Shroud of Turin News, February 2021

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Previous: January 2021] [Next: March 2021]

This is the February 2021 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have now caught up my three months arears! Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. The article's words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

---

News:
"Researcher: 1988 C-14 Dating Results of Shroud of Turin Invalid," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 23 February 2021, Paula Ann Mitchell. COLUMBUS, OHIO — Longtime Shroud of Turin researcher Joseph Marino [Right (original)] has just released his latest book in which he has compiled the most comprehensive collection of data on the 1988 Carbon-14 dating test conducted on the mysterious linen, which many believe to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. Released last November, The 1988 C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé [Left (original)] includes data from many rare documents and correspond-ences. I have now realised that I won't have the time to work through Marino's 774 + xviii pages, ~4.5cm = ~1.75 in. thick, book. And also, much of it will presumably parallel my "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" series. So I will only refer to Marino's book in my comments on points about it in the article below. Much of Marino's book has been published online by him in his three-part series, "The Politics of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud." To save time I will quote from articles in that series where their words are identical to those in Marino's book.

One of the most important sources was the archive of the late Professor Luigi Gonella [1930–2007], who was the scientific adviser to the late Anastasio Ballestrero [1913-98], the Cardinal of Turin. The 800-page book reveals numerous questionable actions, errors and contradictions by both the Catholic Church ... Marino's first mentioned questionable actions by the Catholic Church was their haste to date the Shroud, and that by the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry(AMS) method, which was then relatively new and unreliable:

"Keep in mind that the accelerator (AMS) method had only been invented in 1979. Notice that Evin [Jacques Evin, Director of the Lyon, France, radiocarbon dating laboratory] considered the accelerator method only as a confirmatory test, i.e., support for objects whose date was already known. C-14 dates are never accepted in isolation but always in the context of other data. In the case of the Shroud, however, all the data collected by STURP and others was discarded and the C-14 results from a method only eleven years old were pontificated as the sole arbiter of the cloth's date ... It is frustrating for people all around the world interested in the Shroud that the Vatican apparently rushed into the C-14 dating and after numerous problems with procedures were revealed, have not moved in almost thirty years to try to rectify the situation"[2].

The most questionable action by the Catholic Church was the decision on 10 October 1987 by Ballestrero, on the advice of Gonella, to choose only three AMS laboratories to date the Shroud, instead of seven laboratories using two different methods, as originally agreed:

"1987 (October). On the 10th, Ballestrero sent the following letter to the representatives of the seven labs:

`To all participants in the Turin Workshop on the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin" Dear Sirs, At the end of May I received positive instructions from the Holy See, personally signed by the Cardinal Secretary of State [Casaroli], on how to proceed to the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. The instructions agree to the main line of the proposal put forward at the Turin Workshop of last year, but do not accept a few items. ln particular, they direct that no more than three samples be taken to be used for measurement by different laboratories. As for the measurement, the instructions agree to the suggested procedure, i.e., to use the method of blind testing with control samples, to apply to the ... the Shroud samples, and to entrust to the competence of the same British Museum ... the statistical analysis of the measurement results ... The choice of the three Laboratories among the seven which offered their services was made, after long deliberation and careful consultations, on a criterion of internationality and consideration for the specific experience in the field of archaeological radiocarbon dating; taking also into account the required sample size. On this criterion the following Laboratories are selected:

Radiocarbon Laboratory University of Arizona
Research Laboratory for Archaeology Oxford University
Radiocarbon Laboratory ETH, Zurich'"[3].

As to why Ballestrero's reduction of the laboratories from 7 to 3 and the methods from 2 to 1 was the most questionable action by the Catholic Church, apart from it would have resulted in a more reliable date to have 5 AMS and 2 non-AMS laboratories carbon-date the Shroud[4], according to my Hacker Theory, it made hacking the Shroud's radiocarbon dating possible, as I wrote in my post of 22Oct17:

"Now that the seven laboratories using two different methods had been reduced to three laboratories using the one AMS method, the alleged hacker, Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick ... would have realised that it was feasible for him to write a program to be installed on the AMS computers at the three laboratories (which were effectively clones), that would substitute the Shroud's actual carbon-14 dates with computer-generated dates, which would make the Shroud seem to date from just before it's first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c.1355." [See 22Feb16]

See below where Marino mentions my Hacker Theory in his book!

... and the C-14 labs before, during and after the taking of the sample on April 21, 1988. The contradictions included multiple versions of the sizes and weights of the chosen samples. I have read a version of what follows under, "Different weights and different measures: things do not add up," in Petrosillo & Marinelli (1996)[5], and I also found the weights and mesures of the Shroud sample "incredible and inexplicable" (see below). First, below is a composite drawing and photo by Wilson (1998) of the C-14 sample in its Shroud context.

[Above (enlarge): Drawing of the approximately 8 x 1.2 mm sample (according to Wilson), from A1 (Arizona 1), O (Oxford), Z (Zurich) to A (Arizona), with a photo of the sample on the same page superimposed by me over the drawing on the bottom right hand side[6].]

I will now quote extracts from Marino's book with minimal comments:

"The cut was made by Riggi [Giovanni Riggi (1935-2008)], assisted by the two textile experts ... The Nature report spoke of 7 x 1 centimeters cut above the point of the 1973 sampling[7]. But in reality it was not above but at the side. And the surface of fabric actually removed was 8.1 x 1.6 cm. When it was detached, the piece of Shroud fabric was immediately placed with a pair of small tweezers on a precision balance. How much did the piece weigh? Riggi provided two different weights in the same report presented at the Paris symposium: 497 and 540 milligrams. In the film, you can instead read the weight on the scale: 478.1 milligrams. Three different values of the weights do not end the inconsistencies. Testore [Franco Testore (1925-2018)] states that the piece just taken was about 8.1 x 1.6 centimeters, therefore 12.96 [square] centimeters and that the unit weight of the Shroud fabric is 23 mg/cm². Since the latter value is considered correct, with a simple multiplication, it is deduced that the Shroud fragment must have weighed 298 milligrams. The real weight, however, both considering Riggi's data and that which appeared on the scales, is in any case almost double. The accounts do not match! lt was true that Testore spoke of a great approximation, but here the gap was too large to be acceptable"[8].

"According to the description that follows, the part eliminated is noteworthy. These parts were deposited in a container, being able to serve as an extra sample. At this point, Riggi reported that the cleaned piece weighed exactly 300 milligrams and measured 7 x 1 centimeters. Obviously, considering the aforementioned unit weight of the Shroud tissue (23 mg/cm²), also in this case the real weight is almost double that expected. This inconsistency is incredible and inexplicable"[9].

"In the final report of the laboratories, which appeared in Nature, we read that three samples were obtained from the strip, each of about 50 milligrams. Riggi reported that the piece taken was cut `in parts', of which three equivalents weighing just over 50 milligrams; in another moment he specified that the parts were four, of which three were about 52 milligrams. In fact, the 7 x 1 strip was divided into two almost equal parts: one, weighing 144.8 milligrams according to Testore and 141 milligrams according to Riggi, was kept for any other tests. Seven years later, Gonella instead claimed that the preserved part was a quarter of the sample. The incredible consequence of this story is that Riggi kept the piece left over. `We later handed it over, sealed, to Cardinal Ballestrero,' added Gonella. ... it was 1990. It was then passed on to Cardinal Saldarini's control.'"[10].

"The other part of the strip taken on April 21, which weighed 154.9 milligrams, was divided for the three laboratories into three almost identical fragments: 52.0, 52.8, 53.7 milligrams. Riggi says in minute detail: `By chance, each of these three parts is identical to the others because the weight of the three fragments on an electronic scale varied by about a thousandth of a gram for each piece and was equivalent to almost 53 mg on average for each.' However, the sum of these three weights, in reality, is 158.5 milligrams; therefore, the total weight is higher than that of the piece that has been divided. How is it possible? The accounts don't match this time either. Prompted to give an answer, Testore and Riggi ... changed their version admitting that things did not happen exactly like that. For Testore, the portion chosen for the division into three parts was not the largest (154.9 milligrams), but the smallest: surprising decision, given that its weight, 144.8 milligrams; was certainly insufficient to give three parts from 50 milligrams each. The cut was markedly unbalanced: two fragments were abundant (52.0 and 52.8 milligrams), the third too thin (39.6 milligrams). They then supposedly resorted to the preserved piece, the one that was initially larger; and removed a thin strip of 14.1 milligrams which went to replenish the underweight fragment. One of the three laboratories, Tucson; therefore received two rectangles of Shroud for a total weight of 53.7 milligrams. Certainly, it would have been more logical, at this point; to take an entire piece from the reserve portion to provide the third laboratory with a single fragment as well. The piece preserved at this point was reduced from 154.9 to 140.8 milligrams, and this would explain the weight of 141 milligrams attributed to him by Riggi. The latter, however; in giving the new version, contradicted Testore's variations by stating that the piece to which the three samples were obtained was the largest (154.9 milligrams). It being understood that two of the fragments obtained weighed 52 and 52.8 milligrams respectively, a small piece of 3.6 milligrams was added to the third, taken from the reserve part; thus bringing it to 53.7 milligrams. It can be deduced that the third fragment was 50.1 milligrams, a satisfactory weight for the requests of the laboratories. The need for the addition is therefore not justified. What a great confusion! Who to listen to"[11]?

I have today (17 March) emailed Joe Marino, asking him, "Where in your book do you say the Shroud is the most important thing on Earth? Or words to that effect?" [Joe replied pointing out is is in this article-see below!] If he didn't say it, then I will say it! So it makes me angry that these church officials (I won't say Christians necessarily-see Mt 7:22-23) treated the Shroud - the very burial sheet of Jesus [08Jul15] - with such disrespect, if not contempt. In his book Marino commented:

"I have also seen a video clip and a still photo of Cardinal Ballestrero leaning on the Shroud with his elbows firmly on it. The casualness of the situation was extremely shocking"[12].

Marino, a former Benedictine monk, who has studied the Shroud for 43 years, is the author of Wrapped Up in the Shroud: Chronicle of a Passion, originally published by Cradle Press in 2011 and revised and updated in 2020. He has written and lectured extensively on the Shroud since 1980.

It is well known that the Shroud has undergone several repairs throughout history, including after a fire in 1532. The Shroud was owned in the 1500s by Margaret of Austria [1480–1530], Duchess of Savoy, As Duchess of Savoy, Margaret of Austria never "owned" the Shroud. Her husband Philibert II, Duke of Savoy (r. 1497-1504) did. That's why when Philibert died unexpectedly in 1504, at the age of 24 and childless, Margaret in 1505 [see "1505b] had to relinquish the Shroud to Claudine de Brosse, Dowager Duchess of Savoy (1450–1513), the widow of Philibert's father Philip II, Duke of Savoy (r. 1496-97).

whose weavers were experts in the technique known as "French invisible reweaving." See Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2008 "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon area of the Turin shroud." Chemistry Today, July/August (26) 4:4-12. See below and also my "1504a," "1505b," "1508a" and "1531."

In 1978, a team of elite American scientists, who worked primarily in U.S. nuclear and space programs, collaborated to form the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). For five consecutive 24-hour days, they used the latest technology to study the front and back images of a crucified man, who exhibited the same wounds as described in the New Testament Gospels. STURP concluded that the images were not the product of an artist. This alone proved the Shroud was Jesus' burial sheet (although STURP officially did not say that). That is because, as leading Shroud sceptics Steven Schafersman and Joe Nickell, admitted, if the shroud is not "a product of human artifice" then "the image is that of Jesus":

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[13] and Stevenson and Habermas[14] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[15]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic [i.e. not "a product of human artifice"], the image is that of Jesus'"[16].

Here is the official summary of STURP's conclusions which was distributed at the press conference held after their final meeting in October 1981:

"No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils [i.e. that formed the image. There are random flecks of paint on the Shroud[17].]. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it ... It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography ... For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately. Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved"[18].

However, just how the mysterious images were imprinted on the fabric remained unsolved. That might have been true in October 1981 (although even then STURP had enough evidence to claim that the Shroudman's image was of Jesus imprinted by His resurrection). But in 1991 STURP founder Prof. John P. Jackson proposed his "Cloth Collapse Theory" which "explain[ed] all known characteristics of the Shroud image"[19]. Mark Antonacci summarised Jackson's "Cloth Collapse Theory":

"Dr. John Jackson, one of the founders of STURP ... devised a simple theory that accounted for the Shroud's diverse characteristics with a method that is scientifically well posed and internally consistent ... Jackson's theory predicts that the Shroud's images would be encoded if the body became insubstantial and emitted ultraviolet light. As the cloth fell through the body region, each point on the cloth would receive a radiation dose in proportion to the time it was within the region. The parts of the cloth that were over the highest points of the supine body (for example, the tip of the nose) would receive the longest dose of radiation, while the parts of the cloth over the lowest points of the body would receive the least. Thus, the intensity of all points on the resultant body image on the two-dimensional cloth would be directly correlated to the distance that they originally were from the surface of the three-dimensional body. Furthermore, since the draped cloth fell by gravity, all points of the resultant body image would have aligned vertically with the corresponding body point below it. Even those parts of the body that were not initially touching the cloth, such as the sides of the nose, would be encoded in a three-dimensional and vertical direction onto the cloth"[20].

Then in 2011 scientists who had used an excimer (ultraviolet) laser [Right (enlarge[21]. See 22Dec11 & Di Lazzaro, P., et al., 2010, "Deep Ultraviolet Radiation Simulates the TurinShroud Image," Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 54(4), July-August.]

owned by Italy's ENEA (National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development), reported on the "shroud-like coloring of linen fabrics by far ultraviolet radiation"[22]. They found that thickness of the image was "extremely thin, around 200 nm = 200 billionths of a meter ... the thickness of the primary cell wall of [a] ... single linen fiber" (i.e flax fibril):

"Furthermore, the color of the image resides on the outer surface of the fibrils that make up the threads of the cloth, and recent measurements of fragments of the Shroud show that the thickness of staining is extremely thin, around 200 nm = 200 billionths of a meter, or one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter, which corresponds to the thickness of the primary cell wall of the so-called single linen fiber. We recall that a single linen thread is made up of about 200 fibrils"[23].

Clearly a medieval forger could not even see, let alone paint, etc, the Shroudman's image the thickness of the primary cell wall of a flax fibril ("one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter")!

The ENEA scientists finally found that, "a short and intense burst of VUV [vacuum ultraviolet] ... radiation can ... reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud":

"Instead, the results of ENEA `show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence"[24].

But "the total power of VUV radiations" required "to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height" would be "34 thousand billion watts"!:

"However, ENEA scientists warn, `it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm² 17000 cm² = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts)'"[25].

This is why anti-authentist have failed, and always will fail, to replicate the Shroudman'a double body image, because it was formed by the "power" [Greek dynamis] of Jesus' resurrection (Php 3:10)! See the latest grotesque attempt to replicate only the Shroud face by chemists Robert Morton and Rebecca J. Hoppe (his daughter) [Left (enlarge)[26]. But so great was atheist art historian Gary Vikan's need to disbelieve in the Shroud that he astonishingly declared it "shroudlike" and that he "was convinced" by it [see 21Feb21]!

In 1988, the Shroud was dated using C-14 by three well-known labs at the University of Oxford, University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. Scientists reported in the journal Nature in February 1989 that their combined results dated the cloth to AD 1260-1390 with a supposed confidence level of 95 percent. The results convinced many people around the world that the Shroud was nothing more than an elaborate medieval forgery. For starters it was a fraudulant lie, that the "confidence level" of the Shroud's "1260-1390" radiocarbon date was "95 percent" [see 17Feb19 & 29May19]. Marino quotes science and religion journalist Thomas W. Case that, "The ... 95% chance that the Shroud was made between 1260 and 1390 A.D. ... is the result of statistical sleight of hand":

"1996. "Author T.W. Case wrote, `The widely reported "95% chance that the Shroud was made between 1260 and 1390 A.D." sounds impressive, but it is the result of statistical sleight of hand ... It all amounts to internal massaging of numbers which hides certain warning signals. In fact the wide range of dates among the three labs obtained in the Shroud sample as compared to the much narrower range in the three control samples indicates that the Shroud test gave an anomalous result. The report in Nature hints at the problem when it notes (in table 2) that there is only a 5% probability of attaining by chance -- a scatter among the three dates as high as that observed, under the assumption that the quoted errors reflect all sources of random variation. In plain English this means that all the statistical manipulation in the world can't get rid of the fact that the range of dates is much too large to be accounted for by the expected errors built into radiocarbon dating ... And since the samples were taken from the same tiny area, the range of dates most probably means that all you have to do is go one or two millimeters up the sample, closer to a scorch mark, or perhaps within an area containing a restoration thread or two, to throw off your results a couple of hundred years or more -- perhaps much more"[27].

Marino commented on an example of this "statistical sleight of hand":

"The University of Arizona lab had conducted eight separate C-14 tests on the shroud samples they had been given. But there was such a wide variance in the computed dates, the team in Arizona combined the data to produce four results, thus eliminating the more outlying dates (possibly they did so at the request of the British Museum, which was overseeing the tests). As ... Van Haelst documented ... the results failed to meet the minimum statistical standards of the chi-square test"[28].

This was the "scientific fraud" of "making results appear just a little crisper or more definitive than they really are":

"The term `scientific fraud' is often assumed to mean the wholesale invention of data. But this is almost certainly the rarest kind of fabrication. Those who falsify scientific data probably start and succeed with the much lesser crime of improving upon existing results. Minor and seemingly trivial instances of data manipulation-such as making results appear just a little crisper or more definitive than they really are, or selecting just the `best' data for publication and ignoring those that don't fit the case-are probably far from unusual in science. But there is only a difference in degree between `cooking' the data and inventing a whole experiment out of thin air" (my emphasis)[29].

Marino felt pressed to further investigate. He had already studied the Shroud extensively for 11 years and was familiar with scientific and historical evidence which contradicted the C-14 result. Working alongside his late wife Sue Benford [1958-2009], he found anomalies in the weave pattern in the sample which had been dated. Further research into these anomalies led to the publication of their hypothesis that suggested the C-14 labs had mistakenly carbon-dated a repaired portion of the Shroud [see above] that mixed in newer fibers with old, therefore skewing the results of the carbon date. In his book Marino quotes STURP chemist Alan D. Adler [1931-2000] on the part of the Shroud the C-14 sample was cut, that it was, "... an area which has obviously been repaired ... It's been rewoven on the edge ... The simplest explanation why the date may be off is that it's rewoven cloth there":

"Comments: The sample was not ultimately taken from the image area and despite the presence of two textile experts, there is strong evidence that the area from which the sample was taken may, in fact, been rewoven. The late STURP scientist, Al Adler, discussing his view after the dating that a sample taken from the side of the cloth wouldn't necessarily give the same date as one taken from the middle of the cloth remarked, `So you can talk all you want about how reproducible the date is, but you can't talk about how accurate it is. You have no way of knowing if the area you took the C-14 sample from represents the whole cloth. That's an area which has obviously been repaired. There's cloth missing there. It's been rewoven on the edge. They even cut part of it off because it was obviously rewoven on the edge. The simplest explanation why the date may be off is that it's rewoven cloth there. And that's not been tested"[30].

The late STURP chemist Raymond Rogers [1927–2005], who first called Marino and Benford part of the "lunatic fringe," analyzed their hypothesis, and to his surprise, admitted they were probably right. After being given an actual leftover sample from the 1988 dating [by Luigi Gonella in 2003[31], he confirmed the hypothesis. In 2005, he authored a paper in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta. He concluded that the C-14 sample was not representative of the main cloth, thus invalidating the results. Here are the relevant quotes from Marino's book:

"2005 (January). Ray Rogers' peer-reviewed paper in the world- renowned journal Thermochimica Acta was published. Rogers wrote, `The presence of alizarin dye and red lakes in the Raes and radiocarbon samples [see above] indicates that the color has been manipulated. Specifically, the color and distribution of the coating implies that repairs were made at an unknown time with foreign linen dyed to match the older original material. Such repairs were suggested by Benford and Marino.' Rogers concluded, `Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.' Rogers also noted regarding one of his chemical analyses, `The Raes threads, the Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported'"[32].

"Regarding the findings by Sue and me, Rogers had said `I believed that it would be easy to completely refute them. It is highly embarrassing that I could not. This is the first time I have had to present information that seemed to support what I consider to be the "lunatic fringe." However. an ethical scientist absolutely must publish accurate information no matter what the emotional implications' (as cited in his article `Ghiberti's pronouncement on my analyses,' http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-5.PDF)"[33].

In his Thermochimica Acta article Rogers wrote that, "All threads from the ... radiocarbon sample show colored ... coatings ... on their surfaces":

"All threads from the Raes sample and the yarn segments from

[Right (enlarge): "Fig. 3. Warp fibers from the radiocarbon sample ... The gum is swelling, becoming more transparent, and detaching from the fibers"[34].]

the radiocarbon sample show colored encrustations (or coatings) on their surfaces (Figs. 2 and 3). The coating material is not removed by nonpolar solvents, but it swells and dissolves in water. There was absolutely no coating with these characteristics on either the Holland cloth or the main part of the shroud"[35].

The raw data from the three labs, which against all norms they refused to release immediately, were finally obtained through a Freedom of Information request in 2017. Careful analysis of that data supports the notion that the Shroud sample dated in 1988 was a combination of 1st-and 16th-century cloth. On this Marino wrote:

"2019 (March). After a Freedom of lnformation request in 2017 to get the raw data from the British museum, a paper authored by French and Italian researchers was published in a peer-reviewed journal that stated, "A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered." lt also mentioned the Oxford lab and the Arizona lab having found cotton in their samples. It was yet another indication that repairs had been made[36].

Marino has continued to study the Shroud for the 32 years since the C-14 test. Like Chris Parker writes in his novel, Monk, Marino believes that if the Shroud is genuine, it "is quite simply the most important and valuable object on the planet," since "it is as close as we could ever come to proving that the death and resurrection of Jesus are historical facts." See above that I agree with Marino on this. In a 2016 post I wrote (edited):

"... I have been blogging about the Shroud [since 2006] and my interest in it shows no sign of waning ... I cannot think of anything more significant for me to do. I hope I am still blogging about the Shroud until the day I die, or Jesus returns (Mt 16:27; 24:30; 26:64; Acts 1:11; 1Cor 11:26; 1Th 4:16; Heb 9:28; Rev 1:7), which I expect will be before 2037 (CED: 11Nov06, 12Jul08 & 30Nov08). My hope is that I will be among the `we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord' (1Th 4:15)."

Marino says his book points to irrefutable proof that politics – along with personal agendas – was the main theme of the C-14 dating of the Shroud. "We can continue to hope that the Catholic Church will in the near future allow some new testing, so that we can learn all we can about this enigmatic cloth and the person who was wrapped in it. I am opposed to the Shroud being radiocarbon dated again, for reasons I gave in a 2019 post:

"I am opposed to the Shroud being re-carbon dated because: 1) It would probably not date 1st century, but early century (e.g. 4th century), because of irremovable carbon contamination, and then sceptics would claim that the Shroud was forged in the 4th century! 2) We have more than enough evidence that the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet. 3) Radiocarbon dating of old linen is problematic. 4) We could not guarantee that the carbon dating would be conducted honestly as it would still be done by secular scientists who are mostly opposed to Christianity and there would be a powerful vested interest to save face."

However, while I agree with Marino and Benford that there was younger carbon from an invisible French reweaving in the radiocarbon sample, which itself invalidates the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud. And that it would explain the wide variance in C-14 ages between each laboratory's sub-sample, divided from the same `postage stamp' sample cut from the Shroud, as the 1989 Nature article admitted:

"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted"[37].

and showed visually in my bar chart below of the laboratories' calibrated year ranges [see 13Jun14, 11Feb15, 18Nov15, 06Aug18 &

17Feb19). And it would fit the progression of average calibrated years from left to right of: Oxford 1269.5, Zurich 1289 and Arizona 1299.5, in the graphic below (assuming that A1 is the part of Arizona's two

[Above (enlarge). The three laboratories' calibrated dates ranges superimposed over the C-14 photo and drawing in Wilson, 1998, p.189 (see above). I emailed Marino asking if above the line in the cloth running from ENE to WSW on the photo is where he claims the medieval repair was in each subsample. He replied that that was their original idea but others weighed in with complications. I emailed Marino a follow-up question, "Did you end up with a diagram of the likely repaired area which fitted all the data, including the gradient of the average calibrated C14 dates from Oxford 1269.5, Zurich 1289 and Arizona 1299.5?" He replied that after his wife Sue Benford died (coincidently exactly 12 years ago) he never did.]

samples it didn't date). It cannot in and of itself, plausibly explain why the first century Shroud had the `bull's eye' 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 radiocarbon date. That is because: 1) For a repair using 16th century cloth, combined with unremovable carbon contamination, to shift the radiocarbon date of the 1st century Shroud 12 to 12 centuries into the future to 1260-1390 would require that the Shroud sample be a combined 60% repair [01Nov13, 24May14a, 08Dec14a, 23Jul15a] and unremoveable carbon contamination [15Jul18], but it evidently is not

[Right (enlarge): Photomicrograph of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated part of its Shroud sample [13Jun14, 08Dec14, 16Jul15, 19Apr17 ... 09Jan21]. As can be seen it is obviously not 60% repaired/contaminated with younger carbon, which it would have had to have been to shift the 1st century Shroud 12-13 centuries into the future for it to have a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date.]

[24May14b, 08Dec14b, 23Jul15b]! And 2) it would be highly improbable (indeed a miracle [23Jul15 ... 19Apr17, 20Mar19, 14Feb20 & 06Nov20]) that a combination of 16th century repairs and carbon contamination would `just happen' to add up to exactly the right amount of extra carbon to cause the Shroud sample to radiocarbon date to 1325 ±65 [29May19], a mere 30 years before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history in c.1355, when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395), claimed (falsely) that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" by a confesssed forger [03July18, ...09Sep20]!

As previously stated, Marino kindly mentioned my Hacker Theory in his book. The first was the phone call to `Harry' in early 1989 [see 24Oct16]:

"1989 (Spring) [i.e. March - May)]. A prominent shroud researcher, who did not want to be identified, told only a few other Shroud researchers, including myself, about a curious phone call he had received one day at about 1:30 in the morning. His recollection was that it was not long after the C-14 dating results were announced in October 1988 and sometime in the following spring. I wlll call the researcher `Harry.' Harry indicated the (male) person, who did not apologize for calling so late, sounded distraught. The person told Harry he had been involved in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating. Harry thought the accent might have been German, and thought the person was in his forties, but wasn't sure because of the accent and emotional nature of the call. The person would not reveal his name (the person claimed it wasn't important) or from where he was calling. He kept asking Harry if he would forgive him for having done a disservice to humanity. The person even mentioned the word `espionage' in relation to the event. The only detail he gave about the procedure was saying that the real Shroud sample was thrown in the trash. Harry tried repeatedly to get the man to identify himself and when he tried to get more details, the man said he couldn't say more as he could get in some real trouble. Harry said the person said he also planned to call other Shroud researchers, but as far as it is known, he never did. Harry has wondered over the years whether the call itself could have been a fraud, but he is firm that the person sounded distraught to the point that said he wouldn't have been surprised if the guy would have said `l've got a gun and I'm going to shoot myself.' Even now, Harry just isn't sure what to think ... Comments: `Harry' told me he didn't want to be identified because he can't prove anything. Harry is a person of the highest integrity, and I have absolutely no doubt the call happened. I mention it because of the explosive nature of the content and also because of its possible relevance to a theory of Australian blogger Stephen Jones (see entry further below for `2014')[38].

Here is my first post on this phone call which can only be from Karl Koch (1965-89) [see below]:

"In May [2016] Joe Marino emailed me the following (name replaced with `AN' by me [`AN'is not his initials]):`I've been in contact with AN about the C-14 issue and he has given me his okay to mention something we discussed to you, which is interesting in light of your 10 part series about a possible hacking. He's only told a few people and never wrote about it in any of his books because he can't prove anything. He said that not long after the C-14 dating--he thinks it was probably around April 1989, he received a call about 1:30 in the morning. The (male) person, who did not apologize for calling so late, sounded distraught. The person told AN he had been involved in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating. AN thought the accent might have been German and thought the person was in his 40s but wasn't sure because of the accent and emotional nature of the call. The person would not reveal his name (the person claimed it wasn't important) or where he was calling from. He kept asking AN if he would forgive him for having done a disservice to humanity. The person even mentioned the word `espionage' in relation to the event. The only detail he gave about the procedure was saying that the real Shroud sample was thrown in the trash. That last detail, of course, doesn't fit with a computer hacking, but other details do fit with your description of Koch. AN said the person said he also planned to call other Shroud researchers, but as far as we know, no one ever did receive a call. AN has wondered over the years whether the call itself could have been a fraud, but he is firm that the person sounded distraught to the point that AN said he wouldn't have been surprised if the guy would have said `I've got a gun and I'm going to shoot myself.' Even now, AN just isn't sure what to think. But I know you'll find this interesting one way or the other" (my emphasis)[01Jun16a]

I commented:

"I regard this as highly significant, first because it shows that my hacker theory is starting to be taken seriously by leading Shroud pro- authenticists. Not only by Joe Marino, but also by AN, who (as indicated by `any of his books') is a well-known pro-authenticist author. For him to offer new evidence for my hacker theory is to me as good as it gets! Second, as I replied to Joe, `because of the unusual word "espionage," I believe it was Koch':

"The caller being German does fit Karl Koch but him throwing the Shroud sample in the trash does not. There is no doubt that the Shroud sample was dated, because the dating was not blind and the Shroud has a distinctive weave. However, it could have been a metaphor for him having `trashed' the Shroud. The word `espionage' is very significant because that was what the hackers were charged with and were granted amnesty for under then West German law. That word has, as far as I know, never been used of the Shroud dating. I only found it in books about the West German hacker ring who were prosecuted in 1988 for selling computer secrets to the USSR. Koch became a Christian in late 1988 / early 1989, and could have obtained AN's name from his ... book `...'. It would have been more certainly Koch if he had mentioned hacking. But because of the unusual word `espionage,' I believe it was Koch."(my emphasis)[01Jun16b]

See also 02Jun16 & 13Apr19.

The second mention of my Hacker Theory in Marino's book is a summary of how it began:

"2014. Australian Shroud blogger Stephen Jones started a series in which he put forth the hypothesis that the labs results were the result of a computer hacking. He summarized his findings to me in an email of September 4, 2016 as shown below. `My hacker theory began in 2007 when I read in David Sox's book, `The Shroud Unmasked' (1988), the account provided by an eyewitness Prof. Harry Gove, of very first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud at Arizona laboratory. That the `calculations were produced on the [AMS] computer, and displayed on the screen.' Sox was not at that time told by Gove the date on the screen (except that the Shroud was closer to 1000 than 2000 years old) but Cove in his 1996 book `Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud,' revealed that it was `1350 AD'.' `ln the late 1980s/early 1990s I was the Systems Administrator of a wide area network of 7 Western Australian hospitals' UNIX computer systems. As part of my job interest in computer security, I read Clifford Stoll's book, `The Cuckoo's Egg' in which he recounted his part in discovering in 1986 the hacking of university and military computers by German hacker Markus Hess. Coincidentally Stoll had worked at Arizona University and Hess was in the same small German hacker ring as Karl Koch, whom I allege had installed Timothy W. Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers.' `So I realised in 2007 that it was not the actual radiocarbon dating of the Shroud that those in Arizona's laboratory were seeing, but what the AMS computer was displaying. That between the actual carbon dating by the AMS system and those watching the computer screen, was a computer program! So one explanation of why the authentic first-century Shroud had a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date, is that a hacker had installed a program in the three laboratories' AMS computers which substituted* the Shroud's actual radiocarbon date with bogus dates, which when combined and averaged made it appear the Shroud dated shortly before its first undisputed appearance at Lirey, France in [c.] 1355.' `However, it was not until 2014, when I read again page 264 of Gove's book, which stated of that first Arizona dating of the Shroud that: 'All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen,' that I posted my first blog post which asked, `Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker'?' `I then in 2014 did a Google search on `1989' and `hacker' and discovered that a German hacker Karl Koch had been inexplicably murdered in May/June 1989, and his murder made to look like suicide ... .' `According to my first post of 22 February 2014, `Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?' It was in 2007, after reading Sox's account of Arizona's first C14 dating run: At 9.50 a.in. what matters to the layman was available --the results of the measurements, the first carbon dating test on the Turin Shroud ... . The night before the test Damon told Gove he would not be surprised to see the analysis yield a date around the fifth-century, because after that time the crucifixion was banned and a forger would not have known of the details depicted so accurately on the Shroud. Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `lf we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age --but is it the real thing?' ... . Shirley Brignall ... and Gove had a bet. Gove said 1000 years although he hoped for twice that age. Whoever lost was to buy the other a pair of cowboy boots. The calculations were produced on the computer, and displayed on the screen. Even the dendrochronological correction was immediately available. All eyes were on the screen. The date would be when the flax used for the linen relic was harvested. Gove would be taking cowboy boots back to Rochester.' (Sox, H.D., 1988, `The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time,' Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, pp. 146-147) that I first realised that it was not the actual carbon dating results that those in Arizona's laboratory were seeing, but what the computer was displaying' and `I put two and two together back then in 2007 and realised that ... one explanation of its 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is that a hacker had ... substituted the Shroud's actual dates coming from the AMS machine for bogus dates ... Source: Email from Stephen Jones to author on September 4, 2016 ... "Comments: ... *In emails of July 3, 2020, Jones indicated that instead of "substituted" he would now say "built on" or "enhanced" them, and that it makes his hacker theory compatible with carbon contamination and medieval repair theories'"[39].

On the latter, it was in writing my post of 29May19 that I was struck by the "great variability" in the "counts of the detected radiocarbon atoms" in Arizona laboratory's raw data:

"Reading across from Arizona's sessions A1 to A8, the maximum C14 atom count was 11409 in session A6 and the minimum was 5128 in session A7. That is a difference of 6281 or 122.48%!"[29May19a]

It then occurred to me "that the carbon contamination and/or medieval repair theories and my hacker theory may not be incompatible" if, instead of substituting the Shroud sample's actual C-14 date, Linick's program inflated them to "13th-14th century' dates":

"But looking at the great variability of Arizona's C14 atom counts across its subsamples A1-A8 ... it has just now occurred to me that the carbon contamination and/or medieval repair theories and my hacker theory may not be incompatible. What if Linick's program did not substitute the C14 atom counts coming from the Shroud, but in a mathematically sophisticated way inflated them to 13th-14th century dates? If so, then the variability of the C14 atom counts could reflect actual carbon-14 variability across the Shroud sample, due to contamination and/or younger repair threads (... Arizona's subsample was in two parts A1 and A from opposite ends of the Shroud sample) ... But the 13th-14th century dates of the Shroud samples would be due to Linick's program inflating that carbon-14 variability to 13th-14th century date levels!"[29May19b]

I call this my "Revised Hacker Theory":

"... according to my `Revised Hacker Theory' Timothy W. Linick's hacker program was designed to build on (not substitute for) the existing level of carbon 14 in each Shroud sample, and inflate it so that when combined and averaged ... it was 1325 ±65, the midpoint of which was a mere 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in 1355!" [02Sep19 & 14Feb20]

The third mention of my Hacker Theory in Marino's book is his tie-up of the 2014 phone call to `Harry' from a distraught German sounding caller who was consistent with him being West German hacker Karl Koch (see above):

"Comments: If you'll recall the curious phone call that `Harry' had received from a seemingly troubled caller back in the spring of 1989, the person said he had thrown the sample in the trash, but Jones indicated to me in an email of September 1, 2016 that the `German sounding distraught phone caller who said he had `trashed' the Shroud is consistent with him being Koch'"[40].

As I wrote on 24Oct16 I am most grateful to Joe Marino (and "Harry") for taking my Hacker Theory seriously. Especially since my Hacker Theory was originally a complete replacement of Joe and his late wife Sue's Medieval Repair theory (see 24May14, 08Dec14 & 23Jul15). It wasn't until May 2019 when I proposed my Revised Hacker Theory that it became compatible with the Medieval Repair and other Carbon Contamination theories (see above). However, I still maintain that only my Revised Hacker Theory explains why the first-century Shroud had the `bull's eye' 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 radiocarbon date (see above.

Joe's generous attitude to my rival Hacker Theory contrasts favourably (to put it mildly) with that of David Rolfe, the Editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, who censored an article by Ian Wilson in the BSTS Newsletter[14Feb20a] in which Wilson expressed guarded support of my Hacker Theory, on the grounds spurious grounds that it was "radical" and "might be confusing" [14Feb20b].

I concluded that post (and I will conclude this one) by pointing out that: • for over 30 years (2021-1988 = 33) pro-authenticist have been stuck in a rut with mutually exclusive explanations of how the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date; and • my Revised Hacker Theory is the only theory that explains the two most important facts: 1) why the very first radiocarbon dating run at Arizona was "1350," which was the most recent date of all ... three laboratories; and 2) why the combined average of all three laboratories' was 1325 ± 65,:

"Last September [2019] Rolfe wrote to me, that he was "trying to turn around a declining subscriber base for the Newsletter" ... Well he won't do that by serving up the "same old, same old" that his BSTS Newsletter readers have been reading for decades! Over 20 years ago Ian Wilson wrote of anti-authenticists:

`Indeed, if anyone had come up with a convincing solution as to how and by whom the Shroud was forged, they would inevitably have created a consensus around which everyone sceptical on the matter would rally. Yet so far this has not even begun to happen'[41].

But the same is true of pro-authenticists in their mutually exclusive explanations of how the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date. I maintain that my "radical" Revised Hacker Theory is the only theory that can create a consensus around which most, if not all, pro-authenticists can rally around!

For starters, mine is the only theory which explains the two most important facts: 1) why the very first radiocarbon dating run at Arizona was "1350," which was the most recent date of all, at all three laboratories [see 14Feb20c, 23Jun18 & 03Aug19]; and 2) why the combined average of all three laboratories' was 1325 ± 65, which `just happened' to be a mere 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in 1355 ... [14Feb20d].

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Marino, J.G., 2020, "The 1988 C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé," Joseph Gerald Marino: USA, p.23; Marino, J.G., 2016, "The Politics of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: Part I-Pre-April 21st, 1988," p.13. [return]
3. Marino, 2020, pp.250-251. [return]
4. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.41-42; 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.183-184; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.169-170; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.87, 281. [return]
5. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.62-66. [return]
6. Wilson, 1998, p.189. [return]
7. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 612. [return]
8. Marino, 2020, pp.348-349. [return]
9. Marino, 2020, p.349. [return]
10. Marino, 2020, p.350. [return]
11. Marino, 2020, pp.350-351. [return]
12. Marino, 2020, p.426; Marino, J.G., 2016, "The Politics of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: Part III-Post-April 21st, 1988," p.6. [return]
13. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
14. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.121-129. [return]
15. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
16. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42; in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
17. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, pp.52-53; Iannone, J.C., 1998,"The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.179; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.115. [return]
18. "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October 1981, Shroud.com. [return]
19. Jackson, J.P., 1991, ""An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," 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.325-344, 343-344. [return]
20. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.218-220. [return]
21. Hercules-L XeCl excimer laser in ENEA FIS-ACC Excimer Laboratory Annual Report 2000-2001. [return]
22. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," The Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
23. Tosatti, 2011. [return]
24. Tosatti, 2011. [return]
25. Tosatti, 2011. [return]
26. Vikan, G., 2020, "The Holy Shroud: A Brilliant Hoax in the Time of the Black Death," Pegasus Books: New York NY, p.108M. [return]
27. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco: A Scientific Detective Story," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, pp.32-33, in Marino, 2020, pp.638-639 & Marino, 2016, "... Part III," pp.37-38. [return]
28. Marino, 2020, p.639 & Marino, 2016, "... Part III," p.38. [return]
29. Broad, W.A. & Wade, N.J., 1982, "Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science," Simon and Schuster: New York NY, p.20. [return]
30. Case, 1996, p.73, in Marino, 2020, pp.77-78 & Marino, 2016, "... Part I," p.28. [return]
31. Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Nos 1-2, 20 January, pp.189-194, 190. [return]
32. Rogers, 2005, pp.192-193, in Marino, 2020, p.660 & Marino, 2016, "... Part III," pp.42-43. [return]
33. Marino, 2020, pp.660-661 & Marino, 2016, "... Part III," p.43. [return]
34. Rogers, 2005, p.191. [return]
35. Rogers, 2005, p.191. [return]
36. Casabianca, Tristan et al. "Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data," Archaeometry, 2019, doi: 10.1111/arcm.12467; Marino, 2020, pp.707-708. [return]
37. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.613. [return]
38. Marino, 2020, pp.515-516 & Marino, 2016, "... Part III," p.27. [return]
39. Marino, 2020, pp.704-706 & Marino, 2016, "... Part III," pp.54-55. [return]
40. Marino, 2020, p.706 & Marino, 2016, "... Part III," p.55. [return]
41. Wilson, 1998, p.235). [return]

Posted 12 March 2021. Updated 26 August 2024.