Sunday, July 15, 2018

Media release: Were the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?

This is the my promised [see 25Mar18 and 02Apr18] media release outlining my Shroud radiocarbon dating hacking theory. When this is completed and ready for publication (which will be indicated below) I will leave it here for news outlets to find and publish. Then if it has not been published by any news outlets, as the 30th anniversary of the announcement on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!" (see below) draws near, I will email a word-processed version of it (started 31 July 2018) to news outlets with a link back to this page. I will progressively update this page as I complete the word-processed version, and notify at the top of a current post and my Shroud of Turin News, when it is ready for publication. Even if no news outlets publish this media release, it will serve as a one-page summary of my hacking theory!


MEDIA RELEASE
(Not yet ready for publication)

Were the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?

© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

"Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories, which in 1988 dated the Turin Shroud '1260-1390'[2], duped by a computer hacker?" asks Australian pro-Shroud blogger Stephen Jones[3].

This 13th October will be the 30th anniversary of the announcement

[Right (enlarge): From left to right, Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), Dr M. Tite (British Museum) and Dr R. Hedges (Oxford) announcing on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud of Turin had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[4].]

that radiocarbon dating laboratories at Arizona, Zurich and Oxford had dated the Turin Shroud to "1260-1390"[5].

Yet the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud existed long before 1260 and indeed all the way back to the 1st century[6].

Even the Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, Prof. Christopher Ramsey, who was a member of that laboratory's team which dated the Shroud in 1988[7] and was a signatory (as "C.R. Bronk"[7a]) to the 1989 Nature paper which reported that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... 1260-1390"[8], has admitted: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow ..."[9] (Jones' emphasis)!

"To give one example among many, the Hungarian Pray codex is dated 1192-95[10], yet it

[Left (enlarge)[11]: A page in the Pray Codex depicting the entomb-ment of Jesus (upper) and His resurrection (lower)[12]. Agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow points out that this page contains "eight telling correspondences" with the Shroud[13]!]

contains ink drawings of Jesus which contain at least eight unusual features found only on the Shroud," Jones points out. Yet at no later than 1195, they must be at least 65 years before the earliest 1260 carbon date of the Shroud[14]!

The midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325[15], which was only 30 years before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history in c. 1355 at Lirey, France[16].

It was this 'bull's eye' date[17] which convinced the radiocarbon scientists that their dating must be correct[18]. They pointed out that the improbability that the Shroud was 1st century, yet had a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date, was "astronomical"[19], "one in a thousand trillion"[20] and "totally impossible"[21].

But as Jones points out, "the flip side of this is that since the Shroud is 1st-century (according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence)[22], it must be the 1260-1390 date which is `totally impossible'"!

"And since the odds are so `astronomical' that by chance the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date, let alone the 'bull's eye' date 1325, it can only be the result of some kind of fraud," claims Jones. "As the agnostic de Wesselow pointed out, `1325 ... is precisely the sort of date' a fraudster would aim for"[23].

However, allegations by a minority of Shroudies that the laboratory leaders, or the British Museum's Dr Michael Tite who coordinated the dating, committed fraud by switching a 14th century control with the Shroud sample[24] are highly implausible. Not only were Tite and the laboratory leaders honest[25], the Shroud's weave is so distinctive that a sample switch would be readily detected[26].

Also highly implausible are theories that just the right amount of neutron flow[27], or carbon contamination[28], or a "bioplastic coating"[29] or medieval repairs[30], 'just happened' to shift the radiocarbon date of the 1st century Shroud 13-14 centuries into the future to the 'bull's eye' date 1325.

So the question is, according to Jones, "what kind of fraud was it?"

In the early 1990s Jones was the System Administrator of a wide area network of Western Australian hospital UNIX computers.

"I read in 2007 that the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating technique which dated the Shroud at all three laboratories was fully computerised"[31]. "It then occurred to me that a hacker could have installed a program on those AMS computers, which substituted the Shroud's 1st century date with computer-generated 13th -14th century dates," said Jones. The laboratory scientists reading those dates on their AMS computer screens[32]. would not realise they had been duped.

"I had read Clifford Stoll's 1989 book, `The Cuckoo's Egg' in which he described how university computer networks were poorly secured and vulnerable to hacking in the 1980s"[33]. "How Stoll even helped catch a member of a German hacking ring, Markus Hess, who had hacked into hundreds of university computers by dialing in from Germany"[34], Jones said. "And the three laboratories which dated the Shroud in the 1980s were, and are, at universities"!

On 6 May 1988 the AMS computer at Arizona laboratory displayed on

[Right (enlarge): Photo-graph of those present at Arizona laboratory's first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud on 6 May 1988[35], when the AMS computer terminal on the left displayed a date of the Shroud, which when calibrated, was "1350 AD". The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is the one in a black shirt standing prominently in the foreground[36]. The 1989 Nature paper in footnote 9 cited Linick as the lead author of a 1986 paper which described in technical detail the AMS radiocarbon system at Arizona[37]. Jones claims that, "it is significant that Linick is standing in front of his Arizona laboratory leaders and colleagues in this historic group photograph of the very first dating of the Shroud, because it is evidence that Linick was in charge of the AMS dating process at Arizona laboratory and those present were acknowledging that!"]

its screen to eagerly waiting scientists, the very first carbon-14 date of the Shroud, which after calibration for past variations of atmospheric carbon dioxide[38], was calculated to be "1350 AD"[39]!

That date was accepted uncritically by all those present, as the date of the Shroud[40], despite it being Arizona laboratory's first of four datings[41], and the other two laboratories had yet to commence their datings[42], because they knew 1350 was close to the time the Shroud's historic record began in c. 1355 at Lirey, France[43].

"Being nuclear physicists[44] they evidently were unaware that in the 1350s the Shroud was owned by Geoffroy I de Charny[45], who was known as the `Perfect Knight'[46] and wrote books on knightly ethics[47]," said Jones. In 1350 Geoffroy was a prisoner of war in England[48] and in 1356, at the Battle of Poitiers, he chose death by interposing his body between an English lance aimed for his King[49], rather than break his vow to never abandon France's battle standard, the Oriflamme[50]. Even Geoffroy's English enemies honoured him as, "The bravest and most worthy of them all"[51]. So Geoffroy I de Charny was the last person who would have been a party to a forgery of Jesus' burial shroud"[52].

While the dating was still ongoing, in July a leak appeared the London Sunday Telegraph by its columnist Kenneth Rose, that the Shroud's date was "mediaeval"[53]. Then in August a Cambridge University librarian, Dr. Richard Luckett, wrote in the London Evening Standard that a date of the Shroud of "about 1350 looks likely"[54]. Rochester laboratory's Prof. Harry Gove, the co-inventor of AMS radiocarbon dating[55], and the unofficial leader of the project[56], realised that the primary source of that leak had to have been someone who was present at that first dating of the Shroud at Arizona laboratory[57], as Linick was[58]!

The source of those leaks to the English media was discovered to be the Rev. David Sox, an American Episcopalian priest teaching in London's American School[59]. Sox had not been present at Arizona's first "1350" dating[60], so he was the secondary, not the primary, source of those leaks.

Sox completed a book, "The Shroud Unmasked," about the carbon dating of the Shroud in August 1988[61], two months before the official announcement on 13 October that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was between 1260 and 1390[62]! In the book Sox described the Shroud's first radiocarbon dating at Arizona as being fully computerised[63], and while Sox did not cite the "1350" date, he later admitted that he

[Left (enlarge): Page 147 of Sox's 1988 book in which he described the AMS dating of the Shroud as being fully computerised (lower). And also where Sox quoted "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona ... scientist" (upper).]

knew it[64]. "It was from reading that part of Sox's book in 2007 that it occurred to me that a hacker could have installed a program which substituted the Shroud's 1st century date with bogus computer-generated 13th-14th century dates," recalled Jones.

On that same page (147) of Sox's book he quoted "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist" on the Shroud's current carbon dating (see above). From 1982 to 2002 Linick's older half-brother Anthony Linick[65] had worked as a teacher at that same American School in London[66]. Sox was a teacher at that school from 1974[67] to at least 1996[68]. So Sox and Anthony Linick had worked as teachers at that same school for 14 years, from 1982 to 1996, which included 1988[69]! "Timothy Linick likely made the initial contact with Sox through his half-brother Anthony," presumed Jones.

Linick, along with all others at Arizona's dating had signed an agreement "not to communicate the results to anyone"[70]. While Linick could (and presumably did) argue when Arizona's laboratory leaders found him quoted in Sox's August 1988 book, that the agreement he signed was only "not to communicate the results to anyone" and in Sox's quote Linick did not tell Sox any results. But that: a) Sox was the secondary source of the "1350" leak; b) the primary source of that leak was someone present at Arizona's first dating when the "1350" date was announced, as Linick had been; c) Linick had been communicating with Sox up to August 1988 about the dating of the Shroud; and d) Sox had worked with Linick's half-brother Anthony at the same American School in London for 14 years, including 1988; by Occam's Razor Linick was the primary leaker of Arizona's "1350" first date of the Shroud to Sox!

Linick was described by one of his professors as "extremely mathematically gifted"[71], and as previously mentioned, he was the lead author of the 1986 scientific journal paper which described Arizona's AMS system. "And from his prominent place in the group photograph of those present at Arizona's first dating (see above) Linick was in charge of Arizona's AMS dating process," Jones presumed.

"So there is no problem explaining how Linick could have written and installed a program on Arizona's AMS computer which substituted the Shroud 1st century date with computer-generated 13th-14th century dates. The problem is, how did Linick install his program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers?" asked Jones. "Because according to Arizona's Prof. Jull and Oxford's Prof. Ramsey, now Directors of their respective laboratories, who participated in the 1988 dating of the Shroud, and were signatories to the 1989 Nature paper, their AMS computers were never online"[72]. "Therefore, if my theory is true, someone would have had to physically install Linick's program by tape or disc on those other two laboratories' AMS computers in Zurich and Oxford," Jones concluded.

In 2014 Jones first began posting on his blog what would become his

[Right (enlarge): 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 (sic) [1989][73]. But see my timeline][74] that Koch was killed between 23 and 30 May inclusive, his burnt body was discovered by police on 1 June, and 3 June was presumably the date the police publicly identified the body as Koch's.]

hacker theory[75]. He Googled "hacker" and "1988" and "1989" to see if there was any evidence of hacking in those years which might bear on hacking of the Shroud's dating. Jones discovered that the burnt body of a German hacker, Karl Koch, who had confessed to hacking for the KGB, had been found by West German police at the edge of a forest near Celle in late May/Early June, in what appeared to be an execution designed to look like suicide[76]. Koch (aka Hagbard) was in the same German hacking ring as Markus Hess (aka Urmel)[77], whom Stoll had helped catch (see above), and along with Hess and another member of the ring, Hans Hübner (aka Pengo)[78], had confessed to paid hacking of university, government, military and business computers in the USA and Europe for the KGB[79] to take advantage of an amnesty provision for espionage in West German law[80].

Koch's body had been burned by a gasoline fire and there was a melted

[Left (enlarge): Partly burnt tree branches from the gasoline fire that killed Karl Koch[81]. But dry branches would burn right through in a gasoline fire unless it was put out by a fire extinguisher but none was found at the scene. This alone is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Koch did not commit suicide but was murdered!]

empty gasoline can near it[82]. Koch's work car was nearby[83]. covered in thick dust, looking like it had been there for years[84]. A small circle of 3-4 metres of vegetation around Koch's body had been burned[85]. The police assumed Koch had committed suicide[86 by pouring gasoline over himself and the surrounding earth and lighting a match[87]. But it hadn't rained for 5 weeks and the vegetation was very dry[88]. Yet the burned area around the body had been contained[89] meaning the fire that killed Koch had been carefully controlled[90]. But Koch could not have controlled and extinguished, with his bare hands, the fire that killed him[91]!

Moreover, suicide made no sense[92]. Koch had confessed his hacking to the authorities and had co-operated fully[93], so he was in no danger of being prosecuted[94]. The authorities were satisfied with the information Koch had provided and had found him accommodation and a job with the Christian Democratic Party[95]. He was receiving help with his drug dependency and was his way to rehabilitation[96]. So the murder of Koch was much more likely than his suicide[97]. There was a rumour that the Stasi, the East German secret service, had killed Koch on behalf of the KGB, because "they were protecting a KGB source [Koch] who was proving too talkative"[98].

Jones then Googled the names of the signatories to the 1989 Nature paper. When he got to "T. W. Linick" Jones discovered that Timothy W. Linick had been found dead in Tucson Arizona of "suicide in mysterious circumstances"[99] on 4 June 1989[100]. Jones later

[Right (enlarge): Photo-graph of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances ..."[101] (Jones' emphasis).]

learned from Linick's half-brother Anthony (see above) that Timothy Linick had indeed died of presumed suicide[102], by gunshot[103], leaving no suicide note[104]. Jones later realised that Linick's suicide on 4 June 1989 was only one day after Koch's burnt body was identified by West German police on 3 June 1989 (see above). It was also after this that Jones discovered Linick quoted in Sox's 1988 book (above).

So in 2014 Jones proposed a theory that Linick had hacked Arizona's AMS computer directly by installing a program that when a Shroud sample date was detected, it was substituted by a computer-generated 13th-14th century date[105]. And that Koch was used by the KGB to install Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers[106]. There was then a major security flaw in the VMS operating system on DEC minicomputers[107], which the AMS computers were[108]. And Koch had exploited that flaw to hack into other similar DEC computers[109].

In March 2014 Jones first raised the possibility that the KGB had killed both Koch and Linick to prevent them from talking about their hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating for the KGB[110]. Then in May 2014 Jones proposed it as part of his theory that:

"The hacker was allegedly Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89), who with self-confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–89), were both allegedly working for the KGB to hack the laboratories' AMS control console computers, and the KGB allegedly executed them both to prevent them talking, within days of each other, if not on the same day" (emphasis original)[111].
Jones theorised that when the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero, on On 10 October 1987 advised that only three AMS laboratories, Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, would date the Shroud, not the seven laboratories using two different methods, as had been originally agreed[112], that Linick realised he could write and install a program on Arizona's AMS computer that would automatically substitute any Shroud sample date with a computer-generated 13th-14th century date[113]. And that if his program was installed on Zurich and Oxford's identical AMS computers[114] it would do the same to their dates of the Shroud.

A few months before, in July 1987, hackers had exploited the security flaw on DEC computers running the VMS operating (see above) to hack into NASA's computer network, which received wide publicity as "the NASA hack"[115]. According to Jones, "Linick realised that the NASA hack was committed by hackers working for the KGB, so he approached the the Soviet consulate in San Francisco, which according to the FBI, one of its `primary missions ... was to funnel U.S. technology into the Soviet Union'[116], to offer them a guaranteed radiocarbon date of the Shroud only a few decades before it first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in the 1350s"[117], if they could arrange a hacker to install his program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers."

The KGB's motive to accept Linick's alleged offer to guarantee the Shroud had a radiocarbon date plausibly before the 1350s was, according to Jones, because by 1988 the former Soviet Union (USSR) was on the verge of collapse[118] and indeed it did collapse in late 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall[119].

[Left (enlarge): Germans celebrating the Berlin Wall's collapse at the Brandenburg Gate on 10 November 1989[120].]

"A first (or early because of irremovable carbon contamination[121]) century radiocarbon date of the Shroud would have been a huge threat to the tottering atheist state that the Soviet Union was[122]," Jones pointed out. "That is because there were then about 50 million adherents of the Russian Orthodox Church and about 35 million Roman Catholics, both of whose traditions held that the Shroud was authentic. A first (or early) century radiocarbon date of the Shroud would likely have been feared by the Soviet leadership as `the straw that broke the camel's back' of the already crumbling, officially atheist, Soviet Union in the 1980s[123]!" "So if Linick had approached the Soviet Union, through for example the Soviet consulate in San Francisco which the FBI claimed one of its primary missions was to funnel U.S. technology into the Soviet Union[124], with an offer to guarantee an early 14th century radiocarbon date of Shroud for money, the Soviets would surely have accepted that offer[125]," Jones maintains.

According to Jones' theory, the KGB's motive to kill Koch and Linick was to prevent its own secret of the hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating being revealed[126]. "Koch had become a Christian[127] and after the publication of the 1989 Nature paper in February 1989, which claimed that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... 1260-1390"[128], he would have realised what his running a program on Zurich and Oxford universities' computers had done," Jones presumed. Koch's fellow hacker, Hübner, recalled that Koch had started talking about "conspiracies" and was having, what seemed to Hübner, "religious hallucinations"[129]. In April 1989 a well-known American Shroud author (who wishes to remain anonymous) received a late night phone call from a distraught German-sounding male who begged forgiveness for "falsifying the results of the 1988 dating" through "espionage"[130]. "This can only have been Koch," Jones points out, "because, as we saw above, `espionage' was what Koch and his fellow German hackers uniquely had confessed to, under the amnesty provisions of West German law!"

"My hacking theory was dismissed on a (now closed) anti-Shroud blog as a 'conspiracy theory'[131] with all its present-day pejorative connotations"[132], Jones recalled. "I countered with a Wikipedia quote (which is no longer online) that `the skepticism of ... conspiracy theories ... is akin to a modern day superstition"[133]. Jones agrees that his hacking theory is a theory that Linick and the KGB conspired to make it appear that the first-century Shroud originated just before its first undisputed historical appearance in 1355[135]. But Jones also says that to dismiss his hacking theory as merely a "conspiracy theory" is incorrect[136]. "That is because Koch and the KGB are not essential to my theory, as Linick could have acted alone," says Jones[137]. "For example, Linick could have flown over to Zurich and Oxford and installed his program on their computers himself"[138]. "Stoll, who did his PhD at Arizona University, recalled from personal experience that security at laboratories in the 1980s was poor," said Jones. "Laboratory doors were seldom locked[139] and passwords were easily guessable"[140]. "I included Karl Koch and the KGB in my theory because of the striking coincidence of Koch's and Linick's apparent suicides within days of each other"[141], Jones said.

Jones maintains that his hacking theory is the only viable explanation how the first-century Shroud had a radiocarbon date of 1325[142]:

"... when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth ..."[143]!
Jones concedes that the evidence for his theory is only circumstantial[144] and that absent an unlikely confession by someone in a position to know, such as one of the laboratory scientists, or an officer in the KGB[145], his theory may never be proved true.

However, if his theory is true, Jones points out that there must be many out there who know it, so he is hopeful that at least one of them will come forward with information that proves it to be true. And, if it Jones' hacking theory is proven to be true, it may well be the greatest scientific fraud of all time, when considering the many millions of people deceived and the length of time (nearly 30 years and counting) of the deception. Not to mention the great many Christians whose faith was damaged and even lost, and non-Christians who would have become Christians if not for the deception. Then those who later realised that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking by Linick will be immortalised (for the wrong reason) in Sociology of Science textbooks. Not for perpetrating the hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating: my theory is that those other laboratory staff involved in the dating of the Shroud were Linick's unwitting victims. But for later realising, or at least suspecting, that it was a hacking, and covering it up!

Notes
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. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. https://goo.gl/IlnBir [return]
3. Stephen E. Jones, "The Shroud of Turin" blog. https://goo.gl/SRVZ8Q [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, plate 3b. [return]
5. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7. [return]
6. Jones, S.E., 2015d, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," 8 July. http://goo.gl/SpJeoU. [return]
7. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.188. [return]
7a. Bronk, C.R., 1987, "Accelerator Mass Spectrometry for Radiocarbon Dating: Advances in Theory and Practice," PhD Dissertation University of Oxford. http://goo.gl/1m7sxr. [return]
8. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
9. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "The Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, March. https://goo.gl/aJShW1 [return]
10. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. https://goo.gl/5Zwnx3. [return]
11. "File:Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 22 February 2015. https://goo.gl/HzGQmR. [return]
12. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., translated, West, A., revised., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, pl. III. [return]
13. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.180. [return]
14. Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]
15. Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
17. Meacham, W., 1986, "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties," Proceedings of the Symposium "Turin Shroud - Image of Christ?," Hong Kong, March. https://goo.gl/o7otJp. [return]
18. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
19. Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.303. [return]
21. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.115. [return]
22. Jones, 2015d, 8 July. [return]
23. de Wesselow, 2012, p.170. [return]
24. Wilson, 1998, pp.8-9, 186. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, p.11. [return]
26. Gove, 1996, p.260. [return]
27. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.159-160. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, pp.191-192. [return]
29. Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.1-3. [return]
30. Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2008, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud," Chemistry Today, Vol 26, N0. 4, July-August, pp.4-12. https://goo.gl/S8N5zv. [return]
31. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147. [return]
32. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
33. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991, pp.12-13. [return]
34. Stoll, 1989, pp.354-355, 363. [return]
35. Gove, 1996, p.176H. [return]
36. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. https://goo.gl/ZDcXAW. [return]
37. 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. https://goo.gl/yor1Sx. [return]
38. Sox, 1988, p.146. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.264; Wilson, 1998, p.310. [return]
40. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
41. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
42. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.10. [return]
43. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
44. Wilson, I., 1988, "Editorial and The Carbon Dating Results: Is This Now the End?," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.2-10, 4. https://goo.gl/vzpywe. [return]
45. Wilson, 2010, pp.220-223. [return]
46. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.16. [return]
47. "Geoffroi de Charny: Literary works," Wikipedia, 17 April 2018. https://goo.gl/N1215y. [return]
48. Guerrera, 2001, p.10. [return]
49. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.90-91. [return]
50. Wilson, 1998, p.276. [return]
51. Wilson, 2010, p.225. [return]
52. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.24; Wilson, 1998, pp.130-131. [return]
53. Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks' ...," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September; Gove, 1996, pp.273, 276. https://goo.gl/1YANvM. [return]
54. Wilson, 1988; Gove, 1996, pp.276-277. [return]
55. Gove, 1996, p.314. [return]
56. Sox, 1988, p.95. [return]
57. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
58. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
59. Wilson, 1988. [return]
60. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
61. Sox, 1988, p.6. [return]
62. Wilson. I., 1988, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter," No. 20, October, pp.18-19. https://goo.gl/639zdb; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.81. [return]
63. Gove, 1996, pp.281, 283; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
64. Sox, 1988, pp.146-147. [return]
65. Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse: Bloomington IN, pp.226, 619. [return]
66. "Anthony Linick: Academic life," Wikipedia, 2 June 2018. https://goo.gl/5D5hTU. [return]
67. "Obituary of Harold David Sox, April 24, 1936 - August 28, 2016," Trident Society, 2016. https://goo.gl/tt59bo. [return]
68. Gove, 1996, p.8. [return]
69. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
70. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
71. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
72. Jones, S.E., 2014b, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," The Shroud of Turin blog, 13 March. http://goo.gl/sL8fGx. [return]
73. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. https://goo.gl/VhLMeX. [return]
74. Jones, S.E., 2016a, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #8," The Shroud of Turin blog, 2 June. https://goo.gl/ZmQiT9. [return]
75. Jones, S.E., 2014a, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (1)," The Shroud of Turin blog, 18 February. https://goo.gl/RVssPJ. [return]
76. Jones, S.E., 2014c, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Further to my replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey ," The Shroud of Turin blog, 31 March. https://goo.gl/2VZf8p. [return]
77. "Markus Hess," Wikipedia, 22 March 2018. https://goo.gl/M1sKmd. [return]
78. "Hans Heinrich Hübner," Wikipedia, 22 March 2018. https://goo.gl/nXg4Cj. [return]
79. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 10 October 2017. http://goo.gl/oPLPCx. [return]
80. Clough, B. & Mungo, P., 1992, "Approaching Zero: Data Crime and the Computer," Faber & Faber: London & Boston, pp.183-184; Hafner, K. & Markoff, J., 1991, "Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier," Corgi: London, reprinted, 1993, pp.273-275, 277. [return]
81. "Cliff Stoll visiting Karl Koch's death forest," YouTube, January 13, 2008. https://goo.gl/xeQvJJ. [return]
82. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303; Stoll, 1989, p.362. [return]
83. Stoll, 1989, p.362. [return]
84. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
85. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
86. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
87. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
88. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
89. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
90. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
91. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2017. [return]
92. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
93. Ibid. [return]
94. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.186. [return]
95. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
96. Ibid. [return]
97. Ibid. [return]
98. Ibid. [return]
99. 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" (no longer online). [return]
100. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
101. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus," The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century. https://goo.gl/Uk6P2D. [return]
102. Linick, 2008, p.619. [return]
103. Linick, A., 2016a, Email "Re: David Sox," 25 February, 3:58 PM. [return]
104. Linick, A., 2016b, Email "Re: David Sox," 28 February, 7:50 PM. [return]
105. Jones, S.E., 2014e, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #3," 3 June. https://goo.gl/5Nzvvn. [return]
106. Ibid. [return]
107. Clough & Mungo, 1992, pp.170-172, 228n5. [return]
108. Linick, 1986, p.524. [return]
109. Stoll, 1989, p.362. [return]
110. Jones, 2014c, 31 March. [return]
111. Jones, S.E., 2014d, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #1," 24 May. https://goo.gl/U2TWQy. [return]
112. Gove, 1996, pp.213-214. [return]
113. Jones, S.E., 2015a, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (7) ," 31 March. https://goo.gl/UcoU63. [return]
114. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178. [return]
115. Stoll, 1989, pp.342-343; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.255-257. [return]
116. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.226. [return]
117. Jones, S.E., 2014f, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #9," 3 September. https://goo.gl/wRbQTf. [return]
118. "Soviet Union: Gorbachev era," Wikipedia, 21 December 2013. https://goo.gl/eKUT2E. [return]
119. "Berlin Wall: Fall of the Berlin Wall," Wikipedia, 25 July 2018. https://goo.gl/4i1KoV. [return]
120. "File:BerlinWall-BrandenburgGate.jpg," Wikipedia, 19 March 2018. https://goo.gl/a4CsB6. [return]
121. Tyrer, J., in Wilson, I., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. https://goo.gl/MCFXba. [return]
122. "State atheism: Soviet Union," Wikipedia, 24 July 2018. https://goo.gl/BXf5xx. [return]
123. Jones, 2015a.. https://goo.gl/F5TEF8. [return]
124. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.226. [return]
125. Jones, 2015a.. https://goo.gl/F5TEF8. [return]
126. Jones, 2015a.. https://goo.gl/wMntqP. [return]
127. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.302. [return]
128. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
129. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.316. [return]
130. Jones, 2014f, 2 June. https://goo.gl/51K19c. [return]
131. E.g. Porter, D.R. 2014, "Stephen Jones Continues his Computer Hacking Conspiracy Theory," Shroud of Turin Blog, 5 July https://goo.gl/bfi1Q3. [return]
132. "Conspiracy theory," Wikipedia, 25 July 2018. https://goo.gl/Wx4nwq. [return]
133. Jones, S.E., 2015c, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (10) ," 30 June. https://goo.gl/fqnmEE. [return]
135. Jones, S.E., 2016b, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #10," The Shroud of Turin blog, 15 September. https://goo.gl/zdSgs3. [return]
136. Jones, S.E., 2014g, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (3)," 13 December. https://goo.gl/zvK23J. [return]
. [return]
137. Jones, S.E., 2014g. https://goo.gl/iRrqku. [return]
138. Jones, S.E., 2015b, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (9) ," 17 May. https://goo.gl/1pJwN1. [return]
139. Stoll, 1989, p.12. [return]
140. Stoll, 1989, p.13; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.222; Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.168. [return]
141. Jones, 2014d, 24 May. https://goo.gl/zqYT6B. [return]
142. Jones, S.E., 2015e, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1," The Shroud of Turin blog, 23 July. https://goo.gl/aAoK8q. [return]
143. Sherlock Holmes to Watson, in Doyle, A.C., 2001, "The Sign of the Four," Penguin: London, p.42. Emphasis original. [return]
144. Jones, 2016b, 15 September. https://goo.gl/zv9N1Z. [return]
145. Ibid. [return]

Posted: 15 July 2018. Updated: 4 September 2018.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Date index 2009: The Shroud of Turin blog

The Shroud of Turin blog
DATE INDEX 2009
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the date index to my 2009 posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. The posts are listed in reverse date order (more recent uppermost). For further information on this date index series see the Main Date Index.

[Main index] [Previous: 2008] [Next: 2010]


2009
17-Dec-09: Burial shroud proves Turin Shroud not from 1st century C.E. Jerusalem?
08-Dec-09: The Shroud of Turin is the Burial Sheet of Jesus

[Above (enlarge) [2]: The Hungarian Pray Codex in my post of 08-Dec-09 linked on this page. There are "eight [indeed eleven see 23Sep17] telling correspondences between the Shroud and ... the Pray Codex"[3]. Some of my other posts on the Pray codex are: 23Sep17, 21Jun17; 11Apr17; 07Aug16; 07May16; 27Dec15; 27May12; 11Jan10; 08Oct09 & 03Apr08]

08-Oct-09: Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin
21-Jul-09: Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #3
14-Jul-09: Leonardo da Vinci 'faked Turin Shroud and used his own features as the face of Jesus'
25-Apr-09: Re: The Shroud of Turin: Evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross, not a stake
14-Apr-09: Knights Templar may have secretly held shroud, Vatican expert says
12-Mar-09: I am training to be a high school biology teacher, so less blogging!


Notes
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. Porter, D., 2009, "Pray Codex," The Definitive Shroud of Turin FAQ. [return]
3. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.180. [return]

Posted: 14 July 2018. Updated: 8 August 2018.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourteenth century (3)

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
FOURTEENTH CENTURY (3)
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is part #16, "Fourteenth century (3)" of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. I had decided to again split the fourteenth century, this time into parts (2), 1351-1375 and this part (3) 1376-1400. For more information about this series see part #1, "1st century and Index." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 14th century (2) #15] [Next: 15th century #17]


14th century (3) (1376-1400).

1378 Robert of Geneva (1342-94), a nephew of Jeanne de Vergy's second husband Aymon of Geneva[2] [see "c1359"], was elected Pope by cardinals opposed to the Italian Pope Urban VI (1378-1389)[3], and took the name Clement VII (r.1378-94)[4]. The papacy was thus split between Avignon, France and Rome in the Western Schism[5].

1388 Death of Aymon of Geneva [see "c.1359"], thereby widowing Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332– 1428) for a second time[6] [see "1345a"].

1389a In April the Shroud was exhibited for the second time [see "c.1355"] at the Lirey collegiate church[7], by Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–1398) and his

[Right (enlarge): Drawn copy of the brass effigy which was over the tomb of Geoffroy II de Charny in Froidmont Abbey, Belgium[8]. The Abbey and the tombs within it were destroyed in World War I[9].

twice-widowed mother Jeanne de Vergy[10]. Lirey being a collegiate church, was not under the control of the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395), so Geoffroy II, being a relative by marriage and former neighbour of Pope Clement VII [see "c1359" and "1389e" below] had bypassed d'Arcis and sought and received permission from Clement, through his nuncio, Cardinal Pierre de Thury (-1410), to exhibit the Shroud at the Lirey church[11]. This was subsequently confirmed in a letter of 28 July 1389 from Clement to Geoffrey II, which formally ratified Cardinal de Thury's permission for Geoffrey II to re-exhibit the "image or representation of the Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ"[12]. Geoffroy II had also obtained the approval of Charles VI of France (r.1380–1420) for the exposition[13]. The exposition of the Shroud at the Lirey church attracted thousands of pilgrims[14]. The Cloth was held by "two priests vested in albs with stoles and maniples and using the greatest possible reverence, with lighted torches and upon a lofty platform constructed for this special purpose"[15]. Although it had been agreed that Geoffroy would claim that the Cloth was only a "picture" or "figure"[16] (for why see 15Aug17 and future "1389f"), by both unofficial word and actions, Geoffroy and the canons made it clear that it really was the true shroud of Christ[17]! On some days Geoffroy would hold the Cloth in his own hands before the crowds, his presence giving the impression that it was something far more precious and holy than simply a cloth bearing an 'image' or 'representation'[18].

1389b In August a letter signed in Paris by King Charles VI (presumably when he was suffering from one of his episodes of temporary insanity) ordered the bailli of Troyes to seize the Shroud at the Lirey church and bring it to the Bishop of Troyes (Pierre d'Arcis) so that he could relocate it in another church in Troyes[19]. But the Dean refused to hand over the Shroud because it was locked with different keys, one of which was held by Geoffroy II[20]. Then when later that month the bailli returned and threatened to break in and remove the Shroud, the Dean informed him that the Shroud was no longer there[21]. The Dean and canons then lodged an appeal to the King and in September the bailli of Troyes was told that the Shroud was now "verbally put into the hands of our lord the king" and that was the end of matter[22].

1389c In October Bishop d'Arcis appealed to Pope Clement VII about the current exhibition of the Shroud at Lirey, describing it as bearing the double imprint of a crucified man and that it was being claimed to be the true Shroud in which Jesus's body was wrapped, and was attracting crowds of pilgrims[27]. But according to d'Arcis' information it had been discovered to be the work of an artist[28] [see below].

1389d The d'Arcis Memorandum [Left (enlarge) [29].] One of two copies [30] found only in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (National Library of France)[31], of a draft, unsigned, undated, unaddressed docu-ment[32]. Which was in 1900 published in its original Latin by French Roman Catholic anti-authenticist historian Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923)[33], who fraudulently added a title to make it appear to have been sent by Bishop d'Arcis to Pope Clement VII at the end of 1389[34]. Chevalier's fraud was continued by Fr Herbert Thurston (1856–1939)[35], another leading Roman Catholic opponent of the Shroud, who in 1903 published his translation of Chevalier's Latin into English[36]. [see also 31Oct14]. There is no evidence in either the Troyes or Papal archives of a final version of the d'Arcis memorandum that was sent to Pope Clement[37]. However since the Pope did reply to d'Arcis' appeals[38] [see below] it presumably is a record of d'Arcis verbal complaints to Clement VII through his nuncio, Cardinal de Thury. The value of the d'Arcis memorandum is that it is the earliest undisputed historical reference to the existence of the Shroud in c.1355[39].

In the memorandum Bishop d'Arcis stated that "thirty-four years or thereabouts ... to the present year"[40] (i.e. c.1355)[41] [see "c.1355"] at the Lirey church, an exhibition was held by its Dean of:

"... a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore"[42].

D'Arcis appealed to Pope Clement VII to stop the exposition[43], claiming that one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) had discovered that the Shroud was "cunningly painted":
"... Henry of Poitiers ... then Bishop of Troyes ... after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed"[44].
But d'Arcis provided no evidence in his memorandum to substantiate his claims[45], which he would have if there had been any[46]. D'Arcis did not provide the name of the artist[47], nor a record of his confession[48], nor the source of his allegations[49]. There is also no record of Henri de Poitiers conducting any inquiry into the origin of Shroud[50] and d'Arcis did not even know its date[51]! But there is a record of a letter of 28 May 1356[see "1356a"], from Bishop Henri de Poitiers, praising Geoffroy I, ratifying the Lirey church and approving its "divine cult"[52], which presumably refers to the Shroud[53]! It is also highly unlikely that Geoffrey I de Charny, the owner of the Shroud in the 1350s [see "c.1355"], one of France's most ethical knights, and a devout author of religious poetry, was complicit in forging Jesus' burial shroud[54]. The final refutation of the d'Arcis memorandum is that the image of the man on the Shroud is not painted[55]! [see 11Jul16].

1389e Pope Clement VII allowed expositions of the Shroud to continue as a "figure" and "representation" of Jesus' burial shroud[56] and commanded Bishop d'Arcis to "perpetual silence" on this matter[57]. This unexpected siding of the Pope with the de Charnys against a senior bishop is explained by Clement, as Robert of Geneva (see above), being not only a nephew of Jeanne de Vergy's second husband Aymon of Geneva, but also having been their neighbour[58] [see above and "c1359"]. So Clement presumably had a private viewing of the Shroud[59] and was told by Jeanne that her ancestor, Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234) had looted the Shroud in the 1204 sack of Constantinople[60] [see "1204," "c1359" and 25Oct15]. The problem for the Pope was that the Byzantine Empire (c.330–1453) still existed and its Emperor John V Palaiologos (1332–1391) lived in Chambéry, France! So if the de Charny's continued to claim that the Shroud was Jesus' burial Shroud, John V would have known it was the one looted from Constantinople and demanded it be returned to him, creating a diplomatic crisis for the Pope[61]! [see 15Aug17 & 20Jun18]. It may be no coincidence that the year the Byzantine Empire ended, 1453, was the same year that Geoffroy II's daughter, Marguerite de Charny [see "c1393" below], transferred the Shroud to Duke Louis I of Savoy (1440-1465) [see future "1453"].

1389f In December Bishop d'Arcis received a reply "from an authority higher even than Pope Clement"[62] in that Troyes cathedral was struck by lightning causing its roof to catch fire[63] and the nave of the unfinished cathedral to collapse[64]. The damage was so significant that it would not be for another 60 years that repairs would be completed[65]. In fact Troyes cathedral is still unfinished as it has only one tower, St. Peter's,

[Right (enlarge): The unfinished Troyes cathedral[66]. A judgement against Bishop d'Arcis' attempt to seize the Shroud to profit from it, by Jesus, the Man on the Shroud, who is ruling over all (Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9)?]

while its planned second tower, St. Paul's, has never been built[67]. In 1389 Troyes Cathedral had already suffered a loss of revenue due to pilgrims visiting the nearby Lirey exposition and leaving their offerings there[68]. So presumably Bishop d'Arcis was envious of Lirey's relic[69] and wanted it for his cathedral[70] [see above].

1390a In January Pope Clement VII again commanded Bishop d'Arcis to "perpetual silence" on this matter, threatening him with excommunication, and sent a letter to Geoffrey II de Charny restating conditions under which expositions could be carried out[71].

1390c Upper limit of the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[72].

c. 1392 Geoffroy II de Charny married Marguerite de Poitiers (1362–1418)[73] a niece of the late Bishop Henri de Poitiers, being the daughter of Henri's brother Charles (1325-1410)[74]. This would have been highly unlikely if Bishop Poitiers had really discovered that Geoffroy II's father and mother, Geoffroy I de Charny and Jeanne de Vergy, were exhibiting in c.1355 a "cunningly painted" forgery of Jesus' burial shroud (see above)[75]. See also future "1460" where Marguerite de Charny left her Lirey lands to her godson, Antoine-Guerry des Essars (c. 1408-74), who was the son of Guillemette de Poitiers (1370–1450), who in turn was one of four illegitimate children of Bishop Henri de Poitiers and his nun concubine, Jeanne de Chenery (1340–) [see 11Jul16]!

c. 1393 Birth of Marguerite de Charny (c. 1393–1460), to Geoffroy II de Charny and Marguerite de Poitiers[76].

1398 Death of Geoffroy II de Charny on 22 May 1398 in the Abbey at Froidmont, Belgium[77] [see above] from wounds sustained in the 1396 Battle of Nicopolis, near today's Nikopol, Bulgaria, where a combined besiging Crusader force was routed by the Ottoman Turks[78]. Marguerite de Charny, the eldest of three daughters, yet still a child aged ~5, became the owner of the Shroud[79]. However the Cloth remained in the Lirey church under the control of its canons[80], who came to believe, falsely, that they owned the Shroud [see future "1418]!

To be continued in the next part #17 of this series.

Notes
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. 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.279; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.44; Wilson, 2010, p.233. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.62; Wilson, 1998, p.279. [return]
4. Wilson, 1991, p.62; Wilson, 1998, p.279; Whiting, 2006, p.44. [return]
5. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, p.54; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.206; Wilson, 1998, p.279; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.151; Whiting, 2006, p.44. [return]
6. Wilson, 1979, pp.203, 205; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.43; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.34; Wilson, 1998, p.280; Wilson, 2010, p.230. [return]
7. 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; Antonacci, 2000, p.122. [return]
8. "Geoffroi de Charny: Brass effigy of his son Geoffroi II de Charny," Wikipedia, 17 April 2018. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 2007, "The Tombstone of Geoffrey II de Charny at Froidmont," BSTS Newsletter, No. 66, December; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.235-236. [return]
10. Wilson, 1979, p.260; Antonacci, 2000, p.151; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.13; Wilson, 2010, p.230. [return]
11. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.97; Wilson, 1979, pp.206, 260; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.43; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.129; Wilson, 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.65; Guerrera, 2001, p.13; Whiting, 2006, p.44; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.83. [return]
12. Oxley, 2010, p.82; Wilson, 2010, p.230. [return]
13. Ruffin, 1999, p.64. [return]
14. Whiting, 2006, p.44. [return]
15. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the verdict of history," The Month, CI, pp.17-20, in Whiting, 2006, p.44. [return]
16. Wilson, 1979, pp.206-207; Wilson, 1991, p.16; Wilson, 1998, p.121. [return]
17. Wilson, 1979, p.206; Wilson, 1991, p.16; Wilson, 1998, p.121. [return]
18. Wilson, 1991, pp.16-17; Wilson, 1998, p.120; Whiting, 2006, pp.44,46. [return]
19. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.98; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.102; Wilson, 1998, p.280; Wilson, 2010, p.303. [return]
20. Humber, 1978, p.98; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.102; Wilson, 1998, p.280; Wilson, 2010, p.303. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.280. [return]
22. Ibid. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, p.260. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, p.281. [return]
29. "La Sindone di Torino: Il memoriale del vescovo Pierre d'Arcis del 1389," n.d. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.121; Antonacci, 2000, p.151; Oxley, 2010, p.56. [return]
31. Bonnet-Eymard, B., "Study of original documents of the archives of the Diocese of Troyes in France with particular reference to the Memorandum of Pierre d'Arcis," 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.233-260, 236; Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
32. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, pp.236-237; Wilson, 1991, p.17; Iannone, 1998, p.129; Wilson, 1998, p.121; Antonacci, 2000, pp.151-152; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Whiting, 2006, p.57; Oxley, 2010, p.56. [return]
33. McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, 1978, p.28; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.24; Wilson, 1998, p.299; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, p.7. [return]
34. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.236; Antonacci, 2000, pp.151-152; Markwardt, J., 2001, "The Conspiracy Against the Shroud," BSTS Newsletter, No. 55, June 2002; Oxley, 2010, p.58. [return]
35. Markwardt, 2001; Oxley, 2010, p.58. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.266; McNair, 1978, p.28; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Oxley, 2010, pp.57-58. [return]
37. Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Oxley, 2010, p.56. [return]
38. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.32; Wilson, 1991, p.17. [return]
39. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, pp.171-204, 174. [return]
40. Wilson, 1979, p.267; Wilson, 1998, p.111. [return]
41. Humber, 1978, p.96; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.14; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.180; Wilson, 1998, p.111; Guerrera, 2001, p.14; Oxley, 2010, p.52; de Wesselow, 2012, p.182. [return]
42. Wilson, 1979, p.267; Guerrera, 2001, p.13. [return]
43. Wilson, 1979, p.271; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.42. [return]
44. Wilson, 1979, p.267; Adams, 1982, p.32; Drews, 1984, pp.23-24; Currer-Briggs, 1988, pp.40-41; Antonacci, 2000, p.151; Guerrera, 2001, p.13; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.19. [return]
45. Antonacci, 2000, pp.152, 158; Guerrera, 2001, p.14. [return]
46. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
47. Iannone, 1998, p.129; Guerrera, 2001, p.14. [return]
48. Guerrera, 2001, p.14. [return]
49. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
50. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
51. Wilson, 2010, p.229. [return]
52. Wilson, 1979, p.90; Scavone, 1989, p.16; Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.242; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.14; Oxley, 2010, p.59; Wilson, 1998, p.278. [return]
53. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.247; Oxley, 2010, p.52. [return]
54. Drews, 1984, p.24. [return]
55. McNair, 1978, p.34; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.104-105; Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 289; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.99; Antonacci, 2000, p.153; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.204. [return]
56. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.7; Wilson, 1979, pp.210, 260; Walsh, 1963, p.54; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.43; Scavone, 1989, p.14; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.29; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.181; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.15, 182. [return]
57. Wilson, 1979, p.260. [return]
58. Wilson, 1991, p.18. [return]
59. Wilson, 1979, p.206; Wilson, 1991, p.18. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, p.206; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.43. [return]
61. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.182-183. [return]
62. Wilson, 2010, p.216. [return]
63. "Troyes Cathedral: Building history and description," Wikipedia, 2 March 2018. [return]
64. Wilson, 1991, p.17; Hoare, R., 1998, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence Updated," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.47; Wilson, 1998, p.281; Antonacci, 2000, p.150; Oxley, 2010, p.59; Wilson, 2010, p.234. [return]
65. Antonacci, 2000, p.150; Oxley, 2010, p.59. [return]
66. "File:Cathédrale de Troyes 2006.JPG," Wikimedia Commons, 18 February 2016. [return]
67. "Troyes Cathedral: Building history and description," Wikipedia, 2 March 2018. [return]
68. Antonacci, 2000, p.150; Oxley, 2010, p.59. [return]
69. Hoare, 1998, p.47. [return]
70. Oxley, 2010, pp.58-59. [return]
71. Walsh, 1963, p.57; Wilson, 1979, p.260; Wilson, 1991, pp.17-18; Iannone, 1998, p.129; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Oxley, 2010, p.58; Wilson, 2010, pp.234, 281. [return]
72. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
73. Wilson, 2010, p.230; Jones, S.E., 2015, "de Charny Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au (members only). [return]
74. Wilson, 1979, pp.88, 205; Morgan, 1980, p.42; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.22; Crispino, D.C., 1990, "Kindred Questions," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 34, March, pp.43-44, 44; Crispino, D.C., 1990, "The Charny Genealogy," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 37, December, pp.19-25, 20; Guerrera, 2001, p.12; Whiting, 2006, p.44; Wilson, 2010, p.230. [return]
75. Wilson, 1979, p.205; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.104; Crispino, D.C., in Fossati, L., 1983, "The Lirey Controversy," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 8, September, pp.24-34, 32; Whiting, 2006, p.44; Wilson, 2010, p.230. [return]
76. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.35; Jones, S.E., 2015, de Charny Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au. [return]
77. Wilson, 1979, p.260; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.44; Wilson, 1998, p.281; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Oxley, 2010, p.61; Wilson, 2010, pp.235, 303. [return]
78. Wilson, 1979, p.211; Wilson, 2010, p.235. [return]
79. Wilson, 1979, p.86; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.44; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.220; Brucker, E., 1998, "Thy Holy Face: My 39 Years of Lecturing on the Shroud of Turin," Brucker: Tucson AZ, p.16; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.46-47; Wilson, 2010, p.303. [return]
80. Morgan, 1980, pp.43-44; Whiting, 2006, p.49; Oxley, 2010, p.61; Wilson, 2010, p.235. [return]

Posted: 3 July 2018. Updated: 4 August 2018.

Monday, July 2, 2018

Date index 2008: The Shroud of Turin blog

The Shroud of Turin blog
DATE INDEX 2008
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the date index to my 2008 posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. The posts are listed in reverse date order (most recent uppermost). For further information on this date index series see the Main Date Index.

[Main index] [Previous: 2007] [Next: 2009]


2008
13-Dec-08: Shroud of Turin News - October/November 2008

[Right (enlarge): Entom-bment of Jesus, c. 1181, by Nicholas of Verdun (1130–1205), Kloster-neuburg Abbey, Vienna. A photo of this enamel panel in the altar of Klosterneuburg monast-ery is in my "13-Dec-08" post, but with no explan-ation. See my later posts of 11Jan10, 29Mar14, 21Jun17 & 23Sep17 where it is explained that this depiction of Jesus about to be entombed is clearly based on the Shroud, with Jesus' hands crossed awkwardly at the wrists, right over left, with no thumbs visible, exactly as they are on the Shroud, and He is about to be wrapped in a double body length burial sheet. Yet this panel is dated 1181, which is 79 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud!]

26-Nov-08: Did Max Frei misidentify Carduus argentatus Shroud pollen as Gundelia tournefortii?
22-Nov-08: Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #2
19-Nov-08: Re:There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #1
13-Nov-08: Index to my "Bogus: Shroud of Turin?" posts
07-Nov-08: Are the three Hebrew letters on the Shroud tsade-'aleph-waw: `you will come out'?
01-Nov-08: Shroud of Turin News - September 2008
10-Oct-08: Shroud of Turin News - August 2008
02-Aug-08: Response #2 to Bill Meacham's criticism of my proposal to radiocarbon-date the Shroud's pollen
29-Jul-08: Re: Middle Eastern Features on Shroud Image
15-Jul-08: Re: Are you still trying to talk the Pope into "pollen dating"?
26-Jun-08: Re: In my humble opinion, the Shroud of Turin is a hoax #3
25-Jun-08: Re: In my humble opinion, the Shroud of Turin is a hoax #2
17-Jun-08: Re: In my humble opinion, the Shroud of Turin is a hoax #1
07-Jun-08: Shroud News - May 2008
30-Apr-08: Response #1 to Bill Meacham's criticisms of my proposal to radiocarbon-date the Shroud's pollen
12-Apr-08: Deut. 4:15: Hoax is hoax and do not bow unto them nor serve them
03-Apr-08: Shroud News - March 2008
01-Apr-08: Shroud name index `J'
24-Mar-08: Shroud News - February 2008
22-Mar-08: Shroud News - January 2008
28-Feb-08: Shroud of Turin may not be a fake after all!
24-Feb-08: Shroud name index `M'
17-Feb-08: Shroud name index `H'
15-Feb-08: Shroud name index `A'
12-Feb-08: Shroud Dating May Have Been Inaccurate - Radiocarbon Expert
11-Feb-08: Shroud name index `R'
11-Feb-08: Shroud name index `W'
11-Feb-08: Shroud name index `A-Z'
10-Jan-08: A proposal to radiocarbon-date the pollen of the Shroud of Turin #1
10-Jan-08: TSoT: Bibliography "R"
02-Jan-08: Shroud News - December 2007


Notes
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]

Posted: 2 July 2018. Updated: 4 August 2018.

Sunday, July 1, 2018

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, June 2018

Shroud of Turin News - June 2018
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: May 2018, part #1] [Next: July 2018, part #1]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1, of the June 2018 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed below linked news articles about the Shroud in June as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them.

Contents:
"What did Jesus really look like? Scientists recreate body of Christ from Turin Shroud," Daily Express, June 13, 2018, Sebastian Kettley.
"New study: Christ figure moving in Shroud of Turin," WorldNet Weekly, June 17, 2018.
"Scientists create 3D image of Jesus based on Turin Shroud," Christian Today, 21 June 2018, Jardine Malado.


Editorial
Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of the 118 issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz, for him to convert to PDFs and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in June up to issue #103, August 1997 [Right (enlarge)], i.e ~87% completed. Issues in the archive are now up to #100, February 1997.

Media release: In June I continued preparing my previously mentioned media release, outlining my hacker theory, which I will post here when it is completed. I may then email a copy of it to news outlets in anticipation of an upsurge in media interest in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating as the 30th anniversary of the announcement on 13 October 1988 [see 23Jul15] that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390" draws near.

Posts: In June I blogged 6 new posts (latest uppermost): "6 May 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud," - 23rd; "Date index 2007: The Shroud of Turin blog," - 22nd "`I would like to point out an important mistranslation of a French expression in your post'," - 20th; "Main date index: The Shroud of Turin blog," - 20th; "Obituary (4): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)," - 5th; and "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, May 2018," - 3rd.

Updates There were no significant updates in the background of past posts in June.

Comments: In June there were no comments! Lest that be thought to be a problem, I have in the past posted approvingly [05Jan16], the following 2004 quote (with its older terminology "Message Boards" (= discussion groups) and Weblogs (= blogs):

"What are the Differences Between Message Boards and Weblogs? Posted by: leelefever on August 23, 2004... Responses Weblogs and Message Boards both allow for responses from the community- new topics can be responded-to by others. Weblog topics have comments and message board topics have replies. This subtle difference in syntax reveals a difference in the roles. The word comment for weblogs implies that the author does not need further participation to reach a goal - comment if you want. Reply, on the other hand, implies that participation is explicitly requested by the poster. A discussion is not a discussion without a reply." (my emphasis)
That is, this my blog is not a discussion group and while I allow comments, I restrict them to "normally ... only one comment per individual under each one of my posts" so that replying to comments does not take up too much of my scarce time for blogging.

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, I did not blog specifically about my hacker theory in June. However, my "6 May 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" post made extensive mentions of it, too many to quote here.

My book: In June, having `gone back to the drawing board' [see last month] I am again making good progress, albeit dividing my away time between my book and my media release (above).

Pageviews: At midnight on 30 June 2018, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 913,093. This compares with 764,259 (up 148,834 or 19.5%) from the same time in June 2017. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 83; "The Letter from Alexius Comnenus": My response to Dan Porter," May 8, 2014 - 82; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.5. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crowned with thorns," Sep 8, 2013 - 74; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified," Dec 2, 2013 - 64; and "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Twelfth century," Sep 23, 2017 - 59.

The pageviews for these most viewed posts are lower than usual, which, since pageviews for the month were 12,437, presumably means that there was a lot of different past posts of mine read in June. I still cannot explain why the "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ..." is yet again among the most viewed posts. It is also pleasing to see my "... 3.5. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crowned with thorns" and "... 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified" being among the highest read, because I assume the readers would be Bible-believing Christians, who might not have been aware of how closely the Shroud matches the Gospels description of Jesus' suffering and death. The high pageviews of "The Letter from Alexius Comnenus ..." may be due to a Guardian article in May, "10 great Greek islands: readers’ travel tips," which mentions "Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I."

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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 title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Posted: 1 July 2018. Updated: 4 August 2018.