My Hacker Theory in a nutshell (6) #41
This is the eighteenth installment of "My Hacker Theory in a nutshell (6)," Part 6 "Objections answered and Conclusion," part #41 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. See Part 1 for more information about this 6-part series. Although a reference date may be the same (e.g. "15Sep16"), when clicked it will open at the correct place in the source.
[Index #1] [Previous: My Hacker Theory (5) #40] [Next: To be advised #42].
• Conspiracy theory This was a favourite of Dan Porter of the
[Right (enlarge[FCW]): In the movie "Conspiracy Theory" the conspiracy turned out to be true! So it is not that all conspiracy theories are automatically false, but that there are both true and false conspiracy theories.]
Shroud of Turin Blog. For example: "Stephen Jones Continues his Computer Hacking Conspiracy Theory"[05Jul14]; and "I Tried to Ignore the Carbon Dating Computer Hacking Conspiracy Theory" [18May15]. For Porter it was sufficient to label my Hacker Theory a "conspiracy theory" for him to dismiss it as false, without bothering to consider the evidence for it. Although I cannot find by searching other posts by Porter which dismised my Hacker Theory as a "conspiracy theory," I can find my responses to Porter's "conspiracy theory" dismissals of my Hacker Theory:
‐ The KGB did conspire with hackers In an early post [31Mar14] on my hacker proposal (before I called it a theory), I wrote:
"While I do not claim that Timothy W. Linick WAS a hacker, nor that his untimely death WAS suicide, let alone an execution by the KGB designed to look like suicide, it nevertheless is worth keeping in mind as a possible piece of the jigsaw. This will no doubt be dismissed as a `conspiracy theory' by those who prefer mindless slogans to thinking. But it is a FACT that the KGB did CONSPIRE with hackers, notably Karl Koch, of whose death Wikipedia notes that, `there is little evidence supporting suicide and many believe that Koch was killed in order to keep him from confessing more to the authorities'. And it is a FACT that the KGB did CONSPIRE with hacker Markus Hess whom Clifford Stoll caught" (emphasis original)Note the tentative start to my Hacker Theory, which I originally called a "proposal"[22Feb14; 13Mar14; 31Mar14; 18Apr14; 24May14] as I sought more evidence for (and against) it. This is the opposite of false conspiracy theories which start full-blown, with little evidence to support them.
‐ Neither Koch nor the KGB were essential to my Hacker Theory[13Dec14; 03Jun15; 30Jun15; 02Jun16; 15Sep16]. Although my Hacker Theory later became a theory that Linick conspired with the KGB to have his program installed on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers[15Sep16; 15Jul18], originally I was open to the possibility that Linick had not conspired with anyone, but had acted alone (for example had visited those two laboratories to install his program as a software update)[13Dec14; 30Jun15; 15Sep16; 15Jul18]. This is an important point, as false conspiracy theories do not admit the possibility that there was no conspiracy.
‐ That all conspiracy theories are automatically false is a "modern day superstition" An early, but since deleted, paragraph in Wikipedia's "Conspiracy theory" article pointed out that that "belief in conspiracy theories can be rational and that the skepticism of conspiracy theorising ... is akin to a modern day superstition":
"A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis ... Although the term `conspiracy theory' has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies, it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate ... [and] some thinkers, particularly philosophers, have argued that belief in conspiracy theories can be rational and that the skepticism of conspiracy theorising ... is akin to a modern day superstition"[30Jun15].‐ My Hacker Theory does not fit Wikipedia's definition of a "conspiracy theory" [15Sep16]
"A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy (generally by powerful sinister groups, often political in motivation), when other explanations are more probable. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence. A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians" (my emphasis)[CTW]."when other explanations are more probable" Shroud sceptics (and perhaps the current majority of Shroudies) would disagree that my Hacker Theory is the most probable explanation why the first-century Shroud has a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date. But see the future Conclusion why my Hacker Theory is.
"the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence" My Hacker Theory is based on sufficient evidence.
"opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy." Shroudies are the best qualified to evaluate the accuracy of my Hacker Theory, and I am quietly confident that the majority of them will eventually accept it. The "mainstream consensus among ... scientists or historians" is that the Shroud has a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date. But they are wrong, because, as we saw in Part 2, there is historical and artistic evidence that "the Shroud is more than seven centuries ... older than its earliest "1260" radiocarbon date ... and so that date cannot be correct."
• Circumstantial evidence
‐ `Your Hacker Theory is based only on circumstantial evidence.' I am not aware of anyone who has made that criticism of my Hacker Theory, so this is my response to an anticipated criticism of it[15Sep16].
‐ Circumstantial evidence is indirect, by contrast with direct evidence. According to Wikipedia:
"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact, such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly, i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference"[CVW].Wikipedia gives examples of direct and circumstantial evidence:
"For example, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness saying that she saw a defendant enter a house, heard screaming, and saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife [and a victim is found in the house with a bleeding stab wound] is circumstantial evidence. It is the need for inference, and not the obviousness of the fact inferred, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial"[CVW].I had admitted that, "Absent a confession or a statement by someone involved in the ... radiocarbon dating of the Shroud ... or in its hacking ... or the discovery of direct evidence of the hacking ... my theory will remain circumstantial":
"Absent a confession or a statement by someone involved in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud (e.g. a scientist in one of the three laboratories), or in its hacking (e.g. a KGB agent), that the dating was the result of a computer hacking; or the discovery of direct evidence of the hacking (e.g. Linick' program still on one of the three laboratories' old AMS computers or backup tapes), my theory will remain circumstantial"[15Sep16].I had acknowledged this in previous posts and comments:
"... Although I don't yet have a `smoking gun' clue [I now do have-see future] that PROVES: 1) that the 3 labs were hacked; 2) that Linick was a hackers; and 3) that Koch was the other hacker involved in the C14 dating. I am in the position that a police detective would be in the early stage of a crime investigation. I have a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to a crime having been committed and I have two suspects. But unlike a detective I have no authority or ability to further investigate the crime by visiting the crime scenes and asking questions of those who would be in a position to know more information that would either confirm or refute my suspicions.[08May14].Wikipedia continues:
"Even though my theory at this early stage is entirely circumstantial, lacking as yet a `smoking gun' [It now does not lack that-see future] ..."[13Jun14]
"On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out" (my emphasis)[CVW].In my Hacker Theory posts I have posted many different items of evidence which support my Hacker Theory. And I have reviewed all other Shroudie explanations that I am aware of, and shown them to be fatally flawed (see Part 3). That all the sceptics' explanations which I am aware of all fail was the subject of a previous series. This leaves my Hacker Theory more likely to be the only true explanation why the first-century Shroud has a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date[15Sep16].
Either I had overlooked it, or it wasn't there in 2016 when I posted my "circumstantial evidence" post[15Sep16], that Wikipedia calls it "A popular misconception ... that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence" when "circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other".
"A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence, which is popularly assumed to be the most powerful, but this is not the case. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. The common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict"[CVW].Obviously, a confession from Linick himself (e.g. in a diary entry), a statement that Linick was a hacker by his estranged wife Constance Blackburn (1952-2016) (who interestingly changed her name back to her maiden name), or that Linick had hacked the Shroud's radiocarbon dating by Arizona Laboratory leaders Paul Damon (1921-2005) and Douglas Donahue (1924-2020), or the unoficial leader of the laboratories, Harry Gove (1922-2009, would be direct evidence that Linick had hacked the Shroud's dating, but as can be seen, they are all deceased.
Nevertheless, as we saw in Part 5, there is "circumstantial evidence ... from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other," including a "smoking gun" (the mention of the single word "espionage" by a German-sounding male, who said in a March 1989 phone call to "Harry" that he had been involved in falsifying the results of the Shroud's 1988 dating, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the caller was Karl Koch[14May25]) which is "strong circumstantial evidence" that does "provide a ... reliable basis for a verdict" that Linick, aided by Koch, did hack the Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date!
■ Conclusion In conclusion, we saw in:
• Part 1. The 1989 Nature article contains evidence that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking. For one, "the mean date of Arizona's first run, 1359, was the most recent (youngest) of all three laboratories' 12 dating runs ... the mean date of Oxford's first run, 1155, was the least recent (oldest) of all three laboratories' 12 dating runs ... [and] the mean date of Zurich's first run, 1217, was the least recent (oldest) of Zurich's 5 dating runs. The chance of this happening is 1/4 x 1/3 × 1/5 = 1/60." These first run dates of each laboratory were part of the hacker's algorithm.
• Part 2. There is historical and artistic evidence that the Shroud is much older than the earliest, 1260, radiocarbon date. For more historical and artistic evidence that the Shroud was in existence long before 1260, see my early Hacker Theory posts: 29Mar14; 04May14; 11May14 & 18May14, and my "Open letter to Professor Christopher Ramsey" [04Oct18].
• Part 3. Other Shroudie explanations all fail [28Febr25]. Other Shroudie explanations why the first century Shroud has a 1260-1390 = 1325±65 radiocarbon date contain fatal flaws. This includes the Neutron Flux theory; the Carbon Contamination theory; the Bioplastic Coating theory; the Invisible Reweave theory and the Sample Switch theory.
• Part 4. The primary hacker was Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[07Apr25]. See the next Part 5 for proof beyond reasonable doubt that my Linick-Koch Hacker Theory is true!
• Part 5. The secondary hacker was German hacker, Karl Koch (1965-89). [14May25]
"... just as Robinson Crusoe's discovery of a single footprint in the sand was proof beyond reasonable doubt that he was no longer the only human on his island, so the mention of the single word "espionage" by a German-sounding male, who said in a March 1989 phone call to "Harry" that he had been involved in falsifying the results of the Shroud's 1988 dating, is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the caller was Karl Koch!It is therefore a `two factor authentication' that my Linick-Koch Hacker Theory is true, and therefore the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud is the greatest scientific fraud of all time (because of its length of time - ~37 years and counting; the many millions of persons misled, and its obstacle to saving Christian faith (Mt 18:6; Mk 9:42; Lk 17:2) of millions)!
However, I do not claim that the laboratories knew that Linick had hacked the Shroud's radiocarbon dates, but that they were duped by him.
To be continued in the ninteenth 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.
Bibliography
CTW. "Conspiracy theory," Wikipedia, 16 June 2025.
CVW. "Circumstantial evidence," Wikipedia, 21 March 2025.
FCW. "File:Conspiracy theory poster.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 18 July 2024.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
Posted 14 June 2025. Updated 2 July 2025.