Saturday, August 3, 2019

4 June 1989: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #17, "4 June 1989" of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. I fell behind again, but it matters less this time because unless significant new information comes to light from someone in a position to know what happened, this will be the last post in this series. I have said all along that my theory that:

"... the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[2] was the result of a computer hacking, allegedly by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[3], aided by German hacker Karl Koch (1965–89)[4], on behalf of the former Soviet Union, through its agency the KGB." [23Jul15, etc].
is circumstantial and may never be proved true [15Sep16, 15Jul18a & 28Oct18a].

[Index #1] [Previous: 23 May 1989: #16] [Next: To be advised]

4 June 1989 On 4 June 1989[5], the body of Arizona radiocarbon

[Above (enlarge)[6]: Extract of a photograph of those present at the Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating laboratory on 6 May 1988[7] when the AMS computer terminal [left] displayed a date of the first century Shroud, which when calibrated, was "1350 AD"[8]. The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick (1946-89) [05Jul14, 22Feb16a], is in a black shirt standing prominently in the foreground[9]. That Linick is standing in front of his Arizona laboratory leaders and colleagues in this historic group photograph of the very first dating of the Shroud is evidence that Linick was in charge of the fully computerised AMS dating process[10] at Arizona laboratory and those present were acknowledging that [22Feb16b, 22Nov16a, 25Mar18, 23Jun18a, 15Jul18, 27Sep18 & 28Oct18b].]

dating laboratory physicist, Timothy Weiler Linick (1946-89), was found dead of gunshot[11] in Tucson, Arizona[12].

Linick's death was not suicide It was assumed that Linick had committed

[Right: Photograph of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances ..."[13]

suicide[14] but there was no suicide note[15]. Nor was there any reason for Linick to have killed himself. He suffered from depression[16] but any problems Linick may have had with his laboratory leaders from communicating with anti-authenticist David Sox (1936-2016)[17] [see below] would have been eight months before and it was only four months after the publication of the 1989 Nature article, Linick would still have been basking in the afterglow of Arizona laboratory's apparently successful carbon dating of the Shroud[28Oct18c].

Linick's `suicide' was the day after Karl Koch's burnt body was publicly identified And `coincidentally' Linick's `suicide' on 4 June 1989 was the day after West German police on 3 June 1989 had

[Left: Karl Koch (1965–89). "He was involved with the KGB scandal that involved hackers being bought by drugs in exchange for breaking into key NATO and corporate installations ... Koch, of Hanover, West Germany, died Friday, June 3 [1989]"[18]. But since the police found Koch's burnt body on 1 June 1989[19], 3 June 1989 was presumably when the police publicly identified the body as Koch's.]

publicly identified the burnt body found on the edge of a forest outside of Hanover, Germany, as that of German hacker for the KGB Karl Koch (1965–89), who also it was assumed had committed suicide but it could not have been [see part #16]. And it was Koch who had phoned the American Shroud author `Harry' about March 1989 begging forgiveness for having "been involved in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating" [see part #15].

When Turin reduced the laboratories to 3 using the AMS method, including Arizona, Linick realised he could hack the Shroud's dating As we saw in part #6 of this series, when the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989) wrote on 10 October 1987 to all the participants in the 1986 Turin Workshop, including the seven laboratories which were to have dated the Shroud, advising them that only three AMS laboratories: Arizona, Oxford and Zurich had been chosen to carbon-date the Shroud, the alleged hacker, Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (according to my theory), 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[20]), that would substitute (or rather build on-see 29May19a) 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.

Linick was deeply introverted from "a family of losers" Linick's older half-brother Anthony Linick (1938-) (below[21]) recorded that Timothy, "was a bright little boy doomed to grow up in a family of losers," and over the ensuing years he sank so deeply into introversion that Anthony had difficulty connecting with him:

"I also enjoyed having a little sibling and Timmy doted on me ... He was a bright little boy doomed to grow up in a family of losers ... Eight years my junior, Timmy was just too young to be a real pal and ... we soon resumed our separate existences. As he sank deeper into what seems to have been the family's hereditary introversion he became harder and harder for me to connect with"[22].
Before I emailed him in 2016, Anthony was already aware of "theories of conspiracy ... on the death of my half-brother, Timothy Linick, in 1989":
"Of course I have encountered materials on the controversies surrounding the Turin Shroud, including theories of conspiracy – including those on the death of my half-brother, Timothy Linick, in 1989"[23].
Linick was the leaker of Arizona laboratory's first "1350" date of the Shroud to Sox [see 24Jun14a, 05Mar15, 03Jun15, 15Oct15, 30Dec15 & 19Jan16]. Linick was quoted in Sox's August 1988 book, "The Shroud Unmasked" [Left]:
"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?'"[24].
This was despite Linick having signed, along with all present at Arizona's first dating, "not to communicate the results to anyone - spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public"[25].

Sox was the leaker of Arizona laboratory's first "1350" date of the Shroud to the media [see 24Jun14b, 22Nov16b, 15Aug17a, 15Jul18a & 06Aug18]. As we saw in part #12, on 3 July 1988, historian Kenneth Rose (1924-2014) in his column in the London Sunday Telegraph

[Right: The late Kenneth Rose[26], was the first to leak on 3 July 1988 that the carbon dating of the Shroud would be "medieval".]

reported on the ongoing radiocarbon dating of the Shroud that:

"In spite of the intense secrecy surrounding the i456nvestigation I hear signs that the linen cloth has been proved to be mediaeval"[27].
The story was picked up by news media around the world[28].

Then on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran a front-page story, "Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake"[29], with an accompanying article by Cambridge librarian Dr. Richard Luckett (1945-2020) stating that "a

[Left: "Dr Richard Luckett [who] has been the Pepys Librarian at Magdalene College, Cambridge, since 1982"[30], i.e. Luckett's position in August 1988 when he leaked, on behalf of Sox, who received it from Linick, Arizona's 1350 date of the Shroud to the London Evening Standard.]

probable date of about 1350 looks likely" and remarking that "laboratories are rather leaky institutions"[31].

This generated another world-wide media frenzy, yet none of the laboratories nor the British Museum knew Luckett or how he had obtained his information[32]. It was assumed that Oxford laboratory, which had completed its dating on 6 August, had leaked the 1350 date to Luckett[33]. But not only was Oxford's mean date "several decades less than 1350 AD"[34], 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"[37].

Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the co-inventor of AMS radiocarbon dating[38] and the unofficial leader of the project[39], knowing that Luckett's date of 1350 was Arizona's first date of the Shroud on 6 May 1988, became "worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement" (as Linick was):

"I must say I wondered about Luckett's date of 1350 because it was the date Donahue announced to me when I was present at the first radiocarbon measurement on the shroud in 6 May 1988. Of course, it also corresponds very closely to the shroud's known historic date. However, I still assumed Luckett had said he got the number from Oxford. When I read that he claimed he got it from one of the other two labs I worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement"[40].
I had been told in 2014 by a leading Shroudie who knew Sox, that the

[Left (enlarge): David Sox (left) on his 80th birthday, 24 April 2016, with "his partner of 45 years [1971-2016], Allan Offermann"[41].]

possible connection between Sox, Luckett and Rose was "pillow talk"! See 15Aug17b that the connection between Sox, Rose and Luckett was that they were part of an informal network of homosexuals. Sox was a homosexual (see above) and both Rose and Luckett were unmarried and wrote a lot about homosexuals. Also Luckett's birthday is 1 July and Rose's article above was on 3 July 1988, so was Rose and Luckett told by Sox the result of Arizona's first "1350" date of the Shroud at Luckett's birthday party on 1 July 1988?

As we also saw in part #12, on 18 September 1988 the London Sunday Times published a front-page story with the headline, "Official: The Turin Shroud is a Fake"[42]. The article claimed that, "all three labs had independently placed the age of the linen in the same period of medieval history" and it concluded that, "The shroud is undoubtedly the work of a brilliant medieval hoaxer"[43]. After Ian Wilson:

"... 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"[44]!
So on 23 September in a letter to British Society for the Turin Shroud members, Wilson publicly concluded that Sox was the secondary source of all the leaks of the Shroud's "medieval" and "1350" dates, and that "his `inside' information ... can only have come from Arizona or Zurich" laboratories
"It seems clear that ... the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman [the American Rev. David Sox] 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 for flouting the confidentiality that all others have respected, can only be guessed at. His only explanation to me was that he `thinks' he knows the result by a `fluke'. Not being party to the same source(s), I can neither confirm nor deny the information's truth, only deplore the insidious and underhand means by which it has been disseminated"[45].
On that same day, 23 September, Sox phoned Gove to complain that Wilson had charged him with being the source of all the leaks, which Sox denied[46]. But Gove did not write that he believed Sox[47], 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"[48]. 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"[49].

Linick's half-brother Anthony worked with Sox at the same American London school for at least 13 years! As I posted on 22Feb16d, 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:

"In 1982 Linick began a twenty-year tenure as a member of the faculty of the American School in London (ASL) in St John's Wood. There he taught courses for both the social studies and the English departments, moving permanently to the latter in 1988 and serving as its chair for the last eight years of his teaching career, 1994-2002"[50].
And David Sox, whose quote of Timothy Linick I had sent to Anthony in my email of 2 January [see 22Feb16c] was a teacher at the American School in London from at least 1978 to 1995:
"Sox, an American Anglican priest, teaches [in 1995] at the American School in London, England. He has long been interested in the Turin Shroud and has authored several books about it"[51].

"On 11 May 1978 I phoned the Reverend H David Sox at his home in London to find out what the latest interest was in carbon dating the shroud. ... A few days later I got another letter from Sox saying that he was planning to visit his parents in North Carolina sometime around the end of June and he would also like to visit Rochester. ... he is an American-an Anglican-who teaches [in 1995] at the American School in London"[52].

"On 12 May [1988] I flew to London. David Sox had made a reservation for me at the Abbey House Hotel, which was not far from where he lived. ... The next morning, I was to appear at the American School. Cameron had decided that he would film the part of the Timewatch programme on the shroud which involved me at David Sox's school, and to make believe that it was my laboratory"[53].

Since the last date in Gove's book is "September 1995"[54], that is an overlap of at least 13 years from 1982 to 1995 when Anthony Linick worked at same school as Sox.

And, since I had prefaced my above quote of Sox in my first message to Anthony Linick with:

"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: ..."[55].
I felt I was owed an explanation why Anthony had not mentioned that he knew Sox. So I emailed Anthony Linick again on 23 February, with the above quotes from Wikipedia and Gove's book, putting those 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:
"[Hardly had this wave of publicity died down before on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran as its front-page lead story `Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake'. Accompanying this was a seemingly authoritative article by librarian Dr. Richard Luckett of Magdalene College, Cambridge, cryptically remarking that `laboratories are rather leaky institutions' and `a probable date of about 1350 looks likely' ... When in a telephone enquiry to Dr. Luckett I asked whether the Revd. David Sox had been his source, he hastily changed the subject.] ... I complained to the Sunday Times Editor ... 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. Sadly, as evident from a Daily Mail article of September 19, Professor Gonella and Cardinal Ballestrero in Turin have attributed the succession of apparent `leaks' emanating from England to malicious breaches of confidentiality on the part of the Oxford laboratory scientists and Dr. Tite. It seems clear that they have been mistaken, and 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 for flouting the confidentiality that all others have respected, can only be guessed at." (The words in square brackets mentioning the "1350" date were omitted in my email) [56].
which date presumably Timothy was the source of Sox's "`inside' information ... which can only have come from Arizona ..." Not Zurich because it turned out that "1350" was not Zurich's date"[57].
I concluded my email to Anthony Linick with:
"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?"[58].
In his reply email the next day, 24 February, Anthony claimed that he only had "a suspicion" that the "David Sox" whom I and "others [plural] mentioned" was the same David Sox "who worked at

[Left (enlarge)[59]: Extract from the Fall 2011 issue of Accents, the magazine of the American School in London, which records that "David Sox (1974-93)" was in the same room of an English pub with "Anthony Linick (1984-2002)" at a reunion of "ASL faculty and staff, past and present" only ~5 years before his 2016 reply email to me that he had only met Sox "once or twice" in 13 years! Clearly Anthony Linick was lying about not knowing Sox, which can only be because he had helped his half-brother Timothy make contact with Sox, so he could leak Arizona's first "1350" radiocarbon date of the Shroud to the English media through him! And although the years are different "Sox (1974-93)" and "Linick (1984-2002)," they still overlapped from 1984-1993, i.e. 9 years, which included 1988.]

the American School in London":

"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."[60].
This seems most implausible, on several counts: 1) "David Sox" is an unusual name. 2) In my first message of 2 January to Anthony Linick, I wrote that in "1988 ... Sox was in England"[61]. 3) In my experience as a relief (substitute, supply) teacher for 6 years from 2010-2015 at over a dozen different high schools, it would be highly unlikely (to put it mildly) that two teachers could work in the same school for 13 years and indeed in the same middle school faculty, and only "meet ... once or twice." In my experience they would have met daily, if not at least weekly!

Anthony's email continued:

"I also knew that he [Sox] wrote on religious topics. However I do not recall his ever seeking me out (in spite of a rather uncommon last name) or putting any questions to me about Timothy Linick and I certainly did not know of his interest in the shroud nor did I have anything to do with putting him in contact with my half-brother."[62].
The implausibilities continue: 4) how would Anthony Linick know that Sox wrote on "religious topics" and not know that most (if not all) of Sox's religious writings (including three books in 1978, 1981 and 1988) were on the topic of the Shroud? 5) Sox was well-known at ASL for "his interest in the shroud." In his first 1978 book on the Shroud, Sox wrote that his "associates (i.e. fellow teachers) and students at the American School in London have had to suffer through much of this project":
"My associates and students at the American School in London have had to suffer through much of this project and I appreciate their forbearance and good humour"[63].
6) As we saw above, in May 1988 the BBC filmed part of its Timewatch program about dating the Shroud, arranged by Sox, in an ASL science laboratory, which Anthony must surely have been aware of. 7) Linick's "I do not recall" again sounds evasive (see his "I can't remember" 22Feb16e) Sox's ever seeking him out. And 8) Since Sox was communicating in 1988 with an American Timothy Linick, with the same "uncommon last name," it is hard to believe that Sox would not have asked his work colleague, Anthony Linick, if he was related to a Timothy Linick who worked at the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory which had been chosen to date the Shroud?

Linick would have contacted Sox, not vice-versa. Linick was not an Arizona laboratory leader, but an ordinary `backroom' scientist, who would have been unknown outside of specialist radiocarbon dating circles [see 22Feb16f]. So Sox, who lived in England, would not likely have known that Linick existed, let alone quoted him. Sox had written on radiocarbon dating the Shroud in his two pre-1988 books, "File on the Shroud" (1978) and "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?" (1981). For example:

"My special interest came to be in the possibility of having the Shroud carbon dated, a pursuit which took me to Turin many times ..."[64].
"Carbon dating has been the most suggested test for the Shroud and has come to be the decisive test for authenticating many historical objects. ..."[65].
"If all the negative elements regarding the current study were removed or resolved - even if carbon dating gave the linen an 'acceptable date', there is no way ever to have a one-to-one identification of the cloth's figure with Jesus of Nazareth"[66].
"The New Mexico conference of 1977 placed carbon dating at the top of priority tests it recommended and the proposals were presented in Turin months later. McCrone [Walter McCrone (1916-2002) had been seen at New Mexico as the best person to oversee the carbon dating situation ..."[67].
"What carbon dating could do, is rarely mentioned in Turin - exactly what was done for the debate of the Dead Sea Scrolls - remove it once and for all from the Middle Ages, or place it squarely there for all time."[68].
"Joseph Noble has said, `In order to detect a forgery, it is best to remember that every object made by man carries within it the evidence of the time and place of its manufacture' If the Turin Shroud is not the 'real thing', what is the evidence of its 'time and place' being the fourteenth century?"[69].
So Timothy Linick, since he was interested in carbon-dating the Shroud to prove or disprove its authenticity (as shown by his words quoted by Sox above), would likely have read Sox's books, and knowing that his half-brother worked with Sox, asked Anthony to help him make contact with him. Although it is possible that Anthony, knowing that Sox was interested in carbon-dating the Shroud, told Sox that his half-brother worked at Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory. But even then, it is more likely that Sox would have asked Anthony to arrange for Timothy to contact him, than for Sox to contact Timothy direct.

Linick needed to create a climate of expectation that the Shroud's date was medieval. The hacker (Timothy Linick according to my theory) would have needed to create a climate of expectation so that the laboratories would accept without question that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was medieval [see 24Jun14c, 31Mar15, 22Sep15, 22Feb16g, 15Aug17c & 28Oct18d]. Arizona's first "1350"

[Right (enlarge): Extract from Table 1 in the 1989 Nature paper, showing the dates of each run at each laboratory of Sample 1, the Shroud[70]. The dates are years before 1950[71]. Thus the corrected mean of Arizona's first date was actually 1950-591=1359, i.e. it overlapped by 4 years the first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c.1355. In fact, as pointed out in 23Jun18b the mean of Arizona's first date is not a typical one: it is the lowest of all the laboratories' means! And because lowest is most recent, it is the upper limit of the dating's calendar years! But see 29May19b where 591±30 was the result of a fraudulent combining of two dates, 606±41 and 574±45.]

radiocarbon date of the Shroud was probably "hard wired" for its psychological and media leak value [see 31Mar15 & 22Feb16g]. This is supported by the fact that, as can be seen above, it is the the lowest of all the laboratories' means, and therefore the most recent of all the laboratories' dates!

That the "1350" date had the psychological effect of overriding the scientists' critical faculties is evident from Gove's eyewitness description of Arizona laboratory's first dating run of the Shroud:

"The first sample run was OX1 [an oxalic acid standard]. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The age of the control sample could have been calculated on a small pocket calculator but was not-everyone was waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue. His face became instantly drawn and pale. At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first. It had taken me eleven years to arrange for a measurement that took only ten minutes to accomplish! Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began"[72].
Note how uncritical Gove, and indeed all present were, including Douglas Donahue, the co-founder of Arizona laboratory[73], who is a Roman Catholic and believed that the Shroud was authentic[74]. Gove even wrote approvingly of Donahue, changing his mind and believing on the basis of one dating run, at one laboratory, that "this was the shroud's age":
"I remember Donahue saying that he did not care what results the other two laboratories got, this was the shroud's age. Although he was clearly disappointed in the result, he was justifiably confident that his AMS laboratory had produced the answer to the shroud's age"[75].

End of this series? I have decided to end this series here. I was going to conclude with a summary of the evidence that the Shroud's radiocarbon dating was the result of a computer hacking, by Timothy Linick, aided by Karl Koch, when I realised that I will do that when I get to my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia topics "hacking," "Kock, K" and "Linick, T," admittedly a long time in the future. But, I have left this series open with the next post in it, "To be advised." I am hopeful that Jesus, the Man on the Shroud, who is ruling over all (Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9), will cause to be brought to light further new evidence which confirms my theory. Also, with the end of this series, I want to start a new series: "Turin Shroud: the Evidence," which will supersede my unfinished series, "The Shroud of Turin." Also, as mentioned in a comment under this post, I want to start a series responding to Cserhati, M. & Carter, R., "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?", 16 August 2019.

1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
3. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
4. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 26 April 2019. [return]
5. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
6. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176H. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
8. Ibid. [return]
9. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
10. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, pp.146-147; Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
11. Linick, A., 2016a, Email "Re: David Sox," 25 February, 3:58 PM.. [return]
12. "Linick, T.W.," Death notice in The Los Angeles Times, 9 June 1989; Suess, H.E. & Linick, T.W., 1990, "The 14C Record in Bristlecone Pine Wood of the past 8000 Years Based on the Dendrochronology of the Late C. W. Ferguson," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 330, April 24, pp.403-412. [return]
13. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
14. Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse: Bloomington IN, p.619. [return]
15. Linick, A., 2016a, Email "Re: David Sox," 24 February, 1:04 AM. [return]
16. Linick, A., Email "Re: A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 3 January 2016, 11:08 PM. [return]
17. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
18. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
19. Clauss, U., 2012, "Ancestor of the Pirate Party was charred in the forest," Die Welt, 25 May 2012. Translated by Google. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.281. [return]
21. "Anthony Linick," Wikipedia, 4 July 2019. [return]
22. Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse: Bloomington IN, p.250. [return]
23. Linick, A., Email "Re: A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 3 January 2016, 11:08 PM. [return]
24. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
25. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
26. "Kenneth Rose - obituary," The Telegraph, 29 January 2014; Shawcross, W., 2014, "Kenneth Rose: we'll miss his wit, warmth and wry sense of humour," The Telegraph, 1 February. [return]
27. Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [return]
28. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
29. Wilson, 1988. [return]
30. "Birthdays: Dr Richard Luckett," The Times, July 1 2010. [return]
31. Wilson, 1988. [return]
32. Ibid. [return]
33. Gove, 1996, p.277. [return]
34. Gove, 1996, pp.277-278. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, p.278. [return]
38. Gove, 1996, p.314. [return]
39. Sox, 1988, p.95; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.192-193. [return]
40. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
41. "In Memory of Harold David Sox, April 24, 1936 - August 28, 2016," Trident Society, Rancho Mirage CA, 28 September 2017. [return]
42. Wilson, 1988, pp.1-2; Wilson, 1998, p.310. [return]
43. Gove, 1996, p.282. [return]
44. Wilson, 1988, p.2. [return]
45. Ibid. [return]
46. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
47. Ibid. [return]
48. Ibid. [return]
49. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
50. "Anthony Linick: Academic life," Wikipedia, 4 July 2019. [return]
51. Gove, 1996, p.8. [return]
52. Gove, 1996, pp.20-21. [return]
53. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
54. Gove, 1996, p.309. [return]
55. Jones, S.E., "Re: A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 3 January 2016, 11:16 pm. [return]
56. Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks' ...," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [return]
57. Jones, S.E., Email "Re: David Sox," 23 February 2016, 10:20 PM. [return]
58. Ibid. [return]
59. "Accents 2011 - American School in London," 11 October 2011. [return]
60. Linick, A., Email "Re: David Sox," 24 February 2016, 1:04 AM. [return]
61. Jones, S.E., Message, "A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 2 January 2016, 6:19 am.. [return]
62. Linick, 24 February 2016. [return]
63. Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, p.14. [return]
64. Sox, 1978, p.12. [return]
65. Sox, 1978, p.146. [return]
66. Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, p.v. [return]
67. Sox, 1981, p.22. [return]
68. Sox, 1981, p.132. [return]
69. Sox, 1981, p.133. [return]
70. Damon, et al., 1989, p.612. [return]
71. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
72. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
73. "About us: Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory," University of Arizona, 2019. [return]
74. 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.188. [return]
75. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]

Posted 3 August 2019. Updated 23 December 2023.


Stephen E. Jones said...


Again thanks for the following comment under my post, "Allen, N: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia". I have copied your comment to here under my current post, where more of my readers might see it.

>I have avidly followed your blog for quite some time now and have learned much.

Thank you.

>Another site on the web that I have read for many years and highly esteem is However, they recently published an article entitled "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?" which I believe seriously misses the mark. I don't know whether you have seen the article or not, ...

I was unaware of this article. You are right that it "seriously misses the mark"!

It is strange that a Young Earth Creation publication would attack the Shroud, since: 1) it has nothing directly to do with creation; 2) it is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which is evidence that Christianity and therefore Creation is true); 3) it would turn off many of its creationist readers who believe that the Shroud is authentic (like yourself); and 4) it sides with atheist/agnostics like Richard Dawkins on an issue, carbon dating, that Young Earth Creationist normally reject:


Stephen E. Jones said...


"Carbon dating is a comparatively recent invention, going back only to the 1940s. In its early years, substantial quantities of organic material were needed for the dating procedure. Then, in the 1970s, a technique called mass spectrometry was adapted to carbon dating, with the result that only a tiny quantity of organic material is now needed. This has revolutionized archaeological dating. The most celebrated example is the Shroud of Turin. Since this notorious piece of cloth seems mysteriously to have imprinted on it the image of a bearded, crucified man, many people hoped it might hail from the time of Jesus. It first turns up in the historical record in the mid-fourteenth century in France, and nobody knows where it was before that. It has been housed in Turin since 1578, under the custody of the Vatican since 1983. When mass spectrometry made it possible to date a tiny sample of the shroud, rather than the substantial swathes that would have been needed before, the Vatican allowed a small strip to be cut off. The strip was divided into three parts and sent to three leading laboratories specializing in carbon dating, in Oxford, Arizona and Zurich. Working under conditions of scrupulous independence - not comparing notes [sic] - the three laboratories reported their verdicts on the date when the flax from which the cloth had been woven died. Oxford said AD 1200, Arizona 1304 and Zurich 1274. These dates are all - within normal margins of error - compatible with each other and with the date in the 1350s at which the shroud is first mentioned in history. The dating of the shroud remains controversial, but not for reasons that cast doubt on the carbon-dating technique itself. For example, the carbon in the shroud might have been contaminated by a fire, which is known to have occurred in 1532. I won't pursue the matter further, because the shroud is of historical, not evolutionary, interest. It is a nice example, however, to illustrate the method; and the fact that, unlike dendrochronology, it is not accurate to the nearest year, only to the nearest century or so." (Dawkins, R., 2009, "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution," Black Swan: London, reprinted, 2010, pp.105-106)

>but I think it would be interesting if an expert such as yourself at least engaged them in polite conversation on the subject. So far, all of the comments to the article have been made by people with little to no real knowledge.

I won't "engage" them, but I will respond to the article point-by-point in a new multi-part series under the heading, "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?" when I have completed my current series above, and posted my July Shroud of Turin News.

Stephen E. Jones
MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. To avoid time-wasting debate, I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.