Tuesday, October 30, 2018

13 October 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #13, "13 October 1988," of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1. I have fallen behind again, but since the next significant day is 16 February 1989, I will catch up and then post each significant day in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. This series won't end with this announcement of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating, nor with the 1989 Nature article. I had always intended to cover the aftermath of the radiocarbon dating for as long as it was significant. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 03Jul88 #12] [Next: 16Feb89 #14]

13 October 1988 On Thursday 13 October 1988[2], in the British

[Above (enlarge)[3]: From left, Prof. Edward Hall (Oxford), Dr Michael Tite (British Museum) and Dr Robert Hedges (Oxford)[4], announcing on 13 October 1988 in the British Museum, London, that the Shroud of Turin had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[5]. Note the triumphant[6], jubilant[7], derisory[8], unprofessional[9] and unscientific[10] exclamation mark[11].]

Museum, London and in Turin[12], it was announced that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated to 1260-1390[13], or 1325 plus or minus 65 years[14]. The three scientists declared the odds against were "astronomical" that the Shroud could be first century, yet had a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390[15].

As the laboratories were aware[16], 1325 was only 30 years before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history in 1355 at an exposition in the village of Lirey, France[17]. Therefore some Shroud sceptics claimed that 1325 was the date of the Shroud[18].

If this date range were true, the Shroud could not be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ[19], but would have to have been the work of a 13th-14th century forger[20].

This result was not unexpected, because in the preceding months there had been leaks in the English news media[21], that the radiocarbon dating had found that the Shroud was "medieval"[22], and that it had been dated "1350"[23]. It later transpired that the secondary source of those leaks was the Rev. David Sox (1936-2016)[see 5Aug17 & 22Nov16], and their primary source was allegedly Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89) [see 30Dec15 & 22Feb16].

The Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989), had no option but to announce the results communicated to him[24]. However, he added, "the problems of the origin of the image ... still remain ... unsolved"[25].

This was followed by worldwide news media headlines that the Shroud

[Above (enlarge): Creased newspaper photograph with the headline, "Turin Shroud shown to be a fake," in The Independent, 14 October 1988[26]. The photo is of Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), Dr. M. Tite (British Museum) and Dr R. Hedges (Oxford) outside the entrance of the British Museum, after their announcement the day before that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!" [see above] But the flip side of the "fake" claim is that since the Shroud is authentic (according to the overwhelmingly weight of the evidence), then it must be the radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 which is the fake[27], e.g. the result of a computer hacking [see 23Jul15 & 28Oct18].]

had been proven to be "a fake"[28] and "a fraud"[29].

However, this one test flew in the face of decades of research across many different fields which pointed to the Shroud being authentic[30].

Moreover the laboratories were unable to explain how the Shroud's image was created in the Middle Ages[31]. The poverty of the laboratories' understanding of this problem was exemplified by Oxford's Prof. Hall's `explanation' to reporters[32]:

"There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century. Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it"[33].
Hall later showed that he was anything but the impartial, objective, scientist in respect of the Shroud, by declaring that anyone who continued to regard the Shroud as genuine, was the equivalent of a "Flat Earther" and was "onto a loser"[34].

Based on the news media's reports that the science of carbon dating had proved that the Shroud was a medieval fake, those who knew that the preponderance of the evidence supported the Shroud's authenticity[35] assumed that the carbon dating must be wrong[36]. However, the media simply ignored that body of evidence and never questioned the reliability of the carbon-14 test[37]. Turin and the Vatican lent credibility to the test by failing to question its reliability[38]. So from then most people have wrongly dismissed the Shroud as a scientifically proven medieval forgery[39].

Continued in the next part #14 of this series.

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. 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.6; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.89. [return]
3. Wilson, 1998, plate 3b. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.8-9; Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.13; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.108; Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, pp.9, 184; Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.133; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.221; Wilson, 2010, p.89. [return]
5. Wilson, 1991, pp.8-9; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.108; Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
6. Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.5. [return]
7. Guerrera, 2001, p.133. [return]
8. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.108. [return]
9. Guerrera, 2001, p.133. [return]
10. Hoare, 1995, p.13. [return]
11. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.66; Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.53. [return]
12. Garza-Valdes, 1998, pp.5, 182; Wilson, 1998, p.310; Meacham, 2005, p.53; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.167. [return]
13. Wilson, 1998, pp.7, 310; Meacham, 2005, p.97; Oxley, 2010, p.221; de Wesselow, 2012, p.167. [return]
14. Wilson, 1998, p.7; McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1, 141, 178, 246; Oxley, 2010, p.60; de Wesselow, 2012, p.170. [return]
15. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.8; Wilson, 1998, pp.7; Wilson, 2010, p.89. [return]
16. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611; Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
17. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.108; Wilson, 1998, p.7; Milne, L., 2005, "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, p.93. [return]
18. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.293; McCrone, 1999, pp.xxiii, xx. [return]
19. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 21; Gove, 1996, p.264; Meacham, 2005, p.53; Oxley, 2010, p.221. [return]
20. Oxley, 2010, p.221. [return]
21. Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September; Wilson, 1991, p.8; Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.183; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.164; Wilson, 1998, p.185. [return]
22. Gove, 1996, pp.273, 276; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.91; Garza-Valdes,1998, p.181. [return]
23. Gove, 1996, p277; Garza-Valdes,1998, p.181; Wilson, 1998, p.310; Wilson, 2010, p.88. [return]
24. Wilson, 1991, p.8; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.97; Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.183; Wilson, 1998, pp.7-8; Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.82; de Wesselow, 2012, p.167. [return]
25. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.98; Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.183; Wilson, 1998, p.8. [return]
26. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.94. [return]
27. Wilson, 1998, p.8. [return]
28. Morgan, R., 1991, "Did the Templars Take the Shroud to England?: New Evidence from Templecombe," 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.205-232, 206; Wilson, 1991, p.9; Iannone, 1998, p.164; Garza-Valdes,1998, p.5; Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
29. Iannone, 1998, p.164. [return]
30. Morgan, 1991, p.206; Borkan, 1995, p.21. [return]
31. de Wesselow, 2012, p.167. [return]
32. de Wesselow, 2012, p.167. [return]
33. Sheridan, M. & Reeves, P., 1988, "Turin Shroud shown to be a fake," The Independent, 14 October in Wilson, 1998, p.7; Oxley, 2010, p.221. [return]
34. Wilson, 1998, pp.7, 185, 310; Oxley, 2010, p.221. [return]
35. Iannone, 1998, p.165; 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.119. [return]
36. Bennett, 2001, p.186. [return]
37. Iannone, 1998, p.165. [return]
38. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.98; Iannone, 1998, p.165. [return]
39. Bennett, 2001, p.186; Meacham, 2005, p.53; Wilson, 2010, p.2. [return]

Posted: 30 October 2018. Updated: 23 February 2019.

Sunday, October 28, 2018

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

This is the the simplified version of may radiocarbon dating hacking theory media release. It has links and references only to the sources of its few quotes and photos. I have re-titled my earlier media release the "fully referenced version" and marked it "not for publication." I have completed converting this web page to a Word document, marked it "For immediate publication," dated it 30 November 2018, and began emailing it to news outlets which have in the past published favourable (or at least not unfavourable) Shroud articles. I will keep readers informed of its progress in my monthly Shroud of Turin News posts.


MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate publication

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

© Stephen E. Jones

The Shroud of Turin blog

Date 30 November 2018

"Were the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" asks Australian pro-Shroud blogger Stephen Jones.

The 13th of October this year was the 30th anniversary of the simultaneous announcement in London and Turin that three Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating laboratories at Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, had dated the Shroud of Turin to between 1260 and 1390.

[Above: 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!"[1].]

This was followed on 16 February 1989 by an article in the science journal Nature, confirming that those three laboratories had carbon dated the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[2].

The midpoint of those years is 1325, which is only 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in 1355 at Lirey, a tiny village in France. It was this midpoint's close agreement with the Shroud's historic debut that convinced the laboratories' scientists that the 1260-1390 date must be correct.

But the evidence, other than the radiocarbon dating, is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is the burial sheet of Jesus, and therefore 1st century.

Even the Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, admitted in 2008 that, "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow ..."[3] (Jones' emphasis). This is especially significant since Ramsey was a member of Oxford's team which dated the Shroud and as "C.R. Bronk" was a signatory to that 1989 Nature article.

To give one example among many, the Hungarian Pray Codex is dated

[Above (enlarge)[4]: An ink drawing in the Pray Codex depicting the entombment of Jesus (upper) and His resurrection (lower).]

1192-95[5], yet it contains ink drawings of Jesus which together have at least fourteen unusual features found only on the Shroud[6]. Yet at no later than 1195, the drawings must be at least 65 years before the earliest 1260 carbon date of the Shroud!

Previous pro-Shroud explanations how the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date (e.g. carbon contamination, neutron flux, medieval repairs, bioplastic coating and sample switching) have all failed. The fact that after 30 years there are still many different pro-Shroud explanations shows that none of them explain how the 1st century Shroud's radiocarbon date was shifted 13-14 centuries into the future to the `bull's eye' date, 1325.

The laboratories have pointed out that the probability that the Shroud, being 1st century, has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date, would be "astronomical"[7], "one in a thousand trillion"[8] and "totally impossible"[9].

But the flip side of this is that since the Shroud is 1st-century (according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence), it must be the radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 that is impossible!

Since chance is excluded as being astronomically improbable, the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the 1st century Shroud must have been the result of some kind of fraud.

However, the allegation by a minority of Shroudies that the British Museum's Dr Michael Tite switched a 13th century control sample for the Shroud sample is highly implausible. Not only did Tite think the Shroud was medieval, so he didn't need to switch its sample for a medieval one, the Shroud's distinctive weave would ensure that any substitution would be readily detected.

But there is a type of fraud which was rife in the 1980s and which the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating was vulnerable to, namely computer hacking.

In the early 1990s Jones was the System Administrator of a wide area network of hospital computers in rural Western Australia. He had read astronomer turned computer System Administrator Clifford Stoll's book, The Cuckoo's Egg, in which Stoll described how vulnerable to hacking, and had actually been hacked, university computer networks were in the 1980s. And the three carbon dating laboratories were then, and still are, at universities!

Stoll recounted how he helped catch a member of a KGB-sponsored German hacking ring, Markus Hess, who had dialed in from Germany to Stoll's insecure Berkeley laboratory network. From there Hess and others in his ring had 'leapfrogged' to hack into over 100 poorly secured USA government and military computer networks.

In 2007 Jones read in the late David Sox's 1988 anti-Shroud book, The Shroud Unmasked, that the first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud on 6 May 1988 at Arizona AMS laboratory was fully computerised.

[Above: Arizona laboratory's team which had just dated the Shroud of Turin as "1350" on 6 May 1988[10]. The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick is in the black shirt standing prominently in the foreground. This shows that Linick must have been in charge of the AMS dating process and his laboratory leaders and colleagues were acknowledging that in this historic group photograph.]

It then occurred to Jones that a hacker could have installed a program on the three laboratories' identical AMS computers, that substituted their Shroud samples' 1st century dates for computer-generated 13th-14th century dates. The laboratory scientists viewing the results on their AMS computer screens would, except for the hacker, have been duped.

However Jones had only started his The Shroud of Turin blog in 2007, and had a lot to learn about the Shroud, so he assumed that one of the conventional pro-Shroud explanations must be correct.

In 2014 Jones began thinking again about his hacker explanation. He Googled "1989" and "hacker" and discovered that the burnt body of a German hacker, Karl Koch, had been found on or about 1 June 1989, at the edge of a forest outside Hanover, Germany. Koch had been in the same hacking ring as Markus Hess, and had a year before confessed to hacking for the KGB.

The West German police assumed that Koch had committed suicide by pouring petrol over himself and lighting a match. But suicide was impossible because it was summer and the surrounding vegetation was very dry, yet the petrol fire around Koch's body had been controlled within a small circle, as with a fire extinguisher.

A burnt petrol can was found nearby but nothing that could have extinguished the fire. It is self-evidently impossible that Koch could have controlled and extinguished with his bare hands the petrol fire which killed him!

Also Koch had no reason to commit suicide. He was in no danger of prosecution, having confessed his hacking for the KGB to the West German authorities and cooperated fully, earning an amnesty for espionage under West German law. Indeed the authorities had helped Koch find a job with the Christian Democratic Party and accommodation.

Koch had left his Hanover workplace on 23 May 1989 in his employer's car. The car was nearby, covered with dust and looking like it had been there for years. Koch had left work fully clothed but his shoes were never found.

Koch had no enemies and new friends. Only the KGB, or the East German Stasi on the KGB's behalf, would have had a reason to kill Koch, especially if his body was burned to hide evidence of a beating or torture.

Yet the KGB has never harmed the other two members of the hacking ring: Markus Hess and Heinrich Hübner, even though Hübner had also confessed his hacking for the KGB, and they did more valuable hacking for the Soviets than Koch had.

It is no embarrassment to the KGB if one of its hackers gets caught, or confesses to, hacking the secrets of others. But it would be an embarrassment to the KGB if its own secrets (such as its hacking of the Shroud's carbon dating) were to be revealed by one of its hackers.

Jones then Googled the names of signatories to the Nature article. He found that Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy Linick had been found dead in Tucson, Arizona, of presumed suicide on 4 June 1989. That was less than 2 weeks after Koch's murder disguised as suicide.

[Right: Photograph of Linick in a 2000 article with the caption that, "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances ..." (Jones' emphasis)[11].]

Jones later learned that the West German police had publicly announced that the charred body was Koch's on 3 June 1989, only one day before Linick's dead body was found!

Jones also later learned from Linick's older half-brother Anthony that Linick had died of gunshot and there was no suicide note.

The Arizona police assumed that Linick's death was suicide. But as with Koch, there seemed to be no reason for Linick to kill himself. Less than four months after the Nature article he would still be basking in the glow of his laboratory's success.

It is Jones' theory that Timothy Linick wrote a program which, when installed on the three laboratories' AMS computers, automatically substituted their Shroud sample dates for computer-generated dates, which when combined and averaged across the three laboratories, returned a date plausibly before 1355.

And that since the AMS computers were never online, according to Arizona's Dr. Jull and Oxford's Prof. Ramsey, Linick had offered his program for money to the KGB to be installed by one of their hackers on Zurich and Oxford's identical AMS computers.

And that the KGB had accepted Linick's offer and used their hacker Karl Koch, who was an expert in hacking the same DEC computers that the three laboratories' AMS computers were.

The Soviet's motive to discredit the Shroud was, according to Jones, that despite over 70 years of official atheism, the Soviet Union still contained many millions of Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians whose traditions held that the Shroud was authentic.

In 1988 the Soviet Union was on brink of collapse, and it did collapse in November 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. A 1st century radiocarbon date of the Shroud would have been seen by the Soviets as a major threat to its crumbling empire. So the KGB would have eagerly accepted Linick's offer of a guaranteed early 14th century radiocarbon date of the Shroud.

Linick was quoted being against the Shroud in Sox's previously mentioned August 1988 book, which was ready for publication while Oxford's dating was still ongoing. While Sox did not reveal in the book that Arizona's first date was "1350," he later admitted that he knew the date and that he was the leaker of it to the English news media.

The late Professor Harry Gove, a co-inventor of AMS radiocarbon dating and the unofficial leader of the laboratories, concluded that the leaked "1350" date had to have come from someone who was present at Arizona's first dating, as Linick was. But Sox, who lived in London, was not.

Therefore, by Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation which accounts for the evidence, is to be preferred), Linick had breached the agreement that he, along with all others present at Arizona's first dating had signed, not to communicate the results to anyone, by revealing it to Sox.

Linick's half-brother Anthony had worked with Sox at the American School in London for about 13 years from 1982-1995, which included 1988, so presumably he put Linick in touch with Sox, or vice-versa.

Even if Linick had been asked by his laboratory leaders to explain his communication with Sox, that was ten months earlier, so it cannot explain Linick's presumed suicide.

Linick could have explained that Sox had contacted him through his half-brother Anthony, who worked with Sox, and that he did not tell Sox the result of Arizona's first dating. Linick could have claimed that the "1350" date must have been a lucky guess by Sox, which is was what Sox had originally claimed. Linick had kept his job at Arizona laboratory, so his explanation was evidently accepted.

Linick's leak of Arizona's first "1350" date via Sox, while the dating was still ongoing, helped to create a climate of expectation that the Shroud's date was going to be medieval, so that Linick's `bull's eye' midpoint date of 1325 would be accepted by the laboratories without question.

Under Table 2 of the 1989 Nature article, there is an admission that, "The spread of the measurements for sample 1 is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted"[12]. That is, across the three laboratories, the control samples all closely agreed with each other, but the Shroud samples unexpectedly varied widely.

But this is impossible if the Shroud's dates were real and not computer-generated. Because at each laboratory the Shroud and control samples were reduced to carbon and then irradiated together on the one 26 mm (1 inch) diameter carousel wheel for a total of ten minutes. So if anything went wrong with the AMS process at a laboratory, its controls and Shroud sample would wrongly agree with each other, and disagree with the control and Shroud samples at the other two laboratories.

Koch, a recovering drug addict, had become a Christian and after the Nature article was published in February 1989, had evidently started talking about his hacking of the Shroud's dating.

In April 1989, a well-known American pro-Shroud author (who wishes to remain anonymous), received a late night phone call from a distraught male with a German accent who confessed to have committed "espionage" against the Shroud.

The caller would not give his name, but he must have been Koch because "espionage" was the very crime that Koch and the other members of the German hacking ring had confessed to.

Jones' Shroud radiocarbon dating hacker theory has been dismissed by some as a "conspiracy theory," with all its present-day negative connotations. And Jones admits that it is a theory that Linick conspired with the KGB to make it appear that the first-century Shroud originated just before its first undisputed historical appearance in 1355.

But the mere label "conspiracy theory" says nothing about whether that theory is true. The claim that President Nixon's White House was behind the 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington DC's Watergate building was initially dismissed as a "conspiracy theory," but it turned out to be true. If all conspiracy theories were automatically false, that would mean there was no such thing as conspiracies, even by the KGB!

Moreover as Jones points out, his theory is not necessarily a conspiracy theory, since Linick could have acted alone. For example Linick could have flown over to Zurich and Oxford and installed his program on their computers himself. Or he could have sent his program to his counterparts in the other laboratories as an "update" to be installed by them on their respective AMS computer.

Jones included Karl Koch and the KGB in his theory because of the striking coincidence of Koch's inexplicable murder made to look like suicide, and Linick's assumed suicide, within days of each other.

Jones maintains that his hacking theory is the only viable explanation of how the 1st-century Shroud had a radiocarbon date of 1325.

But Jones does concede that the evidence for his theory is only circumstantial and that absent an unlikely confession or tip-off by someone in a position to know (e.g. a laboratory scientist, a fellow hacker, or an ex-KGB officer), his theory may never be proved true.

However if his theory is true, Jones presumes that there must be some out there who know what happened, so he is hopeful that at least one of them will come forward with information that confirms his theory is true.

Inquiries from news outlets can be made in the comments section under this post. If a return email address is supplied I will reply via it.

Stephen E. Jones
The Shroud of Turin blog.

Notes
1. 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]
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. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "The Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, March. Last modified 17 July 2009. https://goo.gl/aJShW1 [return]
4. "File:Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 22 February 2015. https://goo.gl/HzGQmR. [return]
5. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 September 2018. https://goo.gl/5Zwnx3. [return]
6. Jones, S.E., 2018, "Open letter to Professor Christopher Ramsey," The Shroud of Turin blog, October 4. https://goo.gl/Rg26ww. [return]
7. Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
8. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.303. [return]
9. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.115. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.176H. [return]
11. 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]
12. Damon, et al., 1989, p.613. [return]

Posted: 28 October 2018. Updated: 16 February 2019.

Friday, October 26, 2018

Date index 2016: The Shroud of Turin blog

The Shroud of Turin blog
DATE INDEX 2016
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is my date index to my 2016 posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. For further information on this date index series see the Main Date Index.

[Main index] [Previous: 2015] [Next: 2017]


2016

[Above (enlarge): Part of a larger fresco in the catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter (both died in 304), Via Labicana, Rome, Italy, 4th century"[2]. This is, as far as I know, the oldest surviving Shroud-like image. It proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Shroud existed in at least the 4th century! This is from my post of 04-Oct-16]

22-Dec-16: Negative #19: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
07-Dec-16: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Sixth century
06-Dec-16: "Life in the post-truth age," Shroud of Turin News, November 2016
05-Dec-16: "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, November 2016
22-Nov-16: The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #11
11-Nov-16: Superficial #18: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
10-Nov-16: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fifth century
03-Nov-16: "Did you ask radiocarbon dating experts their opinion on this?"
02-Nov-16: "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, October 2016
29-Oct-16: Non-directional #17: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
24-Oct-16: My radiocarbon dating hacker theory mentioned in Joe Marino's "The Politics of Radiocarbon Dating"!
08-Oct-16: "The Shroud of Turin as the Burial Cloth of Jesus - Answers for Critics," Shroud of Turin News, September 2016
04-Oct-16: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourth century
03-Oct-16: "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, September 2016
15-Sep-16: The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #10
13-Sep-16: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Third century
05-Sep-16: No style #16: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
03-Sep-16: How my radiocarbon dating hacker theory started
01-Sep-16: "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, August 2016
30-Aug-16: Jones, Stephen E.
07-Aug-16: Medieval photography: Nicholas Allen
07-Aug-16: The Shroud of Turin blog topics "M"
05-Aug-16: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Second century
04-Aug-16: "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, July 2016
30-Jul-16: The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #9
26-Jul-16: "5 minutes with ... The earliest painted representation of the Turin Shroud," Shroud of Turin News, June 2016
24-Jul-16: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present: 1st century and index
11-Jul-16: No paint, etc. #15: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
10-Jul-16: "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, June 2016
30-Jun-16: The Shroud of Turin blog topics "L"
24-Jun-16: "New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person," Shroud of Turin News, May 2016
23-Jun-16: The Shroud of Turin blog topics "E"
22-Jun-16: The Shroud of Turin blog topics "N"
21-Jun-16: The Shroud of Turin blog topics "C"
20-Jun-16: The Shroud of Turin blog topics "J"
19-Jun-16: The Shroud of Turin blog topics Index "A-Z"
18-Jun-16: Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index S-Z
10-Jun-16: No outline #14: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
02-Jun-16: The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #8
01-Jun-16: "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, May 2016
25-May-16: "The Shroud of Oviedo: A Legendary Cloth Connected to the Death of Jesus": Shroud of Turin News - April 2016
19-May-16: "Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?" (2): Shroud of Turin News - April 2016
07-May-16: "Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?" (1): Shroud of Turin News - April 2016
06-May-16: Editorial and Contents: Shroud of Turin News - April 2016
25-Apr-16: My review of "The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God" (2016) by Philip E. Dayvault
13-Apr-16: Non-traditional #13: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic
04-Apr-16: "Modern-day 'Indiana Jones' links Shroud to 1st century": Shroud of Turin News - March 2016
03-Apr-16: "The Shroud of Turin": Shroud of Turin News - March 2016
02-Apr-16: Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index G-M
01-Apr-16: Editorial and Contents: Shroud of Turin News - March 2016
29-Mar-16: The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #7
23-Mar-16: Colour #12: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
18-Mar-16: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: 31-176
13-Mar-16: "Phil Dayvault Presents Major New Evidence from Early Christianity": Shroud of Turin News - February 2016
08-Mar-16: Faint #11: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
07-Mar-16: Editorial and Contents: Shroud of Turin News - February 2016
06-Mar-16: Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index N-R
22-Feb-16: The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #6
21-Feb-16: From Joe Marino: Some recent articles
15-Feb-16: "Is The Shroud Of Turin Genuine?": Shroud of Turin News, January 2016
14-Feb-16: "'Shroud Encounter' coming to Bradenton big screen Jan. 14": Shroud of Turin News - January 2016
12-Feb-16: Editorial and Contents: Shroud of Turin News - January 2016
21-Jan-16: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30
20-Jan-16: Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-M
19-Jan-16: Summary of evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date
13-Jan-16: Double image #10: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
05-Jan-16: Shroud of Turin News - December 2015


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. "File:ChristPeterPaul detail.jpg," Wikimedia, 16 July 2018. [return]

Posted: 26 October 2018. Updated: 8 November 2018.

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Open letter to Professor Christopher Ramsey

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is my promised open letter to Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory's Professor Christopher Bronk Ramsey, emailed to him on 6 November 2018 with a brief covering letter containing a link to it. Then also on 6 November I airmailed to him a print out this post. See Shroud of Turin News, October 2018.


Professor Christopher Ramsey
Director of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit
1 South Parks Road,
OXFORD, OX1 3TG
United Kingdom

Date: 6 November 2018

Professor Ramsey,

My name is Stephen E. Jones and I am the owner of the The Shroud of Turin blog.

As you would be aware, 13 October 2018 was the 30th anniversary of the near-simultaneous announcement in the British Museum, London and in Turin, that three radiocarbon dating laboratories at Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, had dated the Shroud of Turin to 1260-1390[2].

[Above (enlarge): From left to right, Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), Dr M. Tite (British Museum) and Dr R. Hedges (Oxford) announcing on 13 October 1988 in the British Museum, London, that the Shroud of Turin had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[3].]

Then on 16 February 1989, a report in the science journal Nature confirmed that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "mediaeval ... 1260-1390"[4].

You were a member of Oxford laboratory's team which dated the Shroud[5] and as "C.R. Bronk" were a signatory to that Nature paper[6]. You subsequently became Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory[7].

In 2008 you published an article about the Shroud on the Oxford laboratory's website in which you acknowledged:

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that ... experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information" (my emphasis)[8].
As you must know, one of those items of evidence that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow is the Pray Codex[9]. The codex was named after Gyorgy Pray (1723-1801) a Hungarian Jesuit professor of theology[10] who discovered it in 1770[11]. The codex, kept in the Budapest National Library[12], contains the oldest written work in the Hungarian language[13], and is dated 1192-95[14].

The codex also contains four large pen and ink drawings[15], which from their style, may be even earlier-the middle of the twelfth century[16]. One of those drawings, fol. 28, depicts two scenes, one above the other: the entombment of Jesus on Easter Friday (upper) and the visit to the Tomb of three of Jesus' women disciples on Easter Sunday (lower)[17] (see below).

[Above (enlarge): "The Entombment" (upper) and "Visit to the Sepulchre" (lower) in fol. 28 of the Hungarian Pray Codex (1192-95)[18].

The upper scene of fol. 28 (above) contains the following seven correspondences with the Shroud:

  1. Jesus is lying in a shroud-like pose[19], which was uncommon in the art of that period[20].
  2. He is completely naked front and back[21] (unique in the 12th century[22]).
  3. He is about to be wrapped in a double body length shroud[23].
  4. Jesus' hands are crossed, right over left, awkwardly at the wrists, covering his genitals[24].
  5. His fingers are unnaturally long[25].
  6. Jesus' hands have four fingers each but no thumbs[26].
  7. Red marks in Jesus' scalp and forehead, match the crown of thorns puncture marks and the `reversed 3' bloodstain on the Shroud[27] (see below [28 & 29]).

The lower scene of fol. 28 (above) contains the following further three correspondences with the Shroud:

  1. The sarcophagus lid (which together with the sarcophagus represents the empty tomb (Mk 16:1-6)[30]), has a representation of the Shroud's herringbone weave pattern[31].
  2. Red zig-zag lines in the sarcophagus lid represent the blood trickles down on the Shroudman's arms[32].
  3. Two patterns of four and five tiny circles in the sarcophagus lid and sarcophagus, represent the two basic patterns of four and five `poker holes' on the Shroud[33] (see below [34 & 35]).

Another of the four drawings, fol. 28v (below), has two further

[Above (enlarge): "Christ enthroned with the Angel Holding the Instruments of Torture": fol. 28v of the Pray Codex[36].]

correspondences with the Shroud:

  1. The nail wound in Jesus' right hand (left facing on the Shroud) is in his wrist, while its counterpart in the other hand (hidden on the Shroud) is in Jesus' palm (as per Christian tradition)[37].
  2. A red elliptical mark on Jesus' right chest is about the same size, shape and location (except it is on the left-facing side) as the spear in the side wound on the Shroud)[38].
  3. Jesus is clothed in a long shroud, the ends of which match those in the entombment scene above (see below insets)[39].
  4. An angel is holding a cross in which are three nails, corresponding to the three nail wounds on the Shroud[40)] (one in each wrist and one through both feet[41)].

As can be seen above, there are at least fourteen (14) correspondences between the drawings on two folios of the Pray Codex and the Shroud! Clearly this many `coincidences' cannot be the results of chance[42]. As Nobel prize-winning geneticist Jérôme Lejeune (1926-1994), who in 1993 was granted a rare private viewing of the Pray Codex in Budapest[43] concluded:

"Such precise details are not to be found on any other known [Christ] image - except the Shroud that is in Turin. One is therefore forced to conclude that the artist of the Pray Manuscript had before his eyes ... some model which possessed all the characteristics of the Shroud which is in Turin"[44] (my emphasis).
So these fourteen correspondences between the no later than 1195 Pray Codex and the Shroud alone is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud existed at least 65 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud![45]. And then at least 100 years would have to be subtracted from 1195 (i.e. 1095) to allow for the development of a tradition that the cloth portrayed by the artist was the burial shroud of Jesus[46].

Then, as agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow, pointed out, given the close links between Hungary's King Bela III (r.1172–1196) and the Byzantine Empire[47], Bela having spent six years (1163–1169) as a young man in the imperial court at Constantinople[48], "it can hardly be doubted that the artist saw the relic in Constantinople"[49].

But then the Shroud in Constantinople was the Image of Edessa[50], doubled four times (see below) and fastened to a board[51], which had arrived from Edessa in 944[52], more than three centuries (316 years) before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[53], according to the following evidence:

  • There are historical records of the Image of Edessa arriving in Constantinople from Edessa on 15 August 944, amid great celebrations[54]. But there is no record of the Shroud (sindon), which was in Constantinople (see below), arriving in Constantinople[55]. This can only be plausibly explained by the Image of Edessa and the Shroud being one and the same[56].

  • There is no record of the Image of Edessa/Mandylion leaving Constantinople or ceasing to exist-it just quietly faded away[57]. Again this can only be plausibly explained by the Image of Edessa and the Shroud being one and the same[58].

  • From soon after the Image of Edessa/Mandylion arrived in Constantinople, there began references to what can only be the full-length Shroud. On 16 August 944, the day after the Image of Edessa/Mandylion arrived in Constantinople, Gregory Referendarius, the Archdeacon of Hagia Sophia cathedral, preached a sermon in which he said that the Edessa Cloth bore not only "sweat from the face of the ruler of life, falling like drops of blood" but also "drops from his own side ... [of] blood and water" (my emphasis)[59]. In 958 Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII (r. 913-959) wrote in a letter of encouragement to his army campaigning around Tarsus, that he was sending them holy water consecrated by relics of the Passion, including, "the sindon [shroud - Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53] which God wore"[60]. In c. 960 the Image of Edessa was called a sindon in the Synaxarion by Symeon Metaphrastes (fl. c.950-c.990)[61]. In 977 a group of refugee monks from Damascus set up in Rome a cult of St Alexis of Rome (d.412), who became a beggar at Edessa after hearing of its cloth bearing, "an image of our Lord Jesus Christ made without human hand on a sindon"[62]. In c. 980 Leo the Deacon (c. 950-992), a Byzantine historian and a deacon in the imperial palace[63], wrote an eyewitness history from the reign of Byzantine Emperor Romanus II (r. 959-963) to the early part of the reign of Basil II (r. 976-1025)[64]. Leo described the Image as being a peplos, which was a full-length robe[65]!

  • In Constantinople's 945 Monthly Lection the Image of Edessa was described as tetradiplon[66]. Edessa's seventh century Acts of Thaddeus also used the same Greek word tetradiplon of the Image of Edessa[67]. Those are the only two places in all known Greek literature where the word tetradiplon occurs and in both it was used of the Image of Edessa[68]. Tetradiplon is a compound of two Greek words, tetra "four" and diplos "doubled," hence "four doubled"[69] (see below [70]). In 1966 Ian Wilson proved experimentally that the Shroud is the Image
    of Edessa, "four-doubled"[71], by taking a full-length photograph of the Shroud, and keeping the man's face uppermost, folding the Shroud photograph in half, then folding it in half again, and folding it in half again[72]. The result is that the man's face is "disembodied, on a landscape-aspect cloth, exactly as it appears on ... Edessa cloth copies"[73]. And when looked at from the side, as it evidently was possible to do with the Image of Edessa fastened to a board, it is indeed four doublings[74]. Raking light photographs of the Shroud taken by STURP in 1978 confirmed that the Shroud had indeed been folded for long periods in eight layers[75]!

  • A tenth-century manuscript, Codex Vossianus Latinus Q 69[76], preserved in the University of Leiden in the Netherlands[77], mentions an eighth-century Syrian report that Jesus had left an imprint of his whole body on a cloth which was in Edessa's Hagia Sophia cathedral[78]. Adding to Jesus' legendary reply to Edessa's King Abgar V (r. 4BC-AD7, 12-40)[79], the codex reads: "... If you really want to see what my face looks like, I am sending you this linen cloth, on which you will be able to see not only the form of my face but the divinely transformed state of my whole body"[80].

  • In c. 1070 John Skylitzes (c.1040s–c.1101)[81], depicted the transfer of the Image from Edessa to Constantinople, as the full-length Shroud behind the face-only Image[82] (see below)!
  • Nicholas Mesarites (c. 1163–aft 1216), a former keeper of the Imperial relic collection in Constantinople's Pharos Chapel[83], recounted his 1201 speech in defence of the chapel's relics against a mob intent on looting them during a palace revolution[84]: "In this chapel Christ rises again, and the sindon with the burial linens is the clear proof ... defying decay, because it wrapped the mysterious [aperilepton [85]], naked dead body after the Passion"[86]. Mesarites' descriptors of this sindon: aperilepton = "without outline"[87] and "naked dead body"[88] can only mean that this was the Shroud[89]!

  • Vatican Library codex 5696[90], dated before 1130[91], contains a Latin update of an original Greek[92] Easter Friday sermon by Pope Stephen III (r. 768-772), preached in 769[93]. The 12th century (or earlier[94]) interpolation into Stephen III's 8th century mention of the Abgar V legend[95], were the words in square brackets: "Since you wish to look upon my physical face, I am sending you a likeness [not only] of my face [but of my whole body divinely transformed] on a cloth" (my emphasis)[96]. Ordericus Vitalis (1075–c.1142)[97], an English monk living in Normandy[98], in his History of the Church, written by 1141[99], recounted an updated version of the Abgar V legend[100]: "Abgar the ruler reigned at Edessa; the Lord Jesus sent him a sacred letter and a beautiful linen cloth he had wiped the sweat from his face with. The image of the Saviour was miraculously imprinted on to it and shines out, displaying the form and size of the Lord's body to all who look on it" (my emphasis)[101]. In 1171 historian William of Tyre (c.1130–1186)[102], as Archbishop of Tyre[103], accompanied a state visit of King Amalric I of Jerusalem (r. 1163-74) to Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (r.1143-80) in Constantinople[104]. William recorded that his party was shown "the most precious evidences of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ" including "the shroud" (sindon)[105].

  • Gervase of Tilbury (c.1150 – c.1228)[106], an English born but Rome-educated[107], canon lawyer, statesman and writer[108], referring in his widely read Otia Imperialia, written between 1210 and 1214[109], to the story of the cloth upon which Jesus had impressed an image of His face and sent it to Edessa's King Abgar V[110], added that: "... it is handed down from archives of ancient authority that the Lord prostrated himself full length on most white linen, and so by divine power the most beautiful likeness not only of the face, but also of the whole body of the Lord was impressed upon the cloth" (my emphasis)[111]. This is one of a number (see above Codex Vossianus, Vatican Library codex 5696 and Ordericus Vitalis) of updated versions of the Abgar V story which substituted for Jesus pressing His face onto a cloth to explain the Image of Edessa, Christ laying his body onto a cloth to produce a likeness of His whole body[112]! It is self-evidently preposterous that Jesus would have in life, let alone publicly, laid His naked body on a cloth to imprint His image on it[113]. So these can only be 10th-13th century references to the Shroud in Constantinople, beginning three centuries before the earliest 1260 Shroud radiocarbon date, and mentioned in archives which were "ancient" even then!

  • In 1216 French Fourth Crusader knight Robert de Clari (c.1170-1216)[114] wrote a chronicle in Old French from 1205 to 1216 titled, The Conquest of Constantinople[115]. In that eye-witness account of the period from 1203 inside the walls of Constantinople[116] until its sack in 1204, de Clari wrote: "... there was another of the churches which they call My Lady St. Mary of Blachernae, where was kept the shroud [sydoines] in which Our Lord had been wrapped, which stood up straight every Friday so that the figure of Our Lord could be plainly seen there, and no one, either Greek or French, ever knew what became of this shroud when the city was taken" (my emphasis)[117]. The Old French word "sydoines" is singular and the equivalent of the Greek sindon[118], the word used in the Gospels for the linen sheet in which Jesus' body was wrapped (see above)[119]. Also, the Old French word "figure" means "bodily form"[120]. So Robert de Clari saw the Shroud bearing Jesus' bodily image, in Constantinople in 1203-4[121], more than a half-century before its earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[122]!
Moreover, as we saw above, the Image of Edessa/Shroud "four-doubled" arrived in Constantinople from Edessa in 944. And the Image/Shroud had been continuously in Edessa since 544[123]. That is more than seven centuries (716 years) before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud!

No amount of "further research"[125] or statistical manipulation[126] can reconcile a gap of 316 years (1260-944) between the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud and the Shroud's documented existence in Constantinople from 944-1204, let alone 716 years (1260-544) between the Image of Edessa/Shroud's documented existence in Edessa from at least 544[124].

It is not necessary for Shroud pro-authenticists to provide an explanation of why the 1st century Shroud returned a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date[127] (although such an explanation can be given). As you would well know, it is common for radiocarbon dating results to be rejected as "rogue" when they conflict with historical or archeological evidence[128], even when the reason for the conflict is not known[129]. While she doesn't use the term "rogue," Dr. Sheridan Bowman, one of the British Museum's signatories to the 1989 Nature paper[130], and the successor to Dr. Michael Tite as the British Museum's Keeper of the Department of Scientific Research[131], confirmed that radiocarbon dates are accepted or rejected by archaeologists depending on whether they conform to the archeological evidence (not the other way round):

"Rejecting radiocarbon results In the datelists published in the journal Radiocarbon, submitters provide a brief comment on how the radiocarbon results compare with the archaeology and therefore with expectation. Comments such as 'archaeologically acceptable', while not very informative, are less frustrating than the bald 'archaeologically unacceptable' statements. Often there is no discussion of these 'unacceptable' results; they are simply rejected by the archaeologist when evaluating the chronology of the site"[132].
In conclusion, as we have seen above, the Shroud of Turin existed not just 65 years, nor only 316 years, but at least 716 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud! Therefore, the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud of Turin must be wrong and cannot be salvaged.

I therefore respectfully request that you, Professor Ramsey, commence a process of consultation with your relevant colleagues. The result of which will be a joint communication to Nature advising that the 1260-1390 date of the Shroud in its 16 February 1989 paper, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," must be wrong, since it conflicts with the overwhelming weight of the historical and artistic evidence, and that therefore the paper be retracted.

Stephen E. Jones
The Shroud of Turin blog

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. Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, p.9; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.6-7; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.89; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.167. [return]
3. Wilson, 1998, plate 3b. [return]
4. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
5. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.188. [return]
6. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
7. "Christopher Bronk Ramsey," Wikipedia, 13 October 2017. [return]
8. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March. [return]
9. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 September 2018. [return]
10. "György Pray," Wikipedia, 16 January 2018. [return]
11. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.104; "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 September 2018. [return]
12. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.150; Wilson, 1998, pp.145-146; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; Wilson, 2010, p.183; "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 September 2018. [return]
13. Wilson, 1991, p.150; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 September 2018. [return]
14. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, p.19; Wilson, 1991, p.151; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 September 2018 [return]
15. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; Wilson, 1991, p.151; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.37. [return]
16. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; Wilson, 1991, p.151. [return]
17. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.115; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; Oxley, 2010, p.37; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
18. Berkovits, 1969, pl. III. [return]
19. Wilson, 1998, p.1466; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.116; Oxley, 2010, p.37; Wilson, 2010, pp.182-183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
20. de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
21. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.116; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Oxley, 2010, p.37; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
22. Wilson, 1991, p.151. [return]
23. Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Wilson, 2010, p.184; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
24. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.160; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
25. Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
26. Iannone, 1998, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Oxley, 2010, p.37; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
27. Wilson, 1998, p.146; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Oxley, 2010, p.38; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
28. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
29. Berkovits, 1969, pl. III (rotated right 90 degrees and enlarged). [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.146. [return]
31. Iannone, 1998, p.155; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Oxley, 2010, p.38; Wilson, 2010, p.184; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.179-180. [return]
32. Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.58-70, 64. [return]
33. Iannone, 1998, pp.154-155; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.115; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Oxley, 2010, p.38; Wilson, 2010, p.184; de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
34. Berkovits, 1969, pl. III (enlarged). [return]
35. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
36. Berkovits, 1969, pl. IV (cropped). [return]
37. Wilson, 1998, p.146; Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
38. I have been unable to find any reference to this. [return]
39. I have been unable to find any reference to this. [return]
40. Wilson, I., 1995, "News From Around The World," BSTS Newsletter, No. 39, January, pp.4-13, 5; Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
41. Barbet, P., "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950a], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, 1953, Reprinted, 1963, p.128. [return]
42. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.179-180. [return]
43. Lejeune, J., in Pacl, S.M., 1993, "All those carbon 14 errors," 30 Days, No 9, 1993, in Shroud News, No 80, December, pp.3-8, 6. [return]
44. Lejeune, J., 1994, "Unfolding the Shroud," The Catholic World Report, July, pp. 51-52, 52, in Guerrera, 2001, pp.104-105, 169 n.54; Wilson, 1998, p.147; Oxley, 2010, p.38. [return]
45. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.115. [return]
46. Maloney, P.C., 1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, Adler, & Piczek, 2002, pp.16-47, 33. [return]
47. de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
48. Ibid. [return]
49. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
50. Scavone, 1998, p.64; Scavone, D.C., "Underscoring the Highly Significant Historical Research of the Shroud," in Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.xxvii; de Wesselow, 2012, p.181. [return]
51. Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.31-49, 44; Wilson, 1979, pp.120-121; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.35; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.112; Wilson, 1998, p.152; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.131; de Wesselow, 2012, p.383 n.55. [return]
52. Guerrera, 2001, pp.4-5; Tribbe, 2006, pp.24-25. [return]
53. Wilson, 1991, p.3; Wilson, 1998, pp.125, 141; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.113; Wilson, 2010, p.108de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
54. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.92; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.84; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
55. Scavone, 1989, p.87; Wilson, 1991, pp.153, 155. [return]
56. Scavone, 1989, pp.86-87. [return]
57. Maher, 1986, p.93. [return]
58. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, 192. [return]
59. Wilson, 1991, p.143; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.176-177; Wilson, 1998, pp.154, 268; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.58; Guerrera, 2001, p.5; Oxley, 2010, p.36; de Wesselow, 2012, p.185; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.57. [return]
60. Wilson, 1991, p.153; Wilson, 1998, pp.268-269; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.257; Wilson, 2010, p.169; de Wesselow, 2012, p.177. [return]
61. Wilson, 2010, p.177; de Wesselow, 2012, p.186. [return]
62. Wilson, 1998, p.269; "Alexius of Rome: Veneration," Wikipedia, 25 July 2018. [return]
63. "Leo the Deacon," Wikipedia, 25 July 2018. [return]
64. Ibid. [return]
65. Wilson, 1998, p.152; Antonacci, 2000, p.136; Oxley, 2010, p.36; de Wesselow, 2012, p.383 n.53. [return]
66. Drews, 1984, p.40; Iannone, 1998, pp.105, 115; Antonacci, 2000, p.132. [return]
67. Drews, 1984, p.36; Antonacci, 2000, p.132; Guerrera, 2001, pp.2-3. [return]
68. Drews, 1984, p.36; Antonacci, 2000, pp.132-133. [return]
69. Drews, 1984, p.36; Antonacci, 2000, pp.132-133; Guerrera, 2001, pp.2-3. [return]
70. Jones, S.E., 2012, "Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin," The Shroud of Turin blog, 15 September. [return]
71. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.186-187. [return]
72. Jones, S.E., 2017, "The date of Ian Wilson's tetradiplon = `doubled in four' Shroud experiment," The Shroud of Turin blog, January 20. [return]
73. Wilson, 1991, p.141; Wilson, 1998, p.152. [return]
74. Drews, 1984, p.36. [return]
75. Drews, 1984, p.36; Wilson, 1998, pp.154, 156; Oxley, 2010, p.273. [return]
76. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.54; Guerrera, 2001, p.151; Wilson, 2010, p.177. [return]
77. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.54; Guerrera, 2001, p.151; Wilson, 2010, p.177. [return]
78. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.54. [return]
79. Guscin, M., 2009, "The Image of Edessa," Brill: Leiden, Netherlands & Boston MA, p.207; Wilson, 2010, p.177. [return]
80. Guscin, 2009, p.207; Wilson, 2010, p.177. [return]
81. "Chronography of John Skylitzes, cod. Vitr. 26-2, folio 131a, Madrid National Library, in "File:Surrender of the Mandylion to the Byzantines.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 20 December 2012. [return]
82. Scavone, 1991, pp.193-194; Scavone, in Tribbe, 2006, p.xxvii. [return]
83. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.27; Scavone, 1989, p.89; Scavone, 1991, p195; Wilson, 1991, p.154; Wilson, 1998, p.145; Ruffin, 1999, p.59; Antonacci, 2000, p.122; Guerrera, 2001, p.7; Tribbe, 2006, p.25; Oxley, 2010, p.40; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
84. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, pp.8,31; Adams, 1982, p.27; Scavone, 1989, p.89; Scavone, 1991, p.195; Wilson, 1991, p.154; Antonacci, 2000, p.122; Guerrera, 2001, p.7; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
85. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
86. Hynek, 1951, pp.8,31; Scavone, 1989, p.89; Scavone, 1991, p.195; Wilson, 1991, p.154; Antonacci, 2000, p.122; Guerrera, 2001, p.7; Tribbe, 2006, p.26; Oxley, 2010, p.40. [return]
87. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
88. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.53; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
89. Barnes, 1934, p.53; Hynek, 1951, pp.8,31; Scavone, 1989, p.89; Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145; Tribbe, 2006, p.26; de Wesselow, 2012, p.177. [return]
90. Wilson, 1979, pp.158, 257; Wilson, 1986, pp.114, 145-146; Iannone, 1998, p.120. [return]
91. Wilson, 1979, p.158; Adams, 1982, p.26; Wilson, 1998, p.270; Tribbe, 2006, p.190. [return]
92. Wilson, 1979, p.257. [return]
93. Wilson, 1998, p.270. [return]
94. Wilson, 1991, p.152. [return]
95. Wilson, 1979, p.158. [return]
96. Wilson, 1979, pp.158, 257; Wilson, 1986, p.114; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.78; Wilson, 1991, p.152; Iannone, 1998, p.120; Tribbe, 2006, p.190. [return]
97. "Orderic Vitalis," Wikipedia, 16 October 2018. [return]
98. Adams, 1982, p.26; Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.21; Scavone, 1989, p.88; Wilson, 1998, pp.144, 270. [return]
99. Adams, 1982, p.26; Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.21; Drews, 1984, p.47; Ruffin, 1999, p.58; Scavone, 1989, p.88; Wilson, 1991, p.152; Wilson, 1998, pp.144, 270; Guscin, 2009, p.206; de Wesselow, 2012, p.383 n.58. [return]
100. Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.21; Drews, 1984, p.47; Scavone, 1989, p.88. [return]
101. Adams, 1982, p.27; Drews, 1984, p.47; Scavone, 1989, p.88; Wilson, 1991, pp.152-153; Wilson, 1998, pp.144, 270; Ruffin, 1999, p.58; Guscin, 2009, p.206. [return]
102. Hynek, 1951, p.8; Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.8; Wilson, 1979, p.165; Iannone, 1998, p.120; Wilson, 1998, p.271; Guerrera, 2001, p.7; Tribbe, 2006, p.25; de Wesselow, 2012, p.177. [return]
103. "William of Tyre," Wikipedia, 21 September 2017; Guerrera, 2001, p.7. [return]
104. Hynek, 1951, p.8; Bulst, 1957, p.8; Wilson, 1979, p.165; Iannone, 1998, p.120; Wilson, 1998, p.271; Guerrera, 2001, p.7; Tribbe, 2006, p.25; de Wesselow, 2012, p.177. [return]
105. Hynek, 1951, p.8; Bulst, 1957, p.8; Wilson, 1979, p.165; Iannone, 1998, p.120; Wilson, 1998, p.271; Tribbe, 2006, p.25; de Wesselow, 2012, p.177. [return]
106. "Gervase of Tilbury," Wikipedia, 14 July 2017. [return]
107. Wilson, 1998, p.139. [return]
108. Wilson, 1998, pp.139, 274. [return]
109. Drews, 1984, p.48; Scavone, 1989, p.89; Wilson, 1991, p.153; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.178-179; Wilson, 1998, pp.139, 144; de Wesselow, 2012, p.383 n.58. [return]
110. Wilson, 1979, p.159; Drews, 1984, p.48; Scavone, 1991, p.195; Wilson, 1991, p.153; Guscin, 2009, pp.206-207. [return]
111. Wilson, 1979, p.159; Drews, 1984, p.48; Scavone, 1989, p.89; Wilson, 1991, p.153; Wilson, 1998, pp.139, 144; Guscin, 2009, p.207. [return]
112. Scavone, 1991, p.195; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.179. [return]
113. Wilson, 1998, pp.144-145. [return]
114. Adams, 1982, p.27; Iannone, 1998, p.126; de Wesselow, 2012, p.175. [return]
115. Dembowski, P.F., 1982, "Sindon in the Old French Chronicle of Robert de Clari," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 2, March, pp.13-18, 1; Iannone, 1998, p.126; Guerrera, 2001, p.8; Oxley, 2010, p.98. [return]
116. Antonacci, 2000, p.123; Oxley, 2010, p.34; de Wesselow, 2012, p.175. [return]
117. Adams, 1982, p.27; Antonacci, 2000, p.123; Guerrera, 2001, p.8; Oxley, 2010, p.34; de Wesselow, 2012, p.175. [return]
118. Dembowski, 1982, p.15; Scavone, 1998, p.64; Tribbe, 2006, p.30. [return]
119. Wilson, 1998, p.124; de Wesselow, 2012, p.175. [return]
120. Dembowski, 1982, pp.16-17; Iannone, 1998, p.127; Tribbe, 2006, p.30; de Wesselow, 2012, p.175. [return]
121. de Wesselow, 2012, p.181. [return]
122. de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
123. Drews, 1984, p.55; Maher, 1986, pp.82-83.; Scavone, 1991, pp.184, 192; Antonacci, 2000, pp.123, 136-137; Guerrera, 2001, pp.4-5; . [return]
124. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
125. Ramsey, 2008, "Shroud of Turin." [return]
126. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.32. [return]
127. de Wesselow, 2012, p.171. [return]
128. Meacham, W., "Thoughts on the Shroud 14C debate," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, 2000, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, pp.441-454, 443; Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.52-53. [return]
129. Bowman, S., 1990, "Radiocarbon Dating," Interpreting the Past, British Museum Publications: London, p.62; Meacham, 2005, p.54; Meacham, 2000, p.444. [return]
130. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
131. Wilson, 1991, p.174; Wilson, 1998, p.191. [return]
132. Bowman, 1990, p.62. [return]

Posted: 4 October 2018. Updated: 17 December 2018.