rupestrian (cave) Church of St. Nicholas in Casalrotto, Italy[87]. Jesus' face is Shroud-like, rigidly forward-

[Above (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator centre panel of fresco between Mary and John the Baptist (see here), in the twelfth century cave church in Casalrotto, Italy[88]. See also 29Mar14 & 21Jun17.]

facing with Vignon markings including a forked beard, open staring eyes, a wisp of hair where the reversed `3' bloodstain is in the Shroud, and a triangle between the nose and the eyebrows[89].

c. 1150b The Christ Pantocrator mosaic in the apse of Cefalu Cathedral, Sicily[90] is among the most recent of many such

[Above: (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator, Cefalu Cathedral, Sicily[91].

"... if the radiocarbon dating is to be believed, there should be no evidence of our Shroud [before 1260]. The year 1260 was the earliest possible date for the Shroud's existence by radiocarbon dating's calculations. Yet artistic likenesses of Jesus originating well before 1260 can be seen to have an often striking affinity with the face on the Shroud ... Purely by way of example we may cite from the twelfth century the huge Christ Pantocrator mosaic that dominates the apse of the Norman Byzantine church at Cefalu, Sicily ..."[92].]
works in the Byzantine tradition,which depict a Shroud-like, long-haired, fork-bearded, front-facing likeness of Christ[93]. But at c.1150 it is still over a century before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[94]. It has 14 out of 15 Vignon markings (see above)[95], including a triangle between the nose and the eyebrows, concave cheeks, asymmetrical and pronounced cheekbones, each found on the Shroud, and a double tuft of hair where the reversed `3' bloodstain is on the Shroud[96]. This means the artist was working from the face on the Shroud, copying each feature carefully, even though he did not understand what some of them were, for example the open, staring eyes are actually closed in photographic negative on the Shroud[97]. [See 29Mar14 & 21Jun17].

c. 1150 Installation of the "Window of the Passion and Resurrection"

[Right (enlarge)[98]. To help identify each panel in this "Passion and Resurrection" window, I created a grid reference: "L" and "R" for the left and right columns of panels, and 1 to 7 for the seven rows of panels. Thus "the crucifixion panel" above is grid reference L4.]

in the west wall of Chartres Cathedral[99]. King Louis VII (r. 1137-80) [see above] was both "well-learned and exceptionally devout"[100], and given the Byzantines' prohibition of literal depictions of the Shroud image[101], the short timeframe (1149-51), and that stained glass windows originated in medieval Europe in the 10th century[102], not Constantinople, it seems that Louis must have remembered the features he saw on the Shroud and on his return to France in 1149[103], had them depicted in these Chartres Cathedral stained glass windows [see 29Nov18d].

The "Flagellation panel" (below), at grid reference R3 (above right), has the following Shroud-like unusual features: 1) Jesus' crown of thorns is helmet-like (not wreath-like), as is the pattern of head puncture bloodstains on the Shroud [see 08Sep13a]. 2) Jesus' hands are crossed, right over left, awkwardly at the wrists, exactly as they are on the

[Above (enlarge). "The Flagellation panel" in the Window of the Passion and Resurrection, Chartres Cathedral[104].]

Shroud [see 29Nov18e]. 3) Jesus' hands and fingers are abnormally long, as they are on the Shroud, due to them being xray images of the Shroudman's finger and hand bones [see 20Apr17]. And 4) There are two scourgers, as evident from the pattern of scourge marks on the Shroud [see 15Jul13].

Continuing with my count of Shroud-like features, now in the "Crucifixion panel" (above) at grid reference L4, 5) Jesus has a nail wound depicted in

[Left (enlarge): Extract from "the crucifixion panel" above, showing the nail wound in Jesus' right wrist (see below) and His body bent in a "Byzantine curve" (see below).]

his right (apparent because of mirror reversal) wrist, as on the Shroud [see below]. 6) His thumbs are retracted so they would not be visible from the back of the hand, as on the Shroud [see below]. 7) Jesus' abdomen is protruding, which was identified by French surgeon Dr Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) as evidence of the Shroudman's death by asphyxiation[105]. And 8) Jesus' right leg is depicted as shorter than his left, as appears on the Shroud [see below]. This is due to the Shroudman's left leg having been bent at the knee, his left foot placed over his right, and both feet transfixed to the cross by a single nail[106]. And then remaining fixed in that position by rigor mortis[107]. The

[Right (original)[108]: The frontal image of the Shroud (cropped). This is what the Byzantines and King Louis VII of France (r. 1137-80) would have seen [see above] when the Image of Edessa (the Shroud "four-doubled" - tetradiplon) was unfolded full-length. Note the nail wound in the Shroudman's right (apparent because of mirror reversal) wrist (see above); his hands are crossed, right over left, at the wrist (see above); his thumbs are not visible (see above); his hands and fingers appear to be abnormally long (see above); his abdomen is protruding (see above); and his right leg appears shorter than his left (see above).]

Byzantines thought Jesus was lame[109] (not realising that the Shroudman's legs only appear to be different lengths) and so they depicted Jesus' body in a compensatory "Byzantine curve"[110] [See "c.1001b"].

As mentioned at the beginning of this post (see above) Falcinelli discovered through his camera fitted with a telephoto lens, that in the "Crucifixion panel" (L4), Jesus is depicted with a realistic reversed `3', or epsilon (ε), bloodflow on his forehead[111] [see below and

[Above (enlarge): Falcinelli's telephotograph (left) and his highlighting (right), of the depiction of the Shroud's reversed `3', or epsilon (ε), forehead bloodstain [see below] in the c.1150 Chartres Cathedral stained glass window, "the crucifixion panel"[112]. This is Shroud-like feature 9) in this "window of the Passion and Resurrection" (see above) ogival stained glass window in the west wall of Chartres Cathedral.]

29Nov18b], exactly where the original is on the Shroud (see below)!

[Above (enlarge): The reversed `3', or epsilon (ε), and other bloodstains on the forehead and scalp of the man on the Shroud[113]. These bloodstains match the pattern of punctures by a crown (or rather cap or helmet) of thorns [see 08Sep13c].]

So this depiction of the Shroud's reversed `3' blood-stain at the exact same location on the face of Jesus in this c.1150 "the crucifixion panel" stained glass window in Chartres Cathedral, is yet another proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud already existed in at least 1150, and therefore the mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" radiocarbon date of the Shroud[114] was, and is, wrong!

Finally in the "Anointing panel" (L5) and below, Shroud-like features

[Above (enlarge): The "Anointing panel in the Window of the Passion and Resurrection, Chartres Cathedral[115].]

include: 10) Jesus' arms are crossed at the wrists, right over left, covering his pubic region; 11) His thumbs are not visible; 12) Jesus face has long hair and a forked beard, and 13) He is naked under his burial shroud. I have double-counted some of these features because they are on different panels and a sceptical alternative is that these are merely chance features, not based on any original model.

Therefore there are at least thirteen (13) unusual features on these three Chartres Cathedral stained glass window panels, dating from c.1150, that are found on the Shroud. One of these, Shroud-like feature 9), the reversed `3', or epsilon (ε), forehead bloodstain (above), is too specific to be explained away by Shroud sceptics as merely a chance similarity.

This discovery by Prof. Falcinelli of a realistic depiction of the Shroud's reversed `3' bloodstain (abov) in one of three Shroud-like depictions of Jesus in c.1150 stained glass windows in Chartres Cathedral, is at least as significant as the `poker holes' in the Pray Codex [see 21Aug18] in proving the Shroud pre-dated by at least a century its earliest 1260 radiocarbon date. That is because while sceptics can try to dismiss the Pray Codex as merely symbolic, they cannot so dismiss the Chartres Cathedral's literal reversed `3'! [see 29Nov18f] And there are at least thirteen unusual features in common between three of these stained glass windows and the Shroud (see below), compared with the Pray Codex's at least fourteen [see 04Oct18a].

Only a few days ago, in my scanning of the 118th and final issue of Rex Morgan's Shroud News (!), I read what Morgan had said in his keynote address at the 2001 Dallas Shroud conference:

"It is surely only a matter of time before someone comes up with hard evidence proving beyond dispute the whereabouts of the Shroud at some time in the first millennium. All the signs are there. Maybe we will find more clues amongst the ruins of Edessa, or in Constantinople, or tucked away in a medieval manuscript, as yet unseen in a hidden ancient library"[116].
The Pray Codex alone already proved beyond reasonable dispute that the Shroud was at Constantinople (944) and before that in Edessa (544), in the first millennium. See above and my "Open letter to Professor Christopher Ramsey" [see 04Oct18b]. So these thirteen (13) Shroud-like features (including a realistic reversed `3' bloodstain in the same shape and location as on the Shroud), in these three c.1150 Chartres Cathedral stained glass windows, doubly proves beyond reasonable dispute that the Shroud was at Constantinople (from 944) and before that in Edessa (544-944), in the first millennium!

Continued in the next part #13 of this series.

1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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 page.[return]
2. Email, "My studies on Shroud\Chartres," from Roberto Falcinelli, 28 November 2018, 2:15 am. [return]
3. "Knights Templar," Wikipedia, 24 September 2017. [return]
4. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.17. [return]
5. Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.17. [return]
6. "File:Templars Burning.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 7 June 2015. [return]
7. "Jacques de Molay: Death," Wikipedia, 11 September 2017. [return]
8. "Geoffroi de Charney: Death," Wikipedia, 19 September 2017. [return]
9. "Knights Templar: Arrests, charges and dissolution," Wikipedia, 24 September 2017. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Victor Gollancz: London, inside front cover. [return]
11. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.178-179. [return]
12. Wilson, 1979, p.188. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.188. [return]
14. 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, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, 197-198. [return]
15. "So obviously there remains an unexplained gap between 1204 and the 1350s (and my suggestion of Templar ownership during this period has never been more than tentative and provisional - please note that I no longer support the claims for this ..." (Wilson, I., 2012, "Discovering more of the Shroud's Early History: A promising new approach ...," Talk for the International Congress on the Holy Shroud in Spain, Aula Magna of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 28-30 April, 2012, p.2). [return]
16. Wilson, 1979, pp.158, 256, 312; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.145-146; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.120. [return]
17. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.47; Scavone, 1991, p.195. [return]
18. Wilson, 1979, pp.158, 312 n.7; Iannone, 1998, p.120. [return]
19. Scavone, D., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989a, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, pp.311-329, 318. [return]
20. Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, No. 3, Autumn, pp.319-345; Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.94; Wilson, 1979, p.158-159; Wilson, 1986, p.114; Scavone, D.C., 1989b, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.88; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.78; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.152; 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.270. [return]
21. Scavone, 1989b, pp.88-89; Wilson, 1998, p.270. [return]
22. Wilson, 1998, pp.144, 270. [return]
23. Wilcox, 1977, p.94; Wilson, 1979, pp.158, 257; Wilson, 1986, p.114; Wilson, 1991, pp.152-153; Wilson, 1998, pp.144, 270; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.177, 301, 325; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.382-383. [return]
24. Drews, 1984, p.47; Scavone, 1991, p.195. [return]
25. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.147. [return]
26. "Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne," Wikipedia, 29 February 2016. [return]
27. Aebischer, P., 1965., "Le voyage de Charlemagne à Jérusalem et à Constantinople," Librairie Droz: [return]
28. "Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne," Wikipedia, 29 February 2016. [return]
29. "Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne," Wikipedia, 29 February 2016. [return]
30. Beecher, 1928, p.147. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.17. [return]
33. Wilson, 1998, p.269; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.109; Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, pp.145-147, 148; Wilson, 2010, p.50. [return]
34. Wilson, 1979, pp.95, 168-169; Adams, 1982, p.27, Dembowski, P.F., 1982, "Sindon in the Old French Chronicle of Robert de Clari," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 2, March, pp.13-18; Wilson, 1986, p.104; Scavone, 1989a, p.321; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.79; Wilson, 1991, p.156; Iannone, 1998, pp.126-127; Wilson, 1998, pp.124-125, 142, 272; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.123; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.8; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.30-31; Wilson, 2010, pp.108, 186; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.175-176. [return]
35. "Peter the Deacon," Wikipedia, 22 September 2017. [return]
36. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.52; Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.16; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988a, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.62. [return]
37. Barnes, 1934, p.52; Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.62. [return]
38. Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.62. [return]
39. Ibid. [return]
40. Ibid. [return]
41. Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.62; Iannone, 1998, p.210. [return]
42. Wilson, 1998, p.270. [return]
43. "Siege of Edessa," Wikipedia, 12 June 2017. [return]
44. Wilson, 2010, p.146G. [return]
45. Wilson, 2010, p.119. [return]
46. Wilson, 1998, p.270. [return]
47. "Siege of Edessa: Aftermath," Wikipedia, 12 June 2017. [return]
48. Wilson, 1998, p.270. [return]
49. Wilson, 2010, p.301. [return]
50. Wilson, 2010, p.301. [return]
51. Wilson, 2010, p.118. [return]
52. Wilson, 2010, p.146F. [return]
53. Wilson, 2010, p.1. [return]
54. Wilson, 2010, pp.2-3, 210C. [return]
55. Wilson, 2010, pp.1-2. [return]
56. Wilson, 1998, p.270. [return]
57. "Louis VII of France: Early reign," Wikipedia, 28 September 2017. [return]
58. "Second Crusade: French route," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
59. "Conrad III of Germany: Life and reign," Wikipedia, 30 August 2017. [return]
60. "Second Crusade: French route," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
61. Latourette, K.S., 1953, "A History of Christianity: Volume 1: to A.D. 1500," Harper & Row: New York NY, Reprinted, 1975, p.411; "Second Crusade," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
62. "Second Crusade," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
63. "File:Asia minor 1140.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 19 September 2016. [return]
64. Walker, W., 1959, "A History of the Christian Church," [1918], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Revised, Reprinted, 1963, p.222. [return]
65. Latourette, 1953, p.411; Walker, 1959, p.222; "Second Crusade," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
66. Walker, 1959, p.222; "Second Crusade," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
67. "Conrad III of Germany: Life and reign," Wikipedia, 30 August 2017. [return]
68. "Second Crusade: French route," Wikipedia, 3 December 2018. [return]
69. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.xxxv; Crispino, D.C., 1983, "Louis I, Duke of Savoy," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 7, June, pp.7-13, 12; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.178; ; Iannone, 1998, p.120; 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, p.58; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.7; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.40; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.55. [return]
70. "Second Crusade: French route," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
71. "Second Crusade: Journey to Jerusalem," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
72. "Second Crusade: French route," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
73. "Second Crusade: Journey to Jerusalem," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
74. "Second Crusade: Siege of Damascus," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
75. Latourette, 1953, p.411; Walker, 1959, p.222. [return]
76. Latourette, 1953, p.411; Walker, 1959, p.222; . "Second Crusade: Aftermath," Wikipedia, 23 September 2017. [return]
77. Latourette, 1953, p.411; Walker, 1959, p.222. [return]
78. Mahoney, L., 2012, "Painted Columns in the Church of the Nativity," Encyclopedia of Medieval Pilgrimage, Brill’s Medieval Reference Library. [return]
79. "Church of the Nativity: Eleventh- and twelfth-century additions and restoration (c. 1050–1169)," Wikipedia, 13 September 2017. [return]
80. "Baldwin I of Jerusalem," Wikipedia, 3 September 2017. [return]
81. "Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem," Wikipedia, 26 September 2017. [return]
82. "Church of the Nativity: Eleventh- and twelfth-century additions and restoration (c. 1050–1169)," Wikipedia, 13 September 2017. [return]
83. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82e. [return]
84. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
85. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March, Version 152, Issued 16 June 2015. [return]
86. Ruffin, 1999, p.110; Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, pp.1093-1094. [return]
87. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.193. [return]
88. Martino Miali, 2014, "Mottolo (Taranto). Church of St. Nicholas: fresco depicting Christ Almighty between Our Lady and St. John the Baptist. Photo by Martino Miali," Bridge Puglia & USA. [return]
89. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.193. [return]
90. Wilson, 1979, p.102; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.82; Wilson, 1998, p.141; Antonacci, 2000, p.126. [return]
91. "File:Master of Cefalu 001 Christ Pantocrator adjusted.JPG," Wikipedia, 15 June 2010. [return]
92. Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]
93. Wilson, 1986, p.105; Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]
94. Wilson, 1986, p.104. [return]
95. Wilson, 1979, p.105; Maher, 1986, p.82. [return]
96. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.193. [return]
97. Wilson, 1979, p.105. [return]
98. Geoffrion, J., 2018, "Praying with Stained Glass Windows," Pray with Jill at Chartres. [return]
99. "Chartres Cathedral: Earlier buildings and the west façade," Wikipedia, 24 November 2018. [return]
100. "Louis VII of France: Early years," Wikipedia, 29 November 2018. [return]
101. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.180-181. [return]
102. "Medieval stained glass," Wikipedia, 16 July 2018. [return]
103. "Louis VII of France: Early years," Wikipedia, 29 November 2018. [return]
104. Falcinelli, 1998, p.9. [return]
105. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, p.86; 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.45; Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 285; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.51; Maher, 1986, p.53; Borkan, 1995, p.27; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.114. [return]
106. Barnes, 1934, p.64; Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.46; Wilson, 1979, p.42; Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.103; Wilson, 1986, pp.24-25; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 24; Bucklin, R, 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: A Pathologist's Viewpoint," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.271-279, 274; Iannone, 1998, p.59; Wilson, 1998, p.37; Antonacci, 2000, p.22; Tribbe, 2006, pp.94, 234-235; de Wesselow, 2012, p.145. [return]
107. Barnes, 1934, p.64; Borkan, 1995, p.24; Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
108. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal" (rotated left 90°), [return]
109. Barnes, 1934, p.68; O'Connell, P. & Carty, C., 1974, "The Holy Shroud and Four Visions," TAN: Rockford IL, p.6; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1993, "Shrouded in Mystery," Shroud News, No 76, April, pp.14-21, 16; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.13, 195-196; Tribbe, 2006, p.234. [return]
110. Barnes, 1934, pp.67-68; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.195. [return]
111. Falcinelli, 1998, p.4. [return]
112. File "Chartres-Schema volto1.JPG", emailed to me by Roberto Falcinelli, 28 November 2018, 2:15 am. [return]
113. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical," [return]
114. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
115. File "CHARTRES 2.jpg," emailed to me by Roberto Falcinelli, 28 November 2018, 2:15 am. [return]
116. Morgan, R.H., 2001, "The Shroud in the New Millennium," Keynote address given at the Dallas International Conference on 27 October 2001 by Rex Morgan," Shroud News, No. 118, December, pp.3-34, 32. [return]

Posted: 23 September 2017. Updated: 28 January 2019.

Monday, September 18, 2017

VT-100 terminal to a DEC mini-computer, Timothy Linick and Karl Koch: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #9

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #9, "VT-100 terminal to a DEC mini-computer, Timothy Linick and Karl Koch," in my "Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory," series. For more information about this series see part #1, "Hacking an explanation & Index." References "[A]", etc., will be to that part of my original post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: "13th-12th centuries: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (1)" #8] [Next: "Vignon markings: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (2)" #10]

Continuing with tracing the steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Shroud hacker theory in my early 2014 posts (last three): "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? Summary," "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #1" and now "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Further to my replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey".

Arizona laboratory's "control console computer" was a VT-100 terminal Further to my post, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," Prof. Ramsey gave the misleading impression in his email to the anti-authenticist Editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, Hugh Farey posted on March 10, 2014 to Dan Porter's now closed blog:

"Yes – I agree with all that Tim says. This would seem to be a suggestion from someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s [false - see 22Nov16]. In the case of Oxford the AMS had no connection to any network (and indeed even today our AMS control computers have no network connections). The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured. Age calculation was done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS."
that the AMS control console computer in the Arizona University's radiocarbon dating laboratory was little more than a calculator. Which

[Right (enlarge): Arizona radiocarbon laboratory's AMS control console `computer' (actually VT-100 terminal to that computer) just after it had displayed on its screen the uncalibrated `radiocarbon date of the Shroud', which was then calibrated to "1350 AD"[2]. I have identified this as probably a DEC VT-100 terminal connected to a DEC VAX-11 (or PDP-11) 32-bit minicomputer (see below).]

led Porter to question whether the AMS control console computers were even "programmable." My reply to Porter on his blog, included:

>Has he determined if the AMS Control Consoles at all three labs had programmable computers

There is no such thing as a NON-programmable computer. Prof. Ramsey confirmed that the AMS control console computers were under the control of "software," which is just another name for a program. When I get to that part of my series I will give further evidence about this.[A]

Arizona's AMS computer required an engineer-programmer I then [on March 30, 2014] added a further comment on Porter's blog (lightly edited): I meant to add, but I could not remember the name, that one of those listed by Harry Gove as present at Arizona's C-14 dating of the Shroud was "Art Hatheway" who was "connected with the Arizona AMS facility" and was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper:

"The next morning at about 8 am (6 May 1988) I arrived at the Arizona AMS facility ... I would be the only one present outside the Arizona AMS group. Doug immediately asked me to sign the following statement:
"We the undersigned, understand that radiocarbon age results for the Shroud of Turin obtained from the University of Arizona AMS facility are confidential. We agree not to communicate the results to anyone-spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public." It had been signed by D J Donahue, Brad Gore, L J Toolin, P E Damon, Timothy Jull and ART HATHEWAY, all connected with the Arizona AMS facility, before I signed. My signature was followed by T W Linick and P J Sercel, also from the Arizona facility"[3].
A Google search on "Art Hatheway Arizona" (without quotes) had

[Left (enlarge): Grave of "Arthur Loyal Hathaway" (1940-2008), East Lawn Palms Cemetery, Tucson Arizona[4]. On 4 December 2015 I received an anonymous comment under my 31Mar14 post:

"You will be sorely pressed to find a more ethical and upstanding character than that of the late and sorely missed Art Hatheway. His search for truth was genuine and dutiful."
I responded that I was not alleging that Hatheway was a hacker but included him to indicate the "high level of sophistication of the Arizona C-14 lab's computers." I ended my response with, "Have you any information you can give me on this?" But I didn't receive a reply. There must be many people out there who knew Linick or Koch (see below) and I am always hopeful that at least one of them will provide me with more information about one of them in support of my hacker theory.]

turned up an obituary of an "Arthur Loyal Hatheway" who was "Senior Staff Engineer at the AMS Lab in the Physics Department at U of A." and a "computer programmer":

"Arthur Loyal Hatheway Obituary HATHEWAY, Arthur Loyal, born in Los Angeles on March 26, 1940 to Philip and Pauline Hatheway, went suddenly to Jesus on October 11, 2008 ... In 2006, Art retired from his position as Senior Staff Engineer at the AMS Lab in the Physics Department at U of A. There his skills as COMPUTER PROGRAMMER and small instrument engineer, his thorough nature and precise workmanship, his understanding of chemistry and physics, as well as his abilities to invent and mentor, WERE PUT TO GOOD USE. Art met Jesus in 1992. This new relationship changed his perspective on life ... Arizona Daily Star on Oct. 14, 2008"[5]
I am NOT alleging that Art Hatheway was one of the hackers, just that there was at least one member of the Arizona C-14 lab staff who was a "computer programmer" and indeed a "Senior Staff Engineer," which is indicative of a high level of sophistication of the Arizona C-14 lab's computers, and presumably of the other C-14 labs' computers.

And that presumably a major role of Senior Staff Engineer Hatheway was ensuring the AMS control console computer program controlled the AMS C-14 dating process:

"The first sample run was OX1 [oxalic acid standard]. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. ALL THIS WAS UNDER COMPUTER CONTROL and the calculations produced by THE COMPUTER were displayed on a cathode ray screen"[6]. [B]
Prof. Ramsey's downplaying of the AMS computer is significant I had originally thought that the computer which

[Right: Dr Christopher Bronk Ramsey: Science Photo Library]

controlled the AMS dating was different from the AMS control console computer, but according to Gove's words above, they were ONE AND THE SAME. Now a lab does not need to employ a "Senior Staff Engineer" who is also a "computer programmer" and who "put[s] to good use" those "skills," on a computer which Prof. Ramsey gave the misleading impression was little more than a calculator:

"The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured. Age calculation was done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS." ("Comment Promoted: On the Hacking Hypothesis," March 9, 2014).
and which led Dan to question whether it was even "programmable".

Now Prof. Ramsey is highly computer literate, being himself a computer programmer, as the author of "OxCal" a computer "program ... intended to provide radiocarbon calibration":

"The OxCal program is intended to provide radiocarbon calibration ... For further information contact the author: Prof. C. Bronk Ramsey ..."[7]
So Prof. Ramsey presumably KNOWS VERY WELL that the AMS control system computers at Arizona, Zurich and Oxford were not little more than "a calculator" but were PROGRAMMABLE computers [indeed DEC Vax-11 and/or PDP-11 minicomputers, i.e. mini-mainframe computers - see below], controlling the entire complex AMS radiocarbon dating process as well as outputting the uncalibrated C-14 dates of each sample onto their screens.

I personally find Prof. Ramsey's (and Dr Jull's) defensiveness significant.

But again, I repeat, that I am NOT alleging that the late Art Hatheway (or Prof. Ramsey) was one of the hackers. All I am seeking to establish is that the C-14 labs' AMS control console computers were PROGRAMMABLE. And therefore HACKABLE!

I regard this evidence that the AMS control console computer at Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory (and therefore presumably at the Zurich and Oxford laboratories which had the same Accelerator Mass Spectrometry system), was programmable and therefore hackable, as a further step forward in my proposal that the radiocarbon dating laboratories at universities in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, which in 1988 dated the Shroud of Turin as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390," against the preponderance of the evidence, may have been unknowingly duped by a computer hacker [But see below]. [C]

Timothy Linick and Karl Koch PS: I have posted the following as [on March 31, 2014] a comment on Dan Porter's blog (slightly edited):

I decided to Google the name which was after Art Hatheway's on Prof. Harry Grove's list of those present at the Arizona lab's 6 May 1988 dating of the Shroud. It was "T. W. Linick". I found out his name was

[Left: Photo of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances"[8]

"Timothy W. Linick". I then discovered that he died on June 4, 1989[9], a few months after the Nature paper to which he was a signatory appeared, on February 16 of that year. Moreover, it was rumoured that Linick had committed suicide[10] (since confirmed - see 30Dec15, although I claim that Linick's, like Koch's, "suicide" was murder by the KGB made to look like suicide.).

It may be significant that Karl Koch [see below right], a self-confessed hacker who had worked for the KGB, died on May 23, 1989[11], less than 2 weeks earlier than Linick, in what appeared to be an execution designed to look like suicide. [It was significant - see 17May15 where Koch's death was between 23 and 30 May 1989, and police publicly identified his burnt body as Karl Koch on 3 June 1989, the day before Linick's `suicide' on 4 June 1989!]

[Right: Karl Koch. "He was involved with the KGB scandal that involved hackers being bought by drugs in exchange for breaking into key NATO and corporate installations ... Koch, of Hanover, West Germany, died Friday, June 3 [1989][12]. No - see 17May15]. Koch died between 23 and 29 May 1989. His charred body was found by the police on 1 June. So 3 June is evidently when the police publicly identified the body as Koch.]

I then Googled the names of other signatories to the 1989 Nature paper but found no other untimely deaths. However, as the Wikipedia article on Karl Koch notes, Koch's fellow hackers Pengo (Hans Heinrich Hübner), and Urmel (Markus Hess) also confessed that they had worked for the KGB but were not harmed.

While I do not claim that Timothy W. Linick WAS a hacker, nor that his untimely death WAS suicide [I do now claim both.], let alone an execution by the KGB designed to look like suicide [I do now claim that also], it nevertheless is worth keeping in mind as a possible piece of the jigsaw.

This will no doubt be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" by those who prefer mindless slogans to thinking. But it is a FACT that the KGB did CONSPIRE with hackers, notably Karl Koch, of whose death Wikipedia notes that, "there is little evidence supporting suicide and many believe that Koch was killed in order to keep him from confessing more to the authorities". And it is a FACT that the KGB did CONSPIRE with hacker Markus Hess whom Clifford Stoll caught. [D]

PPS: Here is a further comment I posted [on March 31, 2014] to Dan Porter's blog (with light editing):

I have discovered what make and probably the model of the AMS control console computer was. On Googling "Linick Arizona computer" (without the quotes) I found the paper, 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.

In it the late Dr Linick, described the computerised process that Prof. Gove wrote of Arizona lab's AMS control console computer, and mentioned that it is a "DEC computer system":

"The DEC computer system largely controls the cycling of isotopes, accumulation of data, and calculation of results for each 15-minute run."
"DEC" stands for Digital Equipment Corporation, the maker of the powerful PDP and VAX range of minicomputer which were very popular in laboratories in the 1980s. However I have been unable to discover what model it was, e,g. PDP-11, VAX-11, etc.

Googling "DEC" and then selecting "images," the Arizona Lab's AMS control console computer in the photo on page 176H of Prof. Gove's book (see above), looks like a DEC VT-100 terminal.

[Left (enlarge): DEC VT-100 terminal[13].]

If that is so, and given that Arizona's AMS system was installed in 1981, its AMS control console computer was probably a 32-bit VAX-11:

"In 1976, DEC decided to extend the PDP-11 architecture to 32-bits while adding a complete virtual memory system to the simple paging and memory protection of the PDP-11. The result was the VAX architecture, where VAX stands for Virtual Address eXtension (from 16 to 32 bits). The first computer to use a VAX CPU was the VAX-11/780, which DEC referred to as a superminicomputer. Although it was not the first 32-bit minicomputer, the VAX-11/780's combination of features, price, and marketing almost immediately propelled it to a leadership position in the market after it was released in 1978. VAX systems were so successful that in 1983, DEC canceled its Jupiter project, which had been intended to build a successor to the PDP-10 mainframe, and instead focused on promoting the VAX as the single computer architecture for the company. Supporting the VAX's success was the VT52, one of the most successful smart terminals. Building on earlier less successful models (the VT05 and VT50), the VT52 was the first terminal that did everything one might want in a single chassis. The VT52 was followed by the even more successful VT100 and its follow-ons, making DEC one of the largest terminal vendors in the industry. With the VT series, DEC could now offer a complete top-to-bottom system from computer to all peripherals, which formerly required collecting the required devices from different suppliers"[14]
Whichever DEC computer system it was, whether a PDP or VAX, it

[Right (enlarge): The DEC VAX-11/780[15]. Introduced in 1977[16], this likely was the very 32-bit "supermini- computer" that the AMS computers at Arizona, Zurich and Oxford were, which Prof. Ramsey suspiciously attempted to downplay as little more than a calculator!]

CERTAINLY was programmable and therefore HACKABLE! [E]

Further to my above original assumption that the laboratories were "unknowingly duped by a computer hacker," I still think that was the case, originally. But because of the very responses of Professors Jull and Ramsey, to my mere blogger's comments (since when do Directors of major radiocarbon laboratories deign to respond to blog comments?); let alone that their responses were "self-contradictory, misleading and false" (Jull) and "ad hominem fallacious, misleading and false" (Ramsey); I find it difficult not to think that, following the discovery of Linick's name in David Sox's 1988 book, showing that Linick leaked Arizona's first "1350" date to Sox [see 22Nov16], and then after Linick's `suicide', Arizona laboratory discovered, or at least suspected, that Linick had hacked Arizona's (if not also Zurich's and Oxford's) radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, but they covered it up! [see also my 15Sep16]. It is noteworthy that Profs Jull and Ramsey are in the unique situation that they are Directors of the same laboratories in which they were in 1988 junior scientists involved in radiocarbon dating the Shroud, and signatories to the 1989 Nature paper. As such, if Linick did hack the Shroud's radiocarbon dating (as the evidence indicates) they would know that, and would have a powerful vested interest (not only for themselves but for their laboratory leaders back then) in covering it up! Their very responses (let alone that they were misleading and false) to my anonymous (to them) blog comments, I regard as `body language' that they are covering it up!

Continued in the next part #10 of this series.

1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference to this post citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," pp.176H, 264. [return]
3. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
4. Extract from "Grave Site of Arthur Loyal Hatheway (1940-2008)," BillionGraves. [return]
5. "Arthur Loyal Hatheway: Obituary," Arizona Daily Star, Oct. 14, 2008, [return]
6. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
7. "OxCal," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 18 March 2017. [return]
8. 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]
9. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
10. 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]
11. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2 September 2017. [return]
12. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
13. "VT100," Wikipedia, 18 April 2017. [return]
14. "Digital Equipment Corporation: VAX," Wikipedia, 10 March 2014. [return]
15. "File:Vax11-780.jpg," Wikipedia, 17 December 2008. [return]
16. "VAX: History," Wikipedia, 12 July 2017. [return]

Posted: 18 September 2017. Updated: 16 January 2018.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

29 June 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #5, "29 June 1987," of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1, Index. As explained in part #1, the first few significant days 30 years ago have already passed but I will soon catch up and thereafter publish each day's post as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 15Jun87 #4] [Next: 10Oct87 #6]

29 June 1987 Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009) [Below right[2].], the unofficial leader of the Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories[3], phoned Prof. Vittorio Canuto [see 07Jul17], an astrophysicist at the NASA Institute for Space Studies in New York City, and at the time a scientific aide to Prof. Carlos Chagas Filho (1910-2000), the President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences[4]. The purpose of the call was to find out whether Canuto had an update on the long delayed carbon dating of the Shroud[5]. Canuto told Gove that Chagas had received a copy of a letter dated 21 May 1987, addressed to the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989), from Pope John Paul II (r. 1978-2005), but executed by the Vatican's Secretary of State, Cardinal

[Left[6]: Vatican Secretary of State (1979-90), Cardinal Agostino Casaroli (1914–98). It was to Casaroli that Ballestrero appealed, "that the Pontifical Academy was taking things away from him"[7], and it was Casaroli who wrote the letter of 21 May 1987 transferring control of the carbon dating from Chagas and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome to the Archbishop of Turin[8].]

Agostino Casaroli[9]. The letter contained instructions to Ballestrero on the procedures to be followed in radiocarbon dating the Shroud[10]. But because the letter was from the Secretary of State to Cardinal Ballestrero with only a copy to Chagas, Canuto was unable to divulge its contents[11]. However, Canuto did reveal to Gove that the procedures differed substantially from the Turin Workshop Protocol agreed to by the seven laboratories in October 1986[12] [see 27Apr87]. Chagas was evidently playing his usual "double game" of leaking confidential information to Gove through Canuto[13] Why else would Chagas send Canuto in the USA a copy of a confidential letter from Cardinal Casaroli to Cardinal Ballestrero, unless Chagas wanted Canuto to reveal its contents to Gove?

Gove arranged a conference phone call which took place the next day, 30 June 1987[14], between Canuto in New York, and the leaders of the USA laboratories: Donahue in Arizona, Harbottle in Brookhaven, and himself in Rochester. Despite originally saying the day before that he was unable to divulge to Gove the contents of Casaroli's letter to Ballestrero of 21 May, Canuto had prearranged with Chagas that he wouldn't volunteer anything, but neither would he lie if asked[15]. So when asked in the teleconference about "communication between Turin and the secretary of state," Canuto read key parts of the letter out to the conference call participants:

"It's good to talk to more people because I did not want to volunteer that information, but since you are asking I have to give it to you. The letter from the secretary of state to Ballestrero begins by saying 'Dear Cardinal: We have received a letter from Carlos Chagas on 8 October 1986 ..."[16]
This included, "although never explicitly stated by Canuto," that there would be a reduction in the number of laboratories to "two or three"[17]. So, "Chagas's secretary and confidant [Canuto] had ... failed the basic rule of confidentiality"[18], because there was a third option besides volunteering and lying: to reply, as he had the day before to Gove, that he was unable to divulge the contents of private communication between Casaroli and Ballestrero. And Chagas even more so had "failed the basic rule of confidentiality," because Canuto would not have had a copy of Casaroli's letter without Chagas having sent it to him, and Chagas could have reminded Canuto of the third option, to not divulge to the laboratories the contents of Casaroli's letter to Ballestrero, but didn't. The problem then was, as stated by Gove:
"... how we could use the key information contained in it [Casaroli's letter], even though we were not to know in detail what it was"[19].
Brookhaven laboratory's Garman Harbottle came up with "a way out" which involved lying, in falsely claiming that they were responding to a two months old quote of the Archbishop of Turin's scientific adviser, Prof. Luigi Gonella (1930–2007), in the Turin newspaper La Stampa of 27 April 1987 (see 31May17), when in reality they were responding to Cardinal Casaroli's letter of 21 May 1987 to Cardinal Ballestrero, leaked to them by Chagas via Canuto:
"Harbottle said that he thought there was a way out. We could refer to the La Stampa article. It quoted Gonella as saying only two or three laboratories would be involved. We could always assume that was an authoritative statement and that article certainly was in the public domain. Harbottle said that we could use that as a basis for soliciting opinions on what to do next. We could privately tell the laboratories that there was more to it than that"[20].
The conference call ended with the participants agreeing that Gove would contact the heads of the other laboratories and tell them that:
"... the decision announced in La Stampa, that there would only be two or three laboratories involved, was going to be approved by the pope and the cardinal [Ballestrero]. We had information from a source I could not disclose, that this was the way it was going to be. What was their reaction to it?"[21].
Starting on 30 June, Gove phoned non-participants in the teleconference in the following order: Woelfli of Zurich Laboratory (p.198); Edward Hall of Oxford (p.198); Michael Tite then of the British Museum (p.200); Bob Otlet of Harwell, England (p.202); and Jean-Claude Duplessy of the Gif-sur-Yvette laboratory in France (p.204); to inform them of the teleconference, that there was information from a credible source that only two or three laboratories would do the Shroud dating, as mentioned in the 27 April La Stampa article, and would they each agree to sign a joint letter to the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero, requesting that seven laboratories as agreed in the October 1986 Turin workshop protocol be adhered to[22]. Even though Gove's proposed joint letter would include, in Gove's own words, that:
"... if there were going to be such major revisions in the protocol to which we had all agreed, including the people in Turin, that either they had to have another meeting with the people directly involved in carbon dating or we would just say to hell with it."
Woelfli agreed that his name be added to it (p.198). But when Gove rang Hall, he interrupted Gove to say:
"Now look Harry, I suggest that you don't do anything. If you do anything to your enemies in Turin it will be curtains ... I think you should say that we believe that the meeting should be held and leave it at that and not say 'otherwise we will withdraw'. As soon as you start threatening people, you will only get their backs up" (pp.198-199).
Hall evidently realised that Gove knew that his Rochester laboratory had no chance in being among two or three chosen to date the Shroud [see 19Jun17], so Gove was selfishly prepared to risk that no laboratory would date the Shroud, if his didn't[23]! Gove agreed to omit that threat to withdraw all the laboratories from the radiocarbon dating (p.199) and Hall agreed to sign the joint letter (p.202). Gove also phoned participants in the teleconference: Donahue (pp.199, 202) and Harbottle (p.199) to inform them of Hall's position and to further develop the joint letter. Canuto translated the letter into Italian so that Ballestrero was more likely to read it first without him needing to ask Gonella to translate it from English to Italian (p.201).

On 6 July 1987 the joint letter in Italian was sent by Western Union cable to Cardinal Ballestrero, with copies to Donahue, Duplessy, Hall, Harbottle, Otlet, Tite, and Woelfli as well as to Cardinal Casaroli, the Vatican, the Holy See Mission to the UN (where Casaroli was staying - p.204), and to Chagas (p.204). On 2 August, Hall sent a letter to Gove which Gove described as "breaking ranks" (pp.205, 207):

"He [Hall] recalled our telephone conversation concerning what he described as my 'broadside' to Turin (the letter in Italian to Ballestrero) he had told me he considered unwise. He said he had agreed to sign it as a friendly gesture. He had since learned it had displeased the archbishop ... He stated that from now on he and Hedges intended to distance themselves from the two camps, me on the one hand and Professor Gonella on the other. He thought that any further hectoring would only prolong the decision. He hoped for a positive decision for the shroud dating sometime in the future. Meanwhile he intended to keep quiet and await developments from Italy. He hoped this would not cause offence but he wanted to make his position clear" (p.205).
As we have seen above, and as we shall see, the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was far from being normal, objective, science, because of Gove's "unscientific, anti-Christian, prejudice" [31May17], which had turned what could have been a model of good, co-operative science, into a bitter power-struggle between the laboratories and the Turin Archdiocese, which already had corrupted the laboratories into: 1) being read to without permission key excerpts from a confidential letter between Cardinal Casaroli and Cardinal Ballestrero; and 2) then lying that it was an old article in La Stampa that they were responding to. This was far from the high standard of good science that the leading physicist Richard Feynman (1918–88) called for in his 1974 Caltech graduation address:
"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty ... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying ..."[24]!
Continued in part #6 of this series.

1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 2009, "Obituary - Professor Harry Gove," BSTS Newsletter No. 69, June. [return]
3. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," The Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.95; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.192; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.164. [return]
4. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.84. [return]
5. Gove, 1996, p.193. [return]
6. Bonnici, E., 2007, "Cardinal Agostino Casaroli (1914-1998)," Find A Grave, August 13. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, pp.193-194. [return]
8. Gove, 1996, p.193. [return]
9. Ibid. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.193. [return]
11. Gove, 1996, pp.193-194. [return]
12. Gove, 1996, p.194. [return]
13. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.29. [return]
14. Gove did not give the date, but he had phoned Canuto on 29 June (p.193) and then after the conference call, on 30 June, Gove phoned Willy Wolfli of Zurich Laboratory (p.198). [return]
15. Gove, 1996, p.196. [return]
16. Gove, 1996, p.194. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, p.195. [return]
18. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.37. [return]
19. Gove, 1996, p.194. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.195. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.197. [return]
22. Gove, 1996, p.197. [return]
23. See also Antonacci, 2000, p.195. [return]
24. Feynman, R.P., 1985, "Cargo Cult Science," in "`Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!': Adventures of a Curious Character," Unwin Paperbacks: London, Reprinted, 1990, pp.341-343. [return]

Posted: 13 September 2017. Updated: 26 October 2017.