My Hacker Theory in a nutshell: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

My Hacker Theory in a nutshell #35

This is the second installment of "My Hacker Theory in a nutshell," part #35 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. It will help me write chapter 16, "Were the laboratories duped by a hacker?," of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" See 06Jul17, 03Jun18, 04Apr22, 13Jul22, 8 Nov 22 & 20Jun24.

Newcomers start with: "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell"

[Previous: Science and the Shroud (1) #34] [Next: To be advised].

As I mentioned in my Shroud of Turin News, September - December 2024: I have realised that before I write my open letter to Nature (see here), I need to write a "My Hacker Theory in a Nutshell" post, along the lines of my, "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell." That is, a (hopefully) one-page summary of my Hacker Theory, with links to my previous posts on it. It will be based mainly on my previous series': "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" (18Feb14); "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" (24May14) and "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking" (23Jul15).

• Evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet[18Feb14; 24May14; 23Jul15], and therefore its linen is first century or earlier[09Jan14].

• Three radiocarbon dating laboratories dated the Shroud "1260-1390!"

[Right: Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), M. Tite (British Museum) and R. Hedges (Oxford) announcing on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud of Turin had been radiocarbon dated "1260-1390!"[24May14].]

Yet in 1988 three radiocarbon dating laboratories, Arizona, Oxford and Zurich, dated the Shroud's linen as "1260-1390!"[18Feb14; 07Mar14; 11Apr17].

• Mid-point of 1260-1390 is 1325 ± 65 The mid-point of 1260-1390 is 1325 ± 65, which `just happens' to be exactly 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in 1355[29Mar14; 02Dec14; 11Apr17]! But the actual date range of all three laboratories combined and averaged was "1262-1384"[22Jan25]. Tite, the author of the Nature article, committed "scientific fraud" by "making results appear just a little crisper or more definitive than they really are," first by rounding to the nearest 10 years the actual "1262-1384" dates, when he didn't need to, and second by rounding "1384" to "1390," when 1380 was closer to 1384 than 1390[22Jan25]

To be continued the third installment of this post.

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]

Bibliography

Posted 28 January 2025. Updated 30 January 2025.