Obituary: Rev. H. David Sox (24 April 1936 - 28 August 2016)

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is my obituary of the former General Secretary of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, turned anti-authenticist, the Rev. H. David Sox who died on 28 August 2016, aged 80. As mentioned in my previous post, Ian Wilson, who knew Sox personally, was not aware of his death until I informed him of it, and he since has written an obituary of Sox in the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

About Sox. Harold David Sox (aka H. David Sox or David Sox) was born on 24 April 1936 in Hickory, North Carolina to the Rev. Samuel

[Above (enlarge): David Sox (left) on his 80th birthday, 24 April 2016[2], presumably with "his partner of 45 years, Allan Offermann"[3].]

and Nellie Sox[4]. In 1961 Sox was ordained a priest of the Episcopalian church[5]. In about 1972 Sox commenced a homosexual relationship with an Allan Offermann, which lasted for 45 years until Sox's death[6]. Sox's homosexuality is relevant to the Shroud's radiocarbon dating (see below). In 1974 Sox moved to London where he taught at the American School for 19 years[7], which would have been from 1974 to 1993. However Sox may not have started teaching at the American School in 1974 because Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), who described he and Sox as "quite good friends"[8], in 1996 twice wrote that Sox "teaches [present tense] at the American School in London"[9].

Sox and the Shroud. Sox's first contact with the Shroud was in Turin in 1956 on his way to a nearby ecumenical youth camp[10]. Sox entered the chapel where the Shroud was then kept and realised after

[Above (enlarge): Interior of the Chapel of the Holy Shroud as it would have been in 1956 when Sox entered it [02May15].]

consulting his Italian-English dictionary, that the word "sindone" which featured prominently in the chapel's literature, meant that behind the grille above the altar must be "the Shroud of Jesus"[11]. Sox admitted that he was in "rebellion" against the traditional Christianity of his Lutheran clergymen father and grandfather, and in its place was a "fascination with exotic facets of Christian tradition"[12]. Sox's initial link with the Shroud remained dormant until 1976 when, in his own words, "I started reading everything I could get my hands on concerning this curious object"[13]. In 1977 Sox helped found the British Society for the Turin Shroud[14], and became the Society's first General Secretary[15]. In 1978 Sox wrote the first of his three books on the Shroud, "File on the Shroud" (1978), which Wilson claims, "obviously favoured authenticity"[16]. Although I have only dipped into the book, from what I have read in it I must disagree with Wilson on that. In fact, in his third book, "The Shroud Unmasked" (1988), Sox writes of his "first effort, File on the Shroud," that "in hindsight [I] am only glad I took a step toward scepticism" in it[16a]. So Sox may originally have "favoured authenticity" as Wilson remembered it, but by his first 1978 book Sox had begun to favour "scepticism."

Walter McCrone. Walter McCrone (1916-2002), was an analytical chemist and a leading exponent of the polarised light microscope[17]. His early specialty was ident-

[Right: Dr. Walter C. McCrone, Jr., McCrone Research Institute, 11 October 2015.]

ifying explosives[18] by which he became wealthy consulting for the US government during World War II[19]. With that wealth, McCrone set up his own McCrone Research Institute and his own in-house journal The Microscope[20].

In 1979 McCrone began examining under a light microscope 32 sticky tapes, loaned to him by STURP's Ray Rogers (1927–2005), which had been pressed onto the Shroud in 1978[21].

[Left (enlarge): STURP's taking one of its 32 sticky tape samples from the Shroud in 1978[22].]

As an example of McCrone's capacity for self-deception, when Rogers asked for the return of STURP's tapes, McCrone had convinced himself that half the tapes were his and that in giving them back he had been "conned out of my set of tapes"[23] (see 05Jan16)! McCrone admitted he was unable to find any paint particles on the tapes[24], but he did find particles of iron oxide (Fe₂O₃) [25] and a few particles of mercuric sulfide (HgS), or vermilion, in only one larger agglomerate particle[26] , which he claimed accounted for all the blood[27]! STURP's Alan D. Adler (1931-2000) and John H. Heller (1921-1995) had also found abundant iron oxide[28] but only one particle of vermilion on the same tapes[29]. Without considering any other explanations (e.g. STURP's below), McCrone jumped to the conclusion that the iron oxide particles were red ochre[30] (one of many forms of Fe₂O₃) which he claimed that a 14th century artist had used to paint the Shroud image[31]! McCrone then needed evidence of an organic binder to glue the 'ochre' in place[32]. Unable to see any particles of a binder[33], McCrone had to resort to a chemical test for protein, amido black, which did return a positive result[34] (however see below).

In 1979-80 at STURP meetings attended by McCrone[34a], other STURP scientists pointed out that: 1) there was no more iron oxide in image than non-image areas[35] (except for blood areas which had slightly more iron as expected since blood contains iron[36]), and the tiny amount of iron oxide that McCrone had found would be invisible[37]; 2) McCrone had failed to consider other explanations for the iron oxide[38] (e.g. it was a consequence of the process of retting flax in streams[39] and/or flaked off blood particles[40]); 3) Amido black was too general a test for protein[41] - it returned a positive result on clean modern linen[42]; 4) the vermilion came from medieval artists pressing their freshly painted copies of the Shroud onto the Original to sanctify them[43]; and 5) McCrone's conclusions conflicted with those of other members of the STURP team[44]. But McCrone simply ignored those criticisms and made no attempt to work as a team with STURP to resolve their differences[45].

In 1980 at a meeting of STURP at Santa Barbara at which Gove and Sox were present[46], McCrone again took no notice of other STURP scientists' contrary evidence but simply reiterated his conclusion that the iron oxide was red ochre pigment and the amido black positive result was evidence of a gelatin binder[47]. McCrone never attended another STURP meeting, even though he was invited[48]. Later in 1980, McCrone presented his conclusions to a closed meeting of the British Society for the Turin Shroud[49], where he fatally conceded:

"I am not saying the Shroud is not authentic. I am saying that the image area has a lot of iron oxide and a lot of artists' pigment associated with it, but I do not know whether the amount of iron oxide present is sufficient to explain the entire image"[50].

However, after the gist of McCrone's address was unauthorisedly reported in the media by a journalist present[51], McCrone used that as a pretext to be no longer bound by STURP'S non-disclosure agreement which he had signed[52] and published his conclusions in a series of articles in his The Microscope[53].

Sox and McCrone. Sox had known McCrone personally since at least September 1976 when they had dinner in London with Ian Wilson and others[55]. McCrone was interested in radiocarbon dating the sample of the Shroud removed in 1973 for textile analysis by Belgian Professor Gilbert Raes (1914-2001)[56]. In July 1976 Sox had travelled to Turin

[Above (enlarge): The 1973 Raes' sample in relation to the 1988 radiocarbon dating sample[57] (see 15Jan12 for its context within the Shroud). As can be seen, the Raes sample is large enough for radiocarbon dating[59] but its lack of documented history (Raes was not present when the sample was taken in 1973[60]) render it unsuitable for carbon dating the Shroud [61] .]

and discovered that the Raes' sample was still with Prof. Raes in his home in Ghent, Belgium[62]. Then, after Sox had written to Prof. Raes, McCrone and Sox visited him in November 1976 and and inspected his sample[63], which they "were surprised to find ... kept in a rather casual manner in an old scrap-book of stamps" but in "excellent condition ... entirely suitable for carbon dating"[64]. Four months later in March 1977, McCrone presented a paper at the first United States Shroud conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico (at which Sox also presented a paper[65]) in which McCrone proposed that the Raes' sample be carbon dated[66]. However, unknown to Sox and McCrone, Raes was skeptical of McCrone's proposed `electron tracks on a photographic plate' method[67], which Gove later dismissed as "scientifically nonsensical on several counts"[68], and so Raes contacted a Belgian radiocarbon dating expert, Prof. Désiré Apers[69]. According to Sox, Prof. Apers' "physics analysis" of McCrone's "nuclear track emulsions" proposal "was devastating"[70]. Raes then contacted Turin because he expected Sox to insist on making the sample available to McCrone, and Turin, which had become disillusioned with McCrone[71], requested that Raes return the sample, which he did in October[72]. The returned Raes sample was then placed in the sacristy vault of Turin's Royal Chapel where presumably it still is[73]. However, see "the origin of rogers' raes and radiocarbon samples," where 14 threads from the Raes' sample were given to STURP's Ray Rogers in 1979.

Sox became emotionally attached to McCrone. In his first letter of 24 June 1977 to Gove (see also future below), Sox described McCrone as "... a marvellous person and I am very devoted to him"[74]. As a result Sox, the General Secretary of the BSTS underwent a "sudden conversion" to McCrone's red ochre and vermilion painting theory[75]. As Wilson put it:

"...Sox, earlier favorable to the Shroud's authenticity, underwent a mind-blowingly rapid conversion in order to become McCrone's mouthpiece with The Image on the Shroud, published in 1981"[76]

Having joined the anti-authenticity camp, Sox resigned from the BSTS (he was not pushed) in late 1980, on the eve of the publication of his The Image on the Shroud[77], "amid a brouhaha of publicity"[78]. The strongest thread running through Sox's File on the Shoud is his support for his friend Walter McCrone[79]. In that book, Sox gave full credit to McCrone[80]:

"I would like to thank Walter McCrone for making it possible for. me to do this book as I had intended, with all of his observations and insights. Without his contribution this book would not exist"[81].

Sox, Gove and McCrone. As we saw above, Sox had been interested in radiocarbon dating the Shroud since at least 1976 but his attempt to obtain the Raes sample for McCrone to date ended in failure with Raes returning the sample to Turin. However, on 9 June 1977 an article appeared in the New York Times, based on a University of Rochester press release[82], reporting on a new method of radiocarbon dating using "mass spectroscopy" [sic] developed by a small team lead by Rochester University's Prof. Harry Gove [original)[83].], which could date much smaller and older samples than the conventional method[84]. The story was picked up by Time magazine which interviewed Gove and published an article titled, "New Dating Game"[Right (85] in its 24 June 1977 edition[86], which stated that the new method "requires as little as one-hundredth of the material needed for current dating tests"[87]. When Sox heard about the Time article which had appeared a few days earlier, he wrote to Gove on 24 June 1977, "in strictest confidence," enclosing Prof. Apers' report on McCrone's proposal to carbon-date the Raes' sample"[88]. Sox did not disclose that he was the General Secretary of the BSTS (which Gove learned later[89]), and for Gove not to let McCrone know that Sox had approached him, asking Gove if this new method could carbon-date the Turin Shroud[90]. It was the first that Gove had heard of the Shroud[91]. Gove responded on behalf of the team to Sox, that the new method could date the Shroud but it was too newly developed to be applied to such a renowned object[92]. The next day after Gove's reply to Sox (Gove does not say what date it was), Gove received a phone call from McCrone, asking whether Gove's new method could date "an important piece of cloth" (not mentioning it was the Shroud) to determine "whether it was 2000 years old"[93]. From McCrone's further description, and information Gove realised from Sox's enclosure of Apers' report that McCrone meant the Raes sample[94]. Gove asked McCrone to put his request in writing, which he did on 11 July 1977 but Gove's reply was essentially the same as his to Sox[95]. But Sox and McCrone's "scheme to obtain Raes' shroud samples"[96] failed due to Turin's continued refusal to make the Raes sample available for carbon dating[97](as we saw above).

Sox and the 1988 radiocarbon dating. In May 1978 Gove and his team had agreed that they should explore the possibility of getting involved in dating the Turin Shroud, as "it would be too good an opportunity to miss" since "It would be a highly public demonstration of the power of carbon dating by AMS"[98]. Thereafter Sox's role in the eventual 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was indirect. But Gove acknowledged that Sox's "24 June 1977 ... inquiry led, via a complex chain of events, to the actual dating of the shroud cloth by accelerator mass spectrometry almost exactly eleven years later"[99].

Sox and Timewatch Sox was the sole expert consultant to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)'s 1988 Timewatch television programme, "Shreds of Evidence"[100]. On 8 May 1988 Sox and the BBC Timewatch crew, led by Neil Cameron, arrived at Zurich laboratory when it was about to carry out its dating[101]. Sox obtained information in Zurich which he was able to include in his August 1988 book, "The Shroud Unmasked"[102] (see future below). Sox and the Timewatch crew witnessed the preparation for carbon dating Zurich's Shroud sample[103] but they left before the actual dating, so Sox and Cameron did not know Zurich's eventual date of the Shroud[104]. Back in London on 13 May, part of the Timewatch documentary was filmed at Sox's American School, with one scene of Gove in a school science laboratories explaining AMS radiocarbon dating, and another scene where Gove walked over to a letterbox, picked up a letter and read it, to simulate his receiving Sox's first letter on 24 June 1977[105]. The program aired on 27 July 1988[106], while the dating was still in progress: Arizona and Zurich laboratories had finished their testing and reported their results to Dr. Michael Tite of the British Museum by about 25 May and 21 July 1988, respectively[107] but Oxford laboratory did not complete its testing and report its results until early August[108]. The program had been scheduled for late July in anticipation that the dating results would have been known by then, but since they weren't, its original title, "Verdict on the Shroud," had to be changed[109]. The program leaned heavily in favour of the Shroud being a mediaeval forgery[110] despite Oxford having not then completed its dating[111].

Sox and the leaks On 3 July 1988[112], columnist Kenneth Rose (1924-2014) in the

[Left (enlarge)[113]. "Kenneth Rose ... He never married ..."[114].]

London Sunday Telegraph reported on the then ongoing radiocarbon dating of the Shroud that, "In spite of the intense secrecy surrounding the investigation I hear signs that the linen cloth has been proved to be mediaeval"[115]. The story was picked up by news media around the world[116]. Suspicion fell on Oxford laboratory having leaked the results, but Oxford's Prof. Hall and Dr. Hedges in a letter to The Times of 9 July denied that, pointing out that Oxford had not yet begun its dating of the Shroud[117].

Then on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran a front-page story, "Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake"[118], with an accompanying article by Cambridge librarian Dr. Richard Luckett stating that "a

[Right (enlarge): "Dr Richard Luckett ... "I'll just be having a quiet dinner with a friend on my birthday"[119].]

probable date of about 1350 looks likely" and remarking that "laboratories are rather leaky institutions"[120]. This generated another round of world-wide media stories, yet none of the laboratories nor the British Museum knew Luckett or how he had obtained his information[121]. It was generally assumed that Oxford laboratory, which had since completed its dating, had leaked the "1350" date to Luckett[122]. But not only was Oxford's mean date "several decades less than 1350 AD"[123], in an Associated Press story of 9 September 1988, Luckett was quoted as saying, "I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories and it wasn't Oxford"[124]. Gove, knowing that Luckett's date of 1350 was Arizona's first date of the Shroud on 6 May 1988[125], became "worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement" (as alleged hacker Timothy W. Linick was (see below)[126].

Ian Wilson publicly concluded in a 23 September 1988 newscaster to BSTS members that Sox was the source of Rose's and Luckett's leaks and indeed of all the leaks to the media:

"When in a telephone enquiry to Dr. Luckett I asked whether the Revd. David Sox had been his source, he hastily changed the subject ... On 18 September the Sunday Times carried the front page headline `Official: Turin Shroud is a Fake' ... I complained to the Sunday Times Editor with particular regard to the `official' headline. This prompted a conciliatory phone call from the Science Correspondent who when challenged directly, admitted that his source had been the Revd. David Sox. He said he had in front of him the Revd Sox's already complete book about the Shroud's mediaeval date, awaiting publication the moment this news becomes formally released ... It seems clear that ... the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman whose identity will now be self-evident. This individual's means of obtaining his `inside' information (which can only have come from Arizona or Zurich), and his motives ... can only be guessed at"[127].

On the day of Wilson's above 23 September letter, Sox phoned Gove to deny he was the source of the leaks, but tellingly Gove did not write that he believed Sox[128]. On the contrary Gove wrote that Arizona's Doug Donahue and Paul Damon, as well as Turin's Luigi Gonella, had each come to the conclusion that "Sox was the source of the leaks"[129]. The next day, 24 September, in La Stampa, Sox was quoted as admitting he was partly to blame for the leaks: "May I be damned if I were to let the entire blame fall on myself"[130].

As mentioned in my posts of 24Jun14, 05Mar15, 30Dec15 and 22Nov16, I had been told privately in confidence of a possible connection between Sox, Luckett and Rose, but I was not at liberty to reveal it. Without revealing who told me, except it was from someone who knew Sox, and that from his mannerisms, e.g.:

"David Sox ... very dapper ... invariably wearing modish clothes-a man of considerable charm and humour. He can occasionally be mildly effeminate with a slightly shrill laugh"[131].

he suspected (words to effect) that Sox was a homosexual. I then proposed the theory a possible connection between Sox, Rose and Luckett was that they were part of an informal network of homosexuals. This is now supported (albeit not proved) by Sox being confirmed as a homosexual; Rose having been "never married" and Luckett celebrating his birthday with "a friend." (Luckett died "unmarried"). I am not interested in their homosexuality, only in solving the mystery of how Luckett, a Cambridge librarian with no known connection to the laboratories, knew that Arizona's first date of the Shroud was "1350".

Sox and "The Shroud Unmasked." The title of Sox's third book about the Shroud, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time" (1988) [Left (enlarge)], leaves no doubt about Sox's final anti-authenticist position[132]. This was the first book published on the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud[133]. Sox's Introduction states that the book had been written by "August 1988"[134]. But that it was finished even earlier, before Oxford had completed its dating in early August (see above), is evident in that the book does not mention Oxford's dating at all. The London Sunday Times had a copy of the book on 18 September[135], more than three weeks before the official announcement on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!"[136]. Two days after that official announcement Sox's book was published[137]!

Sox's book has an account of Arizona's first dating on 6 May 1988, provided by Gove[138]:

"At 9.50am what matters to the layman was available - the results of the measurements, the first carbon dating test on the Turin Shroud ... Donahue's wife, who believed the Shroud was genuine, was going for 2000 years. So was Shirley Brignall. She and Gove had a bet. Gove said 1000 years ... 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"[139].

From the above it is evident that while Sox then knew that Arizona's first date of the Shroud was closer to 1,000 than 2,000 years old, he did not then know the date was "1350". Gove was adamant that he had not told Sox the "1350" date[140] and Sox later confirmed he did not get the date from Gove[141]. The answer to who told Sox that "1350" was Arizona's first date of the Shroud was in the above quote, replaced by my first set of ellipses (see next).

Sox and Timothy Linick. The words in Sox's 1988 book that were replaced by my first set of ellipses above included:

"Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If 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?'"[142].

As pointed out in my previous posts of 24Jun14, 05Mar15, 30Dec15 and 22Nov16, this is evidence (if not proof beyond reasonable doubt) that: 1) Arizona laboratory's Timothy W. Linick (1946-89) was an extreme anti-authenticist, who would not accept that the Shroud was authentic, even if its radiocarbon date was first century; 2) Linick was in contact with Sox, despite signing an Arizona laboratory confidentiality agreement "... not to communicate the results to anyone - spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public"; and 3) Linick was the leaker of Arizona laboratory's first "1350" date to Sox.

[Above right[143]. Photo of Timothy W. Linick and report that, "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances ..."[144]. This is consistent with my theory that the KGB murdered by simulated suicide confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch between 23 and 30 May 1989 (see 02Jun16), and also Linick on 4 June 1989[145], the day after the West German police had publicly released the identity of a burnt body as Koch's on 3 June 1989[146]. This was to prevent Koch or Linick revealing that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as 1325 ±65[147] was the result of a Soviet-sponsored computer hacking of the Shroud's carbon dating by Linick, aided by Koch.]

This is consistent with my theory that Linick was also the primary hacker whose program installed in the fully computerised AMS systems at Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, substituted the actual radiocarbon dates of the first-century Shroud, with computer-generated dates which when aggregated and averaged, yielded the bogus radiocarbon result that, "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is ... mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[148]. And that Linick used Sox to leak Arizona's first bogus "1350" first radiocarbon date of the Shroud to create a climate of expectation that the Shroud was a mediaeval fake so that the laboratories, the media, and the general public would accept without question Linick's hacked dates. See my series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking"

Sox and Anthony Linick. Anthony Linick (1938-) is the older half-brother of Timothy Linick[149], the alleged leaker and hacker (see above and 30Dec15).

[Left: Anthony Linick[150]. He taught at the American School in London from 1982- 2002[151], which means that for at least ~13 years from 1982-1995 he was there at the same time as Sox (see above). ]

As I mentioned in my posts of 30Dec15 and 22Feb16 on 2 January 2016 I discovered that Timothy W. Linick had a half-brother Anthony Linick who had written a biography of his (not Timothy's) stepfather, the composer and conductor (Ingolf Dahl (1912–70), titled, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl" (2008). I didn't then have the book, but reading parts of it online, I found in it where Anthony wrote that, "Timmy ... sank deeper into what seems to have been the family's hereditary introversion" (p.250) and my "half-brother Timothy, took his own life at age 42 in 1989" (p.619). That same day, I emailed Anthony through his website "A Walkers Journal" mentioning Sox:

"Your late half-brother Timothy W. Linick, who was a member of the team at Arizona Radiocarbon dating laboratory which radiocarbon dated the Shroud of Turin in 1988, was quoted by the Rev. David Sox as follows:

`... before the test ... Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material [of the Shroud of Turin] 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?'' (Sox, H.D., 1988, `The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time,' Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147).

Sox was in England at that time and he would be unlikely to know your brother even existed, so presumably Timothy had contacted Sox and volunteered that information. This was despite all those participating in Arizona laboratory's dating of the Shroud ... having signed an undertaking `not to communicate the results to anyone' ... Arizona's first dating run of the Shroud returned a date of `1350 AD' ... a leak appeared in the English media that the Shroud had dated `1350' ... Prof. Gove concluded that the original source of the `1350' leak was `from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement'... It was later discovered that Sox was the secondary source of the leaks to the media ... including the `1350' date ... So it seems inescapable that your late half-brother Timothy W. Linick was the original source of the leaks to David Sox in England, who in turn leaked it indirectly to the English media, that Arizona laboratory's first run date of the Shroud of Turin was `1350.' Presumably someone in one of the laboratories would have discovered your brother had been quoted by Sox in his book ... and would have asked him to please explain. If so, were there any repercussions of this on your brother's career?"[152]

I did not know at the time that Anthony knew Sox, by both having taught at the same American school in London for ~13 years, but I used Sox's quote of Anthony's half-brother Timothy as evidence of him having leaked Arizona's "1350" date. The next day Anthony replied by email, not disclosing that he knew Sox:

"Of course I have encountered materials on the controversies surrounding the Turin Shroud ... including those on the death of my half-brother, Timothy Linick, in 1989. I have to say that I have nothing to add to these matters. I spent only one year under the same roof as Tim – and that was when he was six years old ... I knew, of course, that he was a specialist in carbon dating but I don’t remember when I learned that he was part of the team charged with dating the shroud. When my step-mother, Del (Delphine) [Timothy's mother] called to share the news of his passing she said only that he took his own life and that he had been suffering from depression"[153]

However, about seven weeks later, on 22 February 2016, I discovered in Anthony Linick's Wikipedia entry, that he had worked at the American School in London for 20 years from 1982 to 2002, which overlapped with Sox for ~13 years from 1982-95 (see above and 22Feb16). I felt I was owed an explanation why Anthony had not mentioned that he knew Sox, so I emailed him again on 23 February, with quotes from Wikipedia and Gove's book about Sox, putting these questions to him:

"So did you know David Sox? And that he was deeply involved in seeking to discredit the Shroud of Turin? Including being the secondary source of leaks to the media of Arizona's first `AD 1350' date ... It seems an amazing coincidence that your half-brother Timothy was in contact with David Sox, who presumably you worked with? Did you put Timothy in touch with Sox or vice-versa?"[154]

Anthony replied by email the next day, 24 February, claiming that he only had "a suspicion" that the "David Sox" whom I and "others [plural?] mentioned" was the same David Sox "who worked at the American School in London" and that he "did meet him once or twice":

"You have confirmed for me a suspicion that began to grow when you and others mentioned David Sox. I had wondered if this was the same chap who worked at the American School in London and this is now confirmed. I did meet him once or twice and, indeed, my first long-term assignment at ASL was in the middle school, where he was a faculty member. This was in the spring of 1982."[155]

See the rest of my post of 22Feb16 that this, and other things that Anthony Linick claimed, are so implausible that he can only be lying to cover up his part in putting his half-brother Timothy in touch with Sox, or vice-versa. Whichever, that Sox worked with Timothy Linick's half-brother is further evidence amounting to proof beyond reasonable doubt that Timothy Linick leaked Arizona's "1350" through Sox. And that in turn is further evidence that Timothy Linick was the primary hacker of the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, who leaked Arizona's first "1350" date to help create a climate of expectation that the Shroud was a medieval fake so that his hacked 1260-1390 = 1325 ± 65 date would be readily accepted .

Epitaph: Sox the scoffer. In this final section of this very long post, I have been reading through Sox's last book on the Shroud: "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time" (1988).

"... knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days" (2Pet 3:3)

The Greek word translated "scoffer" above is empaiktai, "a mocker, scoffer"[156], which aptly describes Sox attitude towards pro-authenticists (see below).

Not a Christian. Although he was a clergyman, Sox was evidently not a Christian. Indeed, as far as I am aware, Sox did not even claim to be a Christian. His books, as far as I am aware, contain no personal profession of Christian faith. Jesus is "the man some called the Son of God" (p.8) - which would have been the perfect place for Sox to have included himself in those "some" but he didn't. Unmasked reads like it could have been written by an atheist/agnostic like Joe Nickell, because it was!

Falsehoods. (or dishonest/deluded). Sox claimed, "... there just is no historical pedigree for the cloth before its appearance in the little town of Lirey in France in the 1350s" (p.17) and "... its early history [is] missing so absolutely that it will not stand up" (p.20). This is simply false. For starters see my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present" currently up to the 11th century. Wilson has specifically refuted this objection of Sox[157]. Sox also claimed that Bishop d'Arcis' "memorandum ... to Avignon Pope Clement VII ... remains to this day a death blow to dating the Shroud earlier than the fourteenth century" (p.17)! This is so false it is laughable! See my 11Jul16 showing that Bishop d'Arcis was wrong that the Shroud was "cunningly painted" because, for starters, the Shroud image is not a painting, which even Joe Nickell now accepts..

Refusal to accept evidence. The problem is that Sox refused to accept any of the abundant evidence of the Shroud's existence before 1350. For example, he dismissed with no explanation, "... attempts to link the Turin Shroud to the ancient image of Edessa" by "Ian Wilson" (p.17). Despite the fact that Wilson experimentally proved it! See my 15Sep12.

Ad hominems. Sox dismissed pro-authenticist evidence and arguments with ad hominems (against the man). So Wilson is "enthused" in "his theory that the Shroud and the Mandylion of Edessa were the same relic ... the Shroud ... folded so only the facial image was seen" (p.38). Ignoring that Wilson had experimentally proved his theory (see above).

Failure to consider alternatives Sox claimed that "The de Charnys appear to have been unconvinced of the authenticity of their Shroud, and quite willing to accept it as a 'likeness' or 'representation'" (p.19). But Sox failed to consider that Pope Clement VII (r.1378-94) who ordered that Bishop d'Arcis remain "perpetually silent" about the 1389 second Lirey exposition in exchange for Geoffroy II de Charny (c.1352–1398) and his mother Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428) only claiming that the Shroud was "a representation; as Robert of Geneva, was a nephew of Jeanne's second husband Aymon IV de Geneva (1324-88). And after Jeanne married Aymon in c.1359 she took her ~7 year-old son Geoffroy II, her ~3 year-old daughter Charlotte, and the Shroud, to live with Aymon in Anthon, High Savoy, where they were neighbours of Robert (see 16Feb15). There they would have given the future Pope a private viewing of the Shroud and explained to him that it was looted in the 1204 sack of Constantinople by Jeanne's ancestor, Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234) [see 25Oct15). The problem for Pope Clement VII was that the Byzantine Empire (c. 330–1453) still existed and what's more, the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaiologos (1332–1391), was a son of Anna of Savoy (1306-65), a daughter of Count Amadeus V of Savoy (1249-1323), who in turn established Chambéry as his seat. So if the de Charny's continued to claim that the Shroud was Jesus' burial Shroud, John V would have known it was the one looted from Constantinople and demanded it be returned, creating a diplomatic crisis for the Pope! It seems significant that it was only when the Byzantine Empire finally fell in 1453 that Geoffroy II's daughter, Marguerite de Charny (c. 1390–1460), transferred the Shroud to Duke Louis I of Savoy (1440-1465).

Sox the scoffer. I have decided to end this very long post with this quote which shows Sox's un-Christian, mocking attitude towards pro-authenticists:

"Neil Cameron and I were around ETH [Zurich Institute of Technology where Zurich laboratory is] at midnight on our first night in Zurich looking at the surroundings for possible filming sites. There wasn't a soul around, but a few lights were on in various labs, and an odd low howling noise came from somewhere. Our imagination saw it as an unwilling sample ready for the blast of the accelerator - or more likely it was the last wail of die-hard sindonologists unwilling to face a wrong date" (p.142).

But since the Shroud is first-century, it might be the non-Christian Sox who is doing the wailing now (Mt 8:12; 13:42,50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Lk 13:28), having realised, too late that he was wrong and the "die-hard sindonologists" he scoffed at, were right!

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. "David's 80th birthday Apr 24th, 2016," Harold Sox Obituary - Palm Springs, California, Legacy.com. [return]
3. "In Memory of Harold David Sox, April 24, 1936 - August 28, 2016," Trident Society, Rancho Mirage CA, 28 September 2017. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. Ibid. [return]
6. Ibid. [return]
7. Ibid. [return]
8. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.8. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, pp.8, 20-21. [return]
10. Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, p.12. [return]
11. Ibid. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Ibid. [return]
14. 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.234. [return]
15. Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
16. Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
16a. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.152; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.87. [return]
17. 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.93; McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.36-37. [return]
18. Hopen, T.J., 2004, "Dr. Walter C. McCrone's contribution to the characterization and identification of explosives," J Forensic Science, March, 49(2), pp.275-276. [return]
19. Lecture by Prof. Joel Bernstein, "The Shroud of Turin: What science can tell us?," Scitech, Perth, Western Australia, 28 July 2011. [return]
20. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.184; Wilson, 1998, pp.77-79. [return]
21. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.54-56; McCrone, 1999, pp.78, 122. [return]
22. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.21. [return]
23. McCrone, 1999, pp.123-124. [return]
24. McCrone, 1999, p.83. [return]
25. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.47; Rogers, 2008, p.50. [return]
26. McCrone, 1999, pp.129-130; Antonacci, 2000, p.48. [return]
27. McCrone, 1999, pp.1, 130, 134, 137, 140. [return]
28. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.88; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.29. [return]
29. Heller, 1983, p.192. [return]
30. McCrone, 1999, pp.1, 117. [return]
31. Ruffin, 1999, p.89. [return]
32. Wilson, 1986, p.62. [return]
33. de Wesselow, 2012, p.136 [return]
34. Wilson, 1986, p.62. [return]
34a. Wilson, 1986, p.63. [return]
35. Heller, 1983, p.140. [return]
36. Heller, 1983, p.140; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.170. [return]
37. Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, p.38; Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 1994, "Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?: The Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence," HarperCollins: New York NY, p.56; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 23; Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, p.76; . [return]
38. Rogers, 2008, p.36. [return]
39. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.29; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.153. [return]
40. Tribbe, 2006, p.153. [return]
41. Scavone, 1989, p.62. [return]
42. Scavone, 1989, p.62; Rogers, 2008, p.21. [return]
43. Heller, 1983, p.212; Ruffin, 1999, p.90; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.136. [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, p.79; Tribbe, 2006, p.138; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.213-214. [return]
45. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
46. Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, p.15. [return]
47. Wilson, 1986, pp.62, 95; Wilson, 1998, p.228; Ruffin, 1999, p.89 [return]
48. Ruffin, 1999, p.100; Oxley, 2010, p.214. [return]
49. Wilson, 1998, p.79. [return]
50. Whiting, 2006, p.171. [return]
51 . Sox, 1988, p.64; Wilson, 1998, p.79. [return]
52. Wilson, 1998, p.79. [return]
53. Wilson, 1998, p.79. [return]
55. McCrone, 1999, p.62. [return]
56. McCrone, 1999, p.55. [return]
57. Wilson, 1998, p.189. [return]
59. Meacham, W., 1986, "On Carbon Dating the Shroud," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 14, September, pp.4-15, 5; Gove, 1996, p6. [return]
60. Meacham, 1986, p.5. [return]
61. Meacham, 1986, p.5; Gove, 1996, p6. [return]
62. Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, pp.97-98. [return]
63. Sox, 1981, p.21. [return]
64. Sox, 1978, p.98. [return]
65. Sox, H.D., "Some Ecumenical Considerations Concerning the Turin Relic," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.16-22. [return]
66. McCrone, W.C., "Authentication of the Turin Shroud," in Stevenson, 1977, pp.124-130, 124-125; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.233. [return]
67. Gove, 1996, p.18. [return]
68. Gove, 1996, p.18. [return]
69. Sox, 1978, p.98. [return]
70. Morgan, R., 1989, "The Paris Symposium - Part I," Shroud News, No 55, October, pp.5-23, 23. [return]
71. Gove, 1996, p.20. [return]
72. Morgan, 1989, p.23. [return]
73. Sox, 1978, pp.98-99. [return]
74. Gove, 1996, p.15. [return]
75. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.54; Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.74. [return]
76. Wilson, 1986, pp.xiii-xiv. [return]
77. Sox, 1981, p.vi. [return]
78. Wilson, 1986, p.63; Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.54; Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.74. [return]
79. Morgan, R., 1981, "New Book on the Shroud by H. David Sox," No. 6, March, Shroud News, No 6, pp.4-7, 5. [return]
80. Paci , S.M., 1990, "The Case Is Not Closed!," Shroud News, No 60, August, p.4-11, 8. [return]
81. Sox, 1981, p.vi. [return]
82. Gove, 1996, pp.13-14. [return]
83. "Dr. Harry Gove Co-developer, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," El carbono 14, por Manuel Carreira, Sabana Santa, 2013. [return]
84. Rensberger, B., 1977, "A New Method of Carbon‐14 Dating Expected to Double Science's Range," The New York Times, June 9, p.45. [return]
85. The Time article is reproduced on page 20 of Gove, H.E., 1999, "From Hiroshima to the Iceman: The Development and Applications of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK. [return]
86. Gove, 1996, p.14. [return]
87. Gove, 1999, p.20 [return]
88. Gove, 1999, p.17. [return]
89. Gove, 1996, p.8. [return]
90. Gove, 1996, pp.7, 14-15. [return]
91. Gove, 1996, p.7. [return]
92. Gove, 1996, p.7. [return]
93. Gove, 1996, p.18. [return]
94. Ibid. [return]
95. Gove, 1996, p.19. [return]
96. Gove, 1996, p.18. [return]
97. Gove, 1996, p.23. [return]
98. Gove, 1996, p.19. [return]
99. Gove, 1996, pp.7-8. [return]
100. Wilson, I., 1988a, "On the Recent `Leaks' ...," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September; Wilson, I., 1988b, "Two recent B.B.C. Television Programmes," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.23-24, 23,25. [return]
101. Sox, 1988, p.135; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.81. [return]
102. Sox, 1988, p.160; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.81. [return]
103. Sox, 1988, pp.135-138, 140-142. [return]
104. Gove, 1996, pp.269, 274. [return]
105. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
106. Wilson., 1988a; Wilson, 1988b. [return]
106. Wilson., 1988a; Wilson, 1988b. [return]
107. Gove, 1996, pp.269, 274. [return]
108. Gove, 1996, p.274. [return]
109. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
110. Wilson., 1988b. [return]
111. Wilson., 1988a. [return]
112. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.91. [return]
113. "Kenneth Rose - obituary," The Telegraph, 29 January 2014. [return]
114. Shawcross, W., 2014, "Kenneth Rose: we'll miss his wit, warmth and wry sense of humour," The Telegraph, 1 February. [return]
115. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
116. Gove, 1996, pp.272-273. [return]
117. Wilson, 1988b; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.91. [return]
118. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
119. "Birthdays: Dr Richard Luckett," The Times, July 1, 2010. [return]
120. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
121. Ibid. [return]
122. Gove, 1996, p.277. [return]
123. Gove, 1996, pp.277-278. [return]
124. Gove, 1996, p.278. [return]
125. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
126. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
127. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
128. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
129. Ibid. [return]
130. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
131. Gove, 1996, p.23. [return]
132. Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
133. Wilson, I., 1988c, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.19. [return]
134. Sox, 1988, p.6; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
135. Wilson, 1988c. [return]
136. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7. [return]
137. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.109. [return]
138. Sox, 1988, p.160. [return]
139. Sox, 1988, pp.146-147. [return]
140. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
141. Gove, 1996, p.283. [return]
142. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
143. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XX^th Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
TLR. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
144. Bonnet-Eymard, 2000. [return]
145. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
146. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010h; and Clough. B. & Mungo, P., 1992, "Approaching Zero: Data Crime and the Computer," Faber & Faber: London & Boston, p.163. [return]
147. The cited radiocarbon dating range "1260-1390" of the Shroud is equivalent to "the year AD 1325, give or take sixty-five years either way." (Wilson, 1998, p.7). [return]
148. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
149. Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse: Bloomington IN, p.226. [return]
150. "Anthony Linick," Wikipedia, 23 June 2017. [return]
151. "Anthony Linick: Academic life," Wikipedia, 23 June 2017. [return]
152. Jones, S.E., Message, "A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," January 2, 2016, 6:19 am. [return]
153. Linick, A., Email "Re: A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 3 January 2016, 11:08 PM. [return]
154. Jones, S.E., Email "Re: David Sox," 23 February 2016, 10:20 PM. [return]
155. Linick, A., Email "Re: David Sox," 24 February 2016, 1:04 AM. [return]
156. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.557. [return]
157. Wilson, 1998, pp.235, 124-175. [return]

Posted 15 August 2017. Updated 8 September 2024.