This post grew to long, so I have created a simplified version of my media release. I have re-titled this post the "fully referenced version and marked it "Not for publication."
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 [3 November 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!
(Not for publication)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 (1936-2016), 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.]
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: 13 February 2021.
