"Gn-Gq": Turin Shroud Dictionary

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

"Gn-Gq"

This is page "Gn-Gq" (formerly "Gn-Gz") of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. The next page in this series will be "Gr-Gz". For more information about this dictionary see the "Main index A-Z" and page "A."

[Index] [Previous: "Ga-Gm"] [Next: "Gr-Gz"]

[Gonella, Luigi] [Gospels] [Gove, Harry]

---

Gonella, Luigi. Luigi Gonella (1930-2007) was an engineer, nuclear physicist, and a Professor of Metrology (the science of measurement) at Turin Polytechnic University. He was the chief scientific adviser to the Archbishop of Turin.

[Right (enlarge): Luigi Gonella (C) in 1978 receiving an official complaint by STURP's John Jackson (R) about Max Frei's (L) attempt to press his pollen collecting sticky tape onto the face of the Man on the Shroud[2]. See Prof. Harry Gove's objection below on "Jackson ... wearing a rather large wooden cross around his neck" in this photo.]

In 1978 Gonella coordinated the scientific investigation of the Shroud by the Shroud of Turin Project (STURP). In 1983 the Shroud's owner, ex-King Umberto II of Savoy (1913-83) died and his will stipulated that the Pope and his successors was to be the Shroud's owner and the Archbishop of Turin its custodian. Therefore when in 1986 it was agreed that the Shroud was to be radiocarbon dated, Gonella had to reluctantly negotiate with the Pope's scientific adviser, the eminent Brazilian biophysicist, Professor Carlos Chagas (1910-2000). Chagas had agreed with the laboratories that seven laboratories would date the Shroud, five using the new AMS method and two using the new generation of small gas counter method which did not need large cloth samples. The unofficial leader of the laboratories, Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009) arrogantly regarded Gonella as "a second rate scientist" and naively assumed he could bypass Gonella and the then Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (1913–98) and deal directly with Chagas and the Pope [see "Gove" below]. But Gonella rejected the "absurd" proposal that it needed seven laboratories to date the Shroud, as there is "no other archaeological dating for which more than two laboratories have been used, and that three is therefore more than adequate." So in 1987 Ballestrero, on Gonella' advice, announced that only three AMS laboratories: Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, would date the Shroud. Gove's Rochester AMS laboratory was excluded, despite it being the most experienced of the three because of, as Gove later admitted, his lack of "diplomacy," in riding roughshod over Gonella and Ballestrero. Further, instead of the laboratories' chosen textile expert, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, choosing where to cut the Shroud sample and then cutting it, Gonella himself chose the sample site and had a Turin microanalyst, Giovanni Riggi (1935-2008) cut the sample. And consistent with Turin's evident priority as custodian to minimise damage to the Shroud, Riggi was ordered by Gonella to cut the sample from Raes' corner, the most damaged and contaminated part of the Shroud. However, inconsistent with Turin's priority is that "Riggi cut double what was actually going to be given to the three labs ... divided one half into three segments, the other half being retained as a `reserve piece.'" Presumably this reserve piece was to let the laboratories know that Turin could arrange a check of their results if necessary. In 1988 and 2003 Gonella sent STURP members Alan D. Adler and Ray Rogers, respectively, threads from the `reserve sample'. And in 1993 Riggi gave threads from the `reserve sample' to Leoncio Garza-Valdes [see "Garza-Valdes, Leoncio"].

At a 2000 Shroud symposium in Turin, Gonella repeated his support for the accuracy of the 1988 dating. However, in this he shows he has the same blinkers on that his fellow nuclear physicists Gove, Hall, Tite, etc., had. Gonella sounded like Gove and Hall in his arrogant dismissal of the objections to the "mediaeval. ... AD 1260-1390" radiocarbon date of the Shroud:

"Actually, none of the objections is scientifically valid, and they were mostly raised by incompetent people. These objections come under three main headings: (a) refusal to accept the validity of the radiocarbon dating method itself; (b) substitution of the samples; (c) `rejuvenation' of the Shroud fabric by one or more of several processes ... for the Shroud of Turin ... we have no real evidence before the 14th century ..." (my emphasis)[3]

But apart from simply dismissing physicists like Jackson and chemists like Adler as "incompetent people," Gonella's point "(a)" above is simply false. None of those who objected to the Shroud's 13th/14th century radiocarbon date, refused to "accept the validity of the radiocarbon dating method itself." Even more false and a symptom of Gonella's (like Gove and Hall's) nuclear physicist blinkers is Gonella's absurd claim that "for the Shroud of Turin ... we have no real evidence before the 14th century." However, Gonella is correct in "(b) substitution of the samples" and "(c) `rejuvenation' of the Shroud fabric by one or more of several processes" for which he gives good (if not devastating) arguments. See also my "Accusations of conventional fraud (sample-switching) fail" and "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail." Gonella and Ballestrero's decision to reduce the laboratories from seven, using two different methods, to three using only one method, AMS, motivated no doubt to cause the least damage to the Shroud, made it possible for a hacker, allegedly Timothy W. Linick [see future "hacker" and "Linick"], to write a program to substitute the Shroud's first (or early because of irremovable contamination) century date with computer-generated dates which when calibrated, combined and averaged [see future "Hacking"], would make the Shroud wrongly appear to be a medieval fake in the eyes of the duped laboratories, Gonella, the media and the public!

Gospel of the Hebrews (see "Servant of the Priest").

Gospels (and the New Testament). The Shroud of Turin is fully consistent with the Christian Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.
1. Jesus was scourged [Gk. phragelloosas] with a Roman flagrum (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15). The man on the Shroud has over 100 dumbbell-shaped scourge marks on his body consistent with him being flogged with a lead-tipped, three-thonged, Roman flagrum.

[Right (enlarge): "... the markings on the Shroud are ... consistent with the Biblical accounts of the crucifixion of Christ."[4].]

2. Jesus had a twisted `crown' [Gk stephanon] of thorns put on His head (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2,5). The Shroud man has numerous bloodflows from puncture wounds around his head consistent with a cap of twisted thorns having been pressed down over his head.
3. Jesus with His hands bound (Mk 15:1; Jn 18:12) was struck on His face and about His head on several occasions by a Jewish official (Jn 18:22), Jewish guards (Mt 26:67; Mk 16:65; Lk 22:63-64) and Roman soldiers (Mt 27:30; Mk 15:19; Jn 19:3). The man on the Shroud has a heavily swollen right eye and damage to his nose, left cheek and the chin, consistent with having been repeatedly struck in the face and beaten around the head.
4. Jesus' clothes were put back on him (Mt 27:31; Mk 15:20), as a concession to Jewish sensibilities against public nakedness, and He was made to carry His own cross (Jn 19:17), presumably only the crossbeam or patibulum, to Golgotha (Mt 27:33; Mk 15:22; Lk 23:26). The Shroudman's shoulders have chafing and the scourge wounds there are abraded away, from carrying on his shoulders a heavy object, like a wooden crossbeam.
5. A passerby, Simon of Cyrene, was compelled by the Romans to carry Jesus' cross behind Him (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26). Jesus would have been weakened by unusually severe scourging He had been subjected to, which had been originally intended by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate to be in place of crucifixion. The man on the Shroud has cuts and bruises on both knees, but especially the left knee, indicating that he fell repeatedly to his knees on a hard surface.
6. The Roman soldiers divided Jesus' garments among them (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:23), which means they stripped Jesus naked before crucifying Him. The man on the Shroud is completely naked.
7. Jesus was crucified (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18) by nailing Him to a cross (Col 2:14) through His hands and feet (Lk 24:39-40; Jn 20:20,25). The Shroud man has wounds and bloodflows from large nails in the base of his hands and his feet.
8. Jesus died on the cross (Mt 27:50,58; Mk 15:37,43; Lk 23:46,52; Jn 19:30,33). The man on the Shroud is dead. His body is stiff from rigor mortis and some of his bloodflows are post-mortem. See below on "legs not broken" and "speared in the side."
9. Jesus' legs were not broken by the Roman executioners (by an iron club called the crurifragium) to hasten His death by asphyxiation, because He was already dead (Jn 19:30-33). The Shroud man's legs are not broken.
10. One of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear to make sure that He was dead, and out flowed blood and water (Jn 19:33-34). The man on the Shroud has a large stain of blood and watery fluid from a wound in his right side to his heart, which matches a Roman lancea (lance).
11. A small cloth (Gk soudarion) was placed over Jesus' face (Jn 20:7; 11:44), probably while He was hanging dead on the cross. There is an "exact fit of the stains" on the Sudarium of Oviedo "with the beard on the face" of the man on the Shroud (my emphasis). This can only reasonably mean that Sudarium of Oviedo, which has been in Spain since the early 7th century, is the "the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head" (Jn 20:7) in the empty tomb.
12. Jesus body was enfolded in a "linen shroud" [Gk sindon] (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53).
13. Preparation of Jesus' body for burial was hasty and incomplete because of the shortness of time between Jesus' death at about "the ninth hour" (3pm) and the imminent sabbath which began at sunset (Mt 27:46,50; Mk 15:33,37; Lk 23:44,46). In the interim, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for permission to be granted Jesus' body (Mt 27:57-58; Mk 15:43,45; Lk 23:50-53; Jn 19:38); Pilate sent for the centurion in charge (Mt 27:54; Mk 15:39) to confirm that Jesus was dead (Mk 15:44-45); Joseph and presumably Nicodemus (Jn 19:39) took Jesus' body down from the cross (Mt 27:58-59; Mk 15:45; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:38), pulled out the nails from Jesus' hands and feet (Lk 24:39-40; Jn 20:20,25; Col 2:14); laid Jesus' body on the linen shroud (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) and carried it to the nearby tomb (Jn 19:41-42). There is no mention of washing Jesus' body as was normal in Jewish burials (Acts 9:36-37). That the women prepared spices after the sabbath and brought them to the tomb early Sunday morning to anoint Jesus' body (Mk 16:1; Lk 23:56-24:1) shows that Jesus' burial preparation had been incomplete. Similarly the man on the Shroud's burial was incomplete. According to the Mishnah, a Jewish male's body had to be washed and the hair and beard shaven before burial. Even though the late Dr. Fred Zugibe (1928-2013) claimed that the Shroudman's body was washed (wrongly in the opinion of most Shroud scholars), there can be no dispute that his hair and beard were not shaven, which is enough to establish that his burial was incomplete, which could only be because there was not time to complete it, which in turn could only be if a sabbath prevented further work.
14. A large quantity of spices [Gk aroomatoon] were placed around the linen shroud in which Jesus' body lay (Jn 19:40). Traces of the spices aloes and myrrh have been detected on the Shroud.
15. Jesus, wrapped in a linen shroud, was buried in a "tomb ... cut in the rock" (Mt 27:60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53), with a large rolling stone to seal its entrance (Mt 27:60; 28:2; Mk 15:46; 16:3-4; Lk 24:2). The rocks around Jerusalem, from which Jesus' tomb was cut, are of a comparatively rare form of limestone called travertine aragonite. The dirt on the feet of the man on the Shroud contains the same comparatively rare form of limestone, travertine aragonite. Moreover, the chemical signature of trace elements including strontium and iron, matches very closely the travertine aragonite in the dirt on the feet of the man on the Shroud.
16. Jesus' body was raised from the dead "on the third day" (Mt 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 27:64; Lk 9:21-22; 18:31-33; 24:36-46; Acts 10:39-40; 1Cor 15:4). That is, He lay dead in the tomb from sunset Friday to at, or before, dawn on Monday, a maximum of about 36 hours. Therefore Jesus' body "did not see corruption" (Acts 13:37; 2:22-31; Ps 16:10). There are no signs of decomposition on the Shroud man's body.
17. Jesus' body instantly changed state at His resurrection (1Cor 15:51-53; Php 3:20-21). The blood clots which had adhered to both the Shroud cloth and the man on the Shroud's body are intact, which could not happen by any human means, or naturally, without breaking or smearing the clots. This could only happen if the man's body became "mechanically transparent" to the Shroud cloth, as in the Resurrection of Christ.

The "exact fit of the stains" on the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud, together with all these other above matches between the Gospels and the Shroud of Turin, prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is that "linen shroud" which once covered the dead body of Jesus! Shroud sceptics Steven Schafersman and Joe Nickell admit that:

"Either the shroud is authentic ... or it is a product of human artifice."[5]

But no human artificer (i.e. a 14th century or earlier artist/forger) could have, or would have, produced all 17 of these features above which are common to both the Gospels/New Testament and the Shroud of Turin. Therefore, the Shroud of Turin, IS authentic!

Gove, Harry. Harry E. Gove (1922-2009) was a nuclear physicist and Professor of Physics at Rochester University, New York State. Gove was a pioneer of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) in

[Left (original): Professor Harry E. Gove, co-developer of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry radiocarbon dating[6].]

radiocarbon dating. This method allows the radiocarbon dating of much smaller samples, and since radiocarbon dating necessitates the destruction of a sample in reducing it to pure carbon, AMS dating is eminently suitable for dating precious artifacts, such as the Shroud. In 1977 Gove was approached privately by the Rev. David Sox, then General Secretary of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, who later turned anti-authenticist, and anti-authenticist microscopist Dr Walter McCrone (1916-2002), asking if Gove's new AMS method could date the Shroud. Gove replied that it could but that it was too early in AMS' development to do so. Gove had never heard of the Shroud but from then on he became interested in the idea of his AMS method being the first to carbon date the Cloth. In 1979 Gove wrote to the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (1913–98), on behalf of a Rochester-Brookhaven laboratories consortium, formally offering to radiocarbon date the Shroud by AMS and the new generation of conventional decay counting, but Gove's letter was never delivered to Ballestrero. Gove attended STURP and Shroud conferences, met STURP members, as well as Turin's Luigi Gonella (1930-2007) and Ballestrero. However, unknown to them Gove, by his own later admission, had a "disdain for those scientists who were 'true believers'" in the Shroud's authenticity. Unknown to STURP who supported Gove in his efforts to radiocarbon date the Shroud, Gove had an almost fanatical, and certainly unscientific, hidden agenda to exclude STURP from the carbon dating:

"...the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc. (STURP). They comprised mainly true believers in the shroud's authenticity ... Like all the scientific investigations that had gone before, their results were inconclusive and generally of negligible importance despite the time and money expended. I believed STURP's members to be so convinced it was Christ's shroud that I was determined to prevent their involvement in its carbon dating, if that were ever to come about. I feared the most important measurement that could be made on the shroud would be rendered less credible by their participation. Fortunately in this I was successful"[7]

Apart from this being a false statement (some, if not most, of STURP's members were initially sceptical that the Shroud was authentic), it shows Gove's anti-authenticist and indeed anti-Christian bias that he apparently was blind to. At a STURP meeting to which he had been invited, Gove falsely dismissed it as a "motley mixture ... a group of kids playing with expensive toys":

"During this whole meeting, I had been taking notes as if what this motley mixture of scientists, priests, ministers, and peacetime warriors were reporting provided significant information regarding the real question of the authenticity of the shroud. They seemed to me to be a group of kids playing with expensive toys, hoping they would reveal some ultimate truth - a truth of which most of them were already convinced"[8]

Gove evidently was not self-aware that as an "agnostic" he also had an "ultimate truth" (`it cannot be known if God exists') of which he was "already convinced"! Gove's anti-Christian bias is evident in his petty objection that at a STURP meeting four members were "wearing crosses around their necks":

"Throughout the whole of the day's discussions I kept wondering to myself why Jackson, Jumper, and another member of the STURP team were all wearing crosses around their necks. Hardly evidence of the dispassionate scientists they professed to be. So far as I knew, they were neither priests nor ministers. One, of course, should never knock piety, but its ostentatious display by these shroud scientists did nothing to recommend their scientific detachment. I suppose if I had not been on my best behaviour I would have baldly asked them the reason for this Christian ornamentation, but I refrained"[9]

Gove shows symptoms of a bad case of `God-itis' because again he mentioned "Jackson ... wearing a rather large wooden cross around his neck" (in the photo above):

"During the morning we visited Barrie Schwortz' photographic shop to look at his collection of 35 mm colour slides taken during STURP's five day examination of the shroud in 1978. ... One I find very amusing is a shot of Jackson and Max Frei - the Swiss forensic expert - examining the shroud ... Frei is about to apply a piece of sticky tape to the surface of the shroud to pick up pollen samples. Jackson is again wearing a rather large wooden cross around his neck."[10]

As if it would magically change Jackson's "scientific detachment" if he was not wearing a cross! It apparently never occurred to Gove's "agnostic" mindset that if Christianity is true (which it is), then the Shroud is more likely to be authentic (which it is), and that Christians with their bias are more likely to recognise that truth than "agnostics" like him. [See "Gonella" above for Gonella's reaction to Gove's lack of "diplomacy" towards STURP and Turin].

The most revealing part of Gove's 1996 book, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," is his description of the very first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud at Arizona laboratory on 6th May 1988:

"The first sample run was OX1 [an oxalic acid control]. 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" (my emphasis)[11].

As I have pointed out, this fully computer-controlled and results displayed AMS process, plus Gove's and the other scientists' uncritical acceptance of this "1350 AD" first date, is evidence that Gove and the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker, allegedly Timothy W. Linick. [see future "Hacking," "Linick," "Koch" and "Radiocarbon dating"].

Continued in page "Gr-Gz."

---

Notes:
1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Gove, Harry," not the whole page "Gn-Go"), provided a link and/or reference is provided back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return]
2. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.82-83. [return]
3. Gonella, L., "Discussant's contribution," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, 2000, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, p.510. [return]
4. Brooks, E.H., II., Miller, V.D. & Schwortz, B.M., 1981, "The Turin Shroud: Contemporary Insights to an Ancient Paradox," Worldwide Exhibition: Chicago IL, p.13. [return]
5. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
6. Extract from, "Dr. Harry Gove Co-developer, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," El carbono 14, por Manuel Carreira, Sabana Santa, 2013. [return]
7. Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.6-7. [return]
8. Gove, 1996, p.51. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, p.53. [return]
10. Ibid. [return]
11. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]

Posted 12 June 2015. Updated 16 March 2025.

Locations of the Shroud: Turin 1918-Present: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones

Locations of the Shroud: Turin 1918-Present

This is the entry, "Locations of the Shroud: Turin 1918-Present," in my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. It is a continuation from Locations of the Shroud: "Lirey c.1355-Chambéry 1471," "Chambéry 1471-Turin 1578," "Turin 1578-1694" and "Turin 1694-1918." I am working through the topics in the entry, "Shroud of Turin, expanding on them.

[Index] [Previous: Turin 1694-1918] [Next: Image of a man]

---

Introduction. This is the fifth of a five-part series of entries which has briefly traced the locations of the cloth today known as Shroud of Turin, from its first appearance in undisputed history (see previous) at Lirey, France in c.1355, to its current location since 1578 (apart from short periods due to wars) in or around St John the Baptist Cathedral, Turin, Italy. It is partly based on my 2012 post, "The Shroud's location."

Turin 1918-39. In 1926 Queen Margherita of Savoy (1851–1926), the wife of the late King Umberto I (1844-1900) and mother of King Victor Emmanuel III (1869–1947), died. In 1930 Prince Umberto II (1904–83) married Princess Marie José of Belgium (1906–2001). An

[Above (enlarge): A poster advertising the exposition of the Shroud from 4-24 May, 1931[1].]

exposition of the Shroud was held in Turin Cathedral 1931 to mark that occasion. A local professional photographer Giuseppe Enrie (1886-1961) was appointed to photograph the Shroud. Enrie took a series of black-and-white photographs of the Shroud. But unlike

[Above (enlarge): Sepia print of Enrie's 1931 photograph of the Shroud on the steps of Turin cathedral[2].]

Secondo Pia (1855–1941), Enrie was permitted to photograph the Shroud directly, not through protective glass. Enrie's photographs confirmed Pia's 1898 discovery that the Shroud image is a photographic negative, much to the relief of Pia, who aged 76 was among those present and had been accused in 1898 by Shroud anti-authenticists of photographic error, trickery and even fraud.

Only ~2 years later Pope Pius XI (1857–1939), who as a young priest Achille Ratti was one of Paul Vignon's Alpine mountaineering companions, and first saw the Shroud at the 1898 exposition, decreed that 1933 was a Holy Year, to commemorate 19 centuries since Jesus' death and resurrection[3]. To mark that occasion the Shroud was

[Above (enlarge): The Shroud again displayed above Turin Cathedral's high altar at the 1933 exposition[4].]

exhibited again. Among those who viewed at that exposition for the first time was the French surgeon Dr Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) and a young seminarian Peter Rinaldi (1910-93). In 1937 Umberto II and Marie José's second of four children and only son, Victor Emmanuel (1937-), was born.

Montevergine 1939-46. Due to the outbreak of World War II, and fears that Hitler wanted the Shroud, in September 1939 King Victor Immanuel III secretly moved the Shroud via the Savoy Royal Palace in Rome, to the Benedictine monastery at Montevergine, near Avellino, in south-western Italy.

[Right (enlarge): The Benedictine monastery at Montevergine where the Shroud was secretly kept from September 1939 to October 1946[5].]

There the Shroud remained for ~7 years until the end of the war in 1946. In recognition of the monks preservation of the secrecy of the Shroud's location, the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Maurilio Fossati (1876–1965), when he came in October 1946 to collect the Shroud to take it back to Turin, gave the monks their own private exposition of the Cloth!

Turin 1946-83. Due to a proposed referendum to abolish the monarchy and Italy to become a republic, the unpopular King Victor Immanuel III abdicated in 1946 in favour of his son Umberto II who had been effectively king since 1944. The referendum passed and all Savoy property in Italy, including the Royal Chapel which housed the Shroud, and even the Shroud itself, was expropriated by the Italian government. Umberto II, having been formally King of Italy for only 34 days, went with his family into exile in Cascais, Portugal. Ex-king Victor Immanuel III had already left Italy before the referendum and died in 1947 in Alexandria, Egypt. In 1969 a secret Turin Commission examined the Shroud, and again in 1973 openly, but the results were inconclusive. The latter 1973 examination was in conjunction with a 1973 television-only exposition of the Shroud. An exposition of the Shroud was held in 1978 to commemorate the fourth centenary of Turin’s custody of the Cloth.

[Left (enlarge): "Turin's Cathedral of St. John the Baptist during the 1978 exhibition"[6].]

Immediately after the 1978 exposition a team of USA scientists, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), carried out an intensive 5-day examination of the Shroud. STURP concluded: 1) the Shroud was not a painting as "no pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils," that constitutes the image, "It is not the product of an artist," so Bishop d'Arcis' 1389 claim that the Shroud was "cunningly painted" was false; 2) "the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it"; 3) "the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself"; 4) science cannot explain the image naturalistically, "there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately"; and 5) "The blood stains are" real blood, being "composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin." In 1983 ex-king Umberto II died and, having disinherited his son, Victor Emmanuel for marrying against his wishes, in his will he left the Shroud, which in exile he continued to claim was his private property, to "the Pope and his successors" as its owner, with the Archbishop of Turin the Cloth's custodian, meaning that the Shroud must continue to stay in Turin.

Turin 1983-90. In 1988 the Shroud was radiocarbon dated by three laboratories in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, all using the same then new Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy (AMS) method. The very first run of the first laboratory to date the Shroud, Arizona, returned the date "1350 AD," which was uncritically accepted by all those present. That "1350 AD" date was leaked to the media by a Rev. David Sox while the carbon dating was still in progress at the other two laboratories. AMS pioneer Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009, the unofficial leader of the Shroud's carbon dating, by a process of elimination concluded that the primary leaker was "someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement." Later it was discovered that "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist" was quoted in Sox's 1988 book on the carbon dating as hard-line anti-authenticist. So Linick must have been in communication with Sox about the carbon-dating, despite having signed a written undertaking "... not to communicate the results to anyone ... until that time when results are generally available to the public." So the inference is irresistible that Linick was the source of the leak of Arizona's very first "1350 AD" date to Sox. In 1989 the journal Nature reported that "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390". But this must be wrong because the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud has existed well before 1260 (e.g. the Pray Codex) and indeed all the way back to the 1st century. The midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65 years, and as Shroud sceptics were quick to point out, 1325 `just happens' to be only just before Bishop d'Arcis [falsely - see above] claimed that the Shroud was painted in the 1350s. But given that all the other evidence overwhelmingly points to the Shroud being authentic and therefore first century, as Prof. Gove pointed out, the probability that the Shroud is first century, yet has a radiocarbon date of between 1260 and 1390, is "about one in a thousand trillion". So the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud must be the result of some form of fraud. A form of fraud which was rife in the 1980s was computer hacking, as documented by Clifford Stoll (1950-) in his 1989 book, "The Cuckoo's Egg." And according to Gove's eyewitness account of the AMS radiocarbon dating process of the Shroud at Arizona, and presumably at the other two AMS laboratories, "All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen." So a hacker, allegedly Timothy W. Linick (1946-89), who on 4 June 1989 was found dead of "suicide in very unclear circumstances," could have

[Right: Photograph of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances, shortly after the campaign of the Italian press reporting our [Bonnet-Eymard's] accusations"[7] of fraud in the carbon dating.]

written and installed a program on Arizona's AMS computer, and then had it installed on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers (e.g. by the confessed hacker for the KGB, Karl Koch (1965–89)). Linick's alleged program substituted the Shroud samples' first (or early because of irremovable contamination) century date for computer-generated dates, which when calibrated, combined and averaged across the three laboratories, yielded a bogus date about 1325. Which `just happened' to be about 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355.

That the Shroud samples' dates were computer-generated is supported by Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper, which admitted:

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

But this is impossible given that the Shroud and control samples at each laboratory were all on the one ~26 cm (~1 inch) diameter carousel wheel and rotated through the one caesium ion beam within minutes of each other. If there was something technically wrong with the dating process at a laboratory, the controls and Shroud samples at that laboratory would wrongly agree and disagree with the controls and Shroud samples of the other two laboratories. But that the agreement across the three laboratories in the dates of the non-Shroud control samples was "exceptionally good" shows that there was nothing technically wrong with the dating itself, which must mean that the Shroud samples' dates were not real but computer-generated.

Koch is not essential to my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker, as Linick could have acted alone. But that both Linick and Koch (who need not have known each other) were involved in hacking the Shroud's radiocarbon date for the KGB is supported by the fact that Linick died of "suicide in mysterious circumstances" on 4 June 1989 and Koch's inexplicably burnt body which was made to look like suicide, had been publicly identified by the German police only a day earlier on 3 June 1989!

Turin 1990-97. In 1990 several pieces of stone in the dome of the 17th century Royal Chapel designed by architect-priest

[Left (enlarge): Interior of the dome or cupola of the Turin Royal (Guarini) Chapel.]

Camillo-Guarino Guarini (1624–83), fell to its floor ~30 metres (~98 feet) below. The Chapel, which had been since 1946 owned by the Italian government (see above) had to be closed for repairs. A bulletproof laminated glass display case was

[Right: The Shroud's casket, in its bulletproof glass display case, behind the high altar of Turin Cathedral, between 1993 and the 1997 fire[8].]

constructed for the Shroud in the Cathedral, behind the high altar, and in 1993 the Shroud, still in its 17th century silvered wooden casket, was installed into its new location.

1997-98 Archbishop of Turin's residence. On the night of 11 April, 1997, a major fire gutted the Royal Chapel, part of the Cathedral and the adjoining Royal Palace. But for the heroic action of a Turin

[Above: Fire engulfs the Royal Chapel and Turin Cathedral on the night of 11 April, 1997.[9].]

fireman, Mario Trematore, who ignoring the extreme risk to his life, broke into the Shroud's laminated glass case with his fireman's axe, and dragged the Shroud's container to safety, the Shroud would almost certainly have been destroyed. The Shroud in its container was taken to the residence of the then Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini (1924-2011), and when opened the Shroud was found to be undamaged. Because there were indications that the fire had been deliberately lit, the Shroud's location was kept secret until 1998.

1998-2005 Turin Cathedral. It was decided that the planned exposition of the Shroud in 1998, to mark the 500th anniversary of Turin Cathedral, would still go ahead. In preparing the Shroud for that exposition, ancient textiles specialist Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg

[Right (enlarge): Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (L), Sister Maria Clara Antonini of the Poor Clare nuns (C) and Turin diocese's Don Giuseppe Ghiberti (R) preparing the Shroud for the 1998 exposition[10].]

determined that the dimensions of the Shroud were 437 cm long by 111 cm wide. For the 1998 exposition the Shroud was placed in a new temperature controlled, primarily argon gas filled, stainless steel and bulletproof glass conservation case, sponsored by the Italian company Italgas, that weighs three tons and measures ~4.6 x 1.4 m. In it the

[Left (enlarge): The Shroud in its new container being prayed over by the then Archbishop of Turin, Severino Poletto (1933-)[11].]

Shroud can be stored flat and tilted ninety degrees when it is on public display. The Shroud was then displayed in Turin Cathedral in front

[Right (enlarge): A photograph of the Shroud, in Turin Cathedral, as it was when displayed at the 1998 exposition[12].]

of a huge temporary screen to hide the fire damage to the Chapel behind it, and upon the screen was painted a trompe l'oeil (illusory perspective) scene of how the interior of the Chapel would have looked in the 1820s.

2005 Turin Cathedral. In 2005 the Shroud, inside its conservation case, was installed in its new permanent reliquary in a side chapel in

[Left (enlarge): The Shroud's reliquary, its (hopefully) final permanent resting place, in a side chapel of Turin Cathedral[13].]

the left (north) transept of Turin Cathedral. When the

[Right: Floor plan of Turin Cathedral showing the Shroud's location since 2005, in a side chapel in the left (north) transept of the Cathedral[14].]

Shroud is to be publicly displayed it will be brought to the "Location during the Exhibition" (above right) position. As it is during the current 2015 exposition (see below).

[Above (enlarge): The Shroud on public display in Turin Cathedral during the 2015 Exposition.[15].]

Notes
1. "Poster exhibition litografia Turin Shroud Exposition 1931 100 Cm X 70cm Sindone Holy Shroud," www.todocoleccion.net. [return]
2. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.27. [return]
3. While "Friday, April 3, 33 CE" is a possible date of Jesus' death, the more likely date is "Friday, April 7, 30 CE." [return]
4. Moretto, 1999, p.31. [return]
5. Moretto, 1999, p.32. [return]
6. Schwortz, B., 2014, "Summer 2014 Website Update," Shroud.com, June 7. [return]
7. 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]
8. Schwortz, B., 1997, "The 1997 Fire," Shroud.com. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.274H. [return]
10. Brkic, B., 2010, "Hitler had designs on the Shroud of Turin; Indiana Jones fans are not surprised," Daily Maverick, 8 April. [return]
11. Wilson, 2010, p.82A. [return]
12. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.ii. [return]
13. Schwortz, B., "2005 Website News," Shroud.com. [return]
14. "News 2000," Collegamento pro Sindone. [return]
15. "Turin 2015 by Aldo Guerreschi - The Shroud of Turin," Shroud.com. [return]

Posted 3 June 2015. Updated 17 May 2025.

"Ga-Gm": Turin Shroud Dictionary

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

"Ga-Gm"

This is page "Ga-Gm" of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. For more information about this dictionary see the "Main index A-Z" and page "A."

[Index] [Previous: "Fm-Fz"] [Next: "Gn-Gq"]

[Garza-Valdes, Leoncio] [Geoffroy de Charny] [Geoffroy I de Charny] [Geoffroy II de Charny] [Gervase of Tilbury]

---

[Above: Geoffroy I de Charny's (see below) coat of arms[2] on pilgrim badge from the exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France, in c.1355 (left). The de Charny coat of arms[3], "gules (red) three silver shields"[4] (right).]

Garza-Valdes, Leoncio. Dr. Leoncio Antonio Garza-Valdes (1939-2010) was a Mexican-born pediatrician living in San Antonio, Texas, whose hobby was microbiology. To reconcile his belief in the Shroud's authenticity and the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud, Garza-Valdes proposed a theory that the Shroud had an "accretion... of microbiological organisms" which formed a "bioplastic coating" of younger carbon, which gave the 1st century Shroud an apparent 13th-14th century radiocarbon date. In 1993 Garza-Valdes proposed his theory in Turin to physicist Professor Luigi Gonella (1930–2007), who had been the Roman Catholic Church's coordinator of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating. Gonella rejected Garza-Valdes' proposal because to shift the Shroud's radiocarbon date ~12-13 centuries, "the coating would be the weight of the Shroud, and this was not the case"[5]. But Garza-Valdes simply ignored this obvious refutation of his theory and obtained some threads of the Shroud from Giovanni Riggi (1935-2008), which was part of the sample that was cut by him in 1988 but not given to the three laboratories. Back in San Antonio Garza-Valdes claimed to have photographed the bioplastic coating under a microscope. Garza-Valdes gave a bloodstained thread from the Shroud to San Antonia Professor of Microbiology, Stephen J. Mattingly, who gave Assistant Professor in Microbiology, Victor V. Tryon, the task of extracting DNA from the thread. Tryon did extract fragments of three different human male genes from the Shroud blood sample. In 1998 Garza-Valdes published an account of all this in his book, "The DNA of God?" However, as the late blood chemist Prof. Alan D. Adler (1932-2000) pointed out in 1999[6], the DNA could have been from anyone who had handled the Shroud over the centuries. Adler also listed problems with Garza-Valdes' "bioplastic coating" theory: 1) for a bioplastic coating to have shifted the Shroud's 1st century carbon date to the 13-14th century would require "about a 50% increase in the C14," which would be "a prodigious amount of bacterial metabolism"; 2) but "where does all this energy for growth come from?"; 3) "Where does the mass come from?"; 4) "Does this microorganism fix the nitrogen from air as required for its growth and metabolism?," and 5) "Where does it get its sulfur, phosphorus, and minerals from and to where have they disappeared?" Adler further pointed out that the Shroud's shiny appearance that Garza-Valdes thought was a bioplastic coating was in fact what "all linen looks like ... It is called luster," and Garza-Valdes' photomicrographs "of what appear to be entubulated fibers" are "simply out of focus." Note that the same problem of the "prodigious amount" of contamination required to convert a 1st century chronological date of the Shroud to a 13th-14th radiocarbon date, means that conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail, leaving my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker as the only viable explanation how the first century Shroud had a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date.

Genoa, Holy Face of (see "Holy Face of Genoa").

Geoffroy de Charny (c. 1240-1314) [the spelling "Geoffroi" and "de Charney," "de Charnay," etc, are optional but see future "Geoffroy II de Charny"] was a Preceptor of Normandy for the Knights Templar. Together with Jacques de Molay (c. 1243–1314), Grand Master of the Knights Templar, de Charny was burnt at the stake on the orders of King Philip IV of France (1268–1314), for recanting his confessions of the trumped up charges of heresy, sodomy and blasphemy against the Templars, extracted under torture. Genealogist Noel Currer-Briggs (1919-2004), wrote:

"Jean de Charny had two brothers, the Templar Preceptor of Normandy, and Dreux de Charny, Seigneur de Savoisy, and a sister, Jeanne de Charny ..."[7]

and

"Geoffroi I de Charny founded the collegiate [self-governing] church of Lirey ... the Preceptor of Normandy, Geoffroi de Charny ... was almost certainly the uncle of the Geoffroi de Charny mentioned above"[8].

However, according to most online genealogies, "Jean de Charny" (c.1263–1323) was the son, not the brother, of "Dreux de Charny" (1235-1285), as their age spans indicate. And since Jean de Charny was the father of Geoffroy I de Charny (see next), that would make Geoffroy the Templar the great-uncle of Geoffroy I de Charny. Moreover, since there are no earlier Geoffroys in the de Charny and de Mont-Saint-Jean family trees, it is likely that Geoffroy I de Charny was named after Geoffroy de Charny the Templar. Indeed, since Geoffroy I was born about 1300 and Geoffroy the Templar was not arrested until 1307, they may have known each other.

Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300–1356) [see also Lirey (1)] was a French knight, author of works on chivalry, and the first undisputed owner of the Shroud. He was the third son of Jean I de Charny de Mont St Jean (c.1263-1323) and Jeanne de Berzé et Villurbain (c.1260-1310)[9]. In c. 1336 Geoffroy married Jeanne de Toucy (c. 1301-48). In 1337, the year the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453) between England and France began, Geoffroy fought at Languedoc and Guyenne in southern France. In the west he defended Tournai (1340) and Angers (1341). In that latter battle, Geoffroy fought alongside the ~22 year-old son of King Philip VI (1293–1350), the future King John II (1319–64). In 1342, during the battle of north coastal Morlaix in Brittany, Geoffroy was captured and taken prisoner to England. However, he was allowed to return to England to raise the money for his ransom, which was paid and in 1342 he resumed fighting the English on the west coast near Vannes. In 1345, during a brief truce with the English, Geoffroy and Edward de Beaujeu (1316-1351) captured the Turkish-held harbour fortress of Smyrna in a surprise attack. The next year, 1346, Geoffroy resumed fighting the English at the siege of Aiguillon, in south-west France. After that battle, Geoffroy was promoted to the rank of chevalier (knight), appointed a member of the King's Council, and made Governor of Saint-Omer, near Calais, on France's far north coast. In 1348 Geoffroy's wife Jeanne de Toucy died childless, probably of the Black Death. In 1349, while attempting to recapture Calais, Geoffroy was again captured and taken prisoner to England, but this time a huge ransom was posted for his return. While in captivity Geoffroy wrote his Book of Chivalry, setting out his views on the ideal knight. In 1351 his ransom was paid by the new King John II and Geoffroy returned to France, where the king appointed him the bearer of the Oriflamme of St. Denis, whose role was to personally defend the king in battle. The next year, 1352, King John II made Geoffroy a knight of the new Order of the Star. In that same year Geoffroy married his second wife, Jeanne de Vergy (c. 1332-1428) and in that year their son, Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–1398), was born.

Geoffroy I owned (or knew he was going to own) the Shroud by 1343. In 1343 Geoffroy I applied to Philip VI for funds to build and operate a chapel in Lirey with five chaplains. Geoffroy himself would contribute his inheritance from an great-aunt Alix de Joinville (1256-1336), the mother of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (c.1300-95), which further explains Bishop d'Arcis later hostility to the exhibition of the Shroud at that same Lirey church (see future). In June that same year, 1343, King Philip donated land with an annual rental value for financing the chapel. In 1349, in a petition to the French Pope at Avignon, Clement VI (1291–1352), Geoffroy advised that he had constructed a chapel at Lirey with five canons (priests), and requested that it be raised to collegiate church. For a tiny village of 50 houses, this is evidence that Geoffroy already had the Shroud in 1343 (or knew he was going to get it), and was planning to exhibit it at that Lirey church. However, due to Geoffroy I's second imprisonment in England 1349-51, the collegiate status of the church was not proceeded with. Nevertheless, by 1353 the church had six canons, one of whom was Dean, as well as three other clerics. Moreover in that same year, 1353, King John II agreed to a further annual revenue increase. In 1354, Geoffroy renewed his petition to the new Avignon Pope Innocent IV (c. 1195-1254), renewing his request that the Lirey church be raised to collegiate status, which was granted. So from a simple rural chapel in a village of 50 fifty houses, Geoffroy was preparing his Lirey church from 1343, to be a centre of pilgrimage! Clearly the pilgrimages would be to see the Shroud (as happened in c. 1355. So Geoffroy must have owned the Shroud from no later than 1343 (or knew he was going to). And King Phillip VI must have known that Geoffroy had (or was going to get) the Shroud from at least 1343, for him to agree to fund a church with such a disproportionately large number of clergy for such a tiny village. So too must his son King John II to agree to increase funding of the Lirey church in 1353, as well as the French Avignon Popes Clement VI and Innocent IV. This places a 1343 time constraint on theories of when and how Geoffroy I de Charny obtained the Shroud (see next).

King Philip VI gave the Shroud to Geoffroy I. The explanation that best fits the facts of Geoffroy I de Charny owning (or knowing that he was going to own) the Shroud by 1343 and King Philip VI readily agreeing in 1343 to fund the yet future Lirey church's disproportionate number of 5 canons (priests) for a tiny village of only 50 houses, is that King Philip VI gave (or was intending to give) the Shroud to Geoffroy I. This is actually stated in a 1525 document which was posted at the entrance of the rebuilt Lirey church:

"King Philip of Valois ... informed that the count of Charny had got out of prison [in 1342] ... sent for him ... and so that the church of Lirey would be more revered and honored, he gave him the holy shroud of Our Lord, Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ ... to be put ... in the church that he hoped and proposed to build .... And ... gave him leave and permission to give the church, for an endowment, up to the sum of two hundred sixty livres tournois; and afterwards the king John, son of Philip of Valois, also gave the count of Charny power and permission to give and increase the foundation of the church, up to the sum of a hundred livres tournois besides the gift of his father; all in amortized rent without paying any tax, from which he released him by a special grace on account of the great and agreeable services that the count of Charny had done for them" (my emphasis)[10].

This was accepted as reliable by arch-Shroud critic Canon Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923), and by earlier Shroud pro-authenticists Beecher (1928), Barnes (1934) and Currer-Briggs (1987). But it was rejected on inadequate grounds by both Wilson (1979 & 1998) and Crispino (1988). A sufficient reason for Philip to give Geoffroy the Shroud would be if in the 1341 battle of Angers, Geoffroy saved the life of Philip's son, the future King John II. That would fit Geoffroy II's explanation that the Shroud was "freely given" to his father and Geoffroy II's daughter Marguerite's explanation that it was "conquis par feu" ("conquered by fire"), i.e. obtained by conquest in battle, by her grandfather Geoffroy I. But there are other plausible explanations of how King Philip VI obtained the Shroud and then gave it to Geoffroy I de Charny [see future "Besançon," "Jeanne de Vergy," and "Philip VI"].

Geoffroy I held the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey in c. 1355. In c.1389 the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (c. 1300-95), claimed in an unsigned, undated, draft, memorandum to the French Avignon Pope Clement VII (1342–1394), that one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (c.1327-1370), in about 1355 became aware of a cloth "upon which ... was depicted the twofold image of one man ... back and front... upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour ... [was] impressed together with the wounds which He bore," which was being displayed at the "collegiate church ... Lirey" and was being declared by its Dean to be "the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb". [see future "Pierre d'Arcis"]. That Geoffroy I and his second wife Jeanne de Vergy (c. 1332-1428) held that c. 1355 exposition is evident from a pilgrim's lead badge found in in the Seine river in 1855 which depicts two clerics holding the Shroud at an exhibition displaying the de Charny and de Vergy coats of arms. [see future "Lirey"].

Death of Geoffroy I de Charny in 1356. Geoffroy I de Charny was killed at the Battle of Poitiers on 19 September 1356, holding the Oriflamme aloft and shielding King John II with his body. Fourteen years later, in 1370, with his now remarried widow Jeanne de Vergy and his ~18 year old son Geoffroy II proudly looking on, Geoffroy I was given a hero's state funeral and reburial in Paris by King Charles V (1338–80):

"A more revealing gesture of the esteem in which Geoffroy de Charny had been held by Philip VI and John II is shown, in 1370, when King Charles V with honor, gratitude, and affection for the `perfect knight', transferred his remains from a hasty burial in a Franciscan monastery near Poitiers to the recently-founded, richly-endowed Abbey of the Celestins in Paris, there to rest beside the heart of King John II."[11]

who as an ~18 year old was with his father King John II and Geoffroy I at the Battle of Poitiers but escaped.

Geoffroy I and the Shroud's "1350 AD" first carbon-date. Note the further evidence that Arizona's first "1350 AD" radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a fraud, perpetrated by a computer hacker, allegedly Timothy W. Linick [see future "hacking" and "Linick"], because in 1350 the Shroud was owned (and had been since ~1341) by the "perfect knight," Geoffroy I de Charny, author of three works on chivalry, who would rather die (and did die) than go back on his word. The implicit claim by the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, made explicit by Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall (1924–2001):

"`There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century," he bluntly told a British Museum press conference. `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it.'"[12]

that Geoffroy de Charny, was a party to a fraud in either having "faked" the Shroud (while he was almost fully occupied in fighting battles or as a prisoner of war), or paying (despite the fact that he was poor) a forger who "flogged" it to him, is manifestly absurd!

Geoffroy II de Charny (c.1352-98) was the only son of Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-56) and Jeanne de Vergy (1332–1428). They also had a daughter, Charlotte de Charny (c.1356–98). In c. 1392 Geoffroy II married Marguerite de Poitiers-Valentinois (c.1362-1418), a niece of Bishop Henri de Poitiers (c. 1327-1370), who according to Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (c.1300-95), had denounced the Shroud at its c.1355 exhibition by Geoffroy I as a "cunningly painted" fraud. Which is just another reason why Bishop d'Arcis was wrong [see future "Pierre d'Arcis" and "Henri de Poitiers."]. Geoffroy II and Marguerite de Poitiers had three daughters: Marguerite (c. 1392–1460), Henriette (1395–1460) and Jeanne (c.1397–1406). Geoffroy II and his mother Jeanne de Vergy, recently widowed again by the death of her second husband Aymon IV of Geneva (c. 1324-88), exhibited the Shroud again from c.1389 until at least 1390 [see future "Lirey"]. Geoffrey II died in 1398 from wounds sustained in Hungary at the Battle of Nicopolis and was buried in Froidmont Abbey, Picardy, France. His tombstone had a carved brass effigy of him as a knight in armor, which was destroyed in World War I. Fortunately a drawing had been made of it, which is preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. On it his name is clearly spelled, "Geoffroy de Charny" so I have standardised on that spelling for the other Geoffroy de Charnys (see above). Having no son, Geoffrey II's eldest daughter, Marguerite de Charny (c. 1392–1460) inherited his titles, lands and the Shroud [see future "Marguerite de Charny"].

Gervase of Tilbury (c.1150–c.1228) was a widely travelled 13th century canon lawyer, statesman and writer. In c.1211 he referred in his Otia Imperialia to the story of the cloth upon which Jesus had impressed an image of His face and sent it to King Abgar V of Edessa. But he added new information:

"... it is handed down from archives of ancient authority that the Lord prostrated himself full length on most white linen, and so by divine power the most beautiful likeness not only of the face, but also of the whole body of the Lord was impressed upon the cloth" (my emphasis)[13].

This can only be the Shroud, nearly a half-century before the earliest radiocarbon date of 1260, and mentioned in archives which were "ancient" even then.

---

Notes:
1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Geoffroy I de Charny," not the whole page "Ga-Gm"), provided a link and/or reference is provided back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return]
2. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology. [return]
3. "220px-Blason_famille_fr_Charny_svg," jamielavigne35, Lavigne Family Tree, Ancestry.com (members only). [return]
4. Wilson, Ian, 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.210. [return]
5. Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, p.23. [return]
6. Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.103-112. [return]
7. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.105. [return]
8. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.115. [return]
9. According to most online genealogies. Not Marguerite de Joinville (c.1246-1306) as stated by Currer Briggs (1988), Crispino (1990), Wilson (1988 & 2010) and Wikipedia (2015), but as corrected by Currer-Briggs (1995). As their age spans indicate, Marguerite de Joinville, who was ~54 when Geoffroy I was born, was not his mother but his paternal grandmother. [return]
10. Crispino, D.C., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, #28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, p.28. [return]
11. Ibid. [return]
12. "Obituaries: Professor Edward Hall," The Independent, 16 August 2001. [return]
13. 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.144, 255n20. [return]

Posted: 24 May, 2015. Updated: 25 July, 2015.

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (9)

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction. This is part #10, Summary (9), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. See the previous parts #10(1), #10(2), #10(3), #10(4), #10(5), #10(6), #10(7) and #10(8). Other previous posts in this series were parts #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9, which posts this part #10 will summarise. It is my emphasis below unless otherwise indicated.

[Index [#2] [#3][#4][#5][#6][#7][#8][#9][#10(1)][#10(2)][#10(3)][#10(4)][#10(5)][#10(6)][#10(7)][#10(8)][#10(10)].]

9. EVIDENCE THAT KARL KOCH INSTALLED LINICK'S PROGRAM ON ZURICH AND OXFORD LABORATORIES' AMS COMPUTERS [#8]

[Above[2]: "The hacker Karl Koch was only 23 years old. On 1 June 1989 they found his burnt corpse in a forest near Gifhorn (Lower Saxony)."[3]. As summarised by Wikipedia:

"Karl Werner Lothar Koch (July 22, 1965 – ca. May 23, 1989) was a German hacker in the 1980s, who called himself "hagbard", after Hagbard Celine. He was involved in a Cold War computer espionage incident. ... Koch was born in Hanover. As his moniker would suggest, he was heavily influenced by The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea. ... Koch was loosely affiliated with the Chaos Computer Club. He worked with the hackers known as DOB (Dirk-Otto Brezinski), Pengo (Hans Heinrich Hübner), and Urmel (Markus Hess), and was involved in selling hacked information from United States military computers to the KGB. Clifford Stoll's book The Cuckoo's Egg gives a first-person account of the hunt and eventual identification of Hess. Pengo and Koch subsequently came forward and confessed to the authorities under the espionage amnesty, which protected them from being prosecuted. Koch was found burned to death with gasoline in a forest near Celle, Germany. The death was officially claimed to be a suicide. However, some believe there is little evidence supporting suicide and many believe that Koch was killed in order to keep him from confessing more to the authorities. Why Koch would be targeted, and not Pengo and Urmel, is unknown. Koch left his workplace in his car to go for lunch; he had not returned by late afternoon and so his employer reported him as a missing person. Meanwhile, German police were alerted of an abandoned car in a forest near Celle. When they went to investigate, they found an abandoned car, that looked like it had been there for years, as it was covered in dust. Near to the car they found a burned corpse (Koch). His shoes were missing and have never been found. There was a patch of burned ground around him, which although it had not rained in some time and the grass was perfectly dry, was controlled in a small circle around the corpse. It is thought to be highly unlikely that this type of controlled burning could have been achieved by Koch himself which leads many to believe that his death was not suicide."[4].]

• Koch is not essential to my theory. First, as I have previously stated, Karl Koch is not essential to my theory:

"... Koch's role is not essential to my theory. If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have personally travelled to Zurich and Oxford to access their radiocarbon laboratories computers, it would not falsify my theory. My theory includes Koch because of the striking coincidence that they were both allegedly hackers working for the KGB and both allegedly committed suicide within days of each other"[5]

I later discovered that Koch's charred body was identified by German police on 3 June 1989 (see below), one day earlier than Linick's `suicide' on 4 June 1989!

"...Karl Koch is not essential to my theory, as Linick could have hacked Zurich and Oxford's AMS computer some other way, e.g. by issuing them with a program `update', or one of the KGB's own operatives could have entered those two laboratories clandestinely and installed Linick's program on their AMS control console computers"[6]

If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have been involved, either directly or indirectly, in installing Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford laboratories' AMS control console computers, then my theory would not be falsified. In that case I would have to maintain that Linick's program was installed on those laboratories' computers by some other way. For example, Linick himself could have flown over to Zurich and Oxford, installed his program clandestinely on their computers, and returned to Arizona, in a few days. This is why my theory always has been "that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" (singular).

Also, as I have also previously stated, it is not essential to my theory that Linick knew Koch, or even about Koch (and vice-versa):

"... I don't claim that the laboratories, or even Linick, knew about Koch"[7]

I have included Karl Koch in my theory, despite there being as yet no confirmed link between Koch and Linick, because of: 1) the striking coincidence that both Koch and Linick died of suspected suicide within days of each other (and indeed Linick's `suicide' on 4 June 1989 was only one day after Koch charred body was identified and publicly announced as his by German police on 3 June 1989 (see below); 2) Koch's death was almost certainly the work of the KGB, or the East German Secret Police (Stasi)[8] at the behest of the KGB; 3) the KGB had no reason to kill Koch unless he had been involved in an entirely different type of hacking for them which they did not want to become public knowledge; 4) Koch's expertise would have been useful in hacking into Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers; and 5) Koch's living in Germany would have made it comparatively easy for him to travel to Zurich and Oxford to install Linick's program on their computers (although that too is not necessary to my theory as Koch may have only provided expert advice on how to hack into those computers and a KGB operative may have entered the laboratories clandestinely and installed Linick's program on their AMS computers, or Linick himself may have installed it).

So those who continue to dismiss my theory as merely a "conspiracy theory," in the full knowledge of my above disclaimers, do so dishonestly.

• Koch was a German computer hacker in the 1980s. Karl Koch was born in Hanover, West Germany, on 22 July 1965[9]. Both his parents were dead by the time he was 16 and Koch's inheritance supported his expensive drug habit[10]. Koch began computer hacking in Hannover, then West Germany, in the early 1980s[11]. Koch's adopted name was "Hagbard Celine" after the hero of the The Illuminatus! Trilogy[12] novels, who fights against The Illuminati, a fictitious, but to Koch real, all-powerful secret society[13]. Unlike other hackers, Koch was no programmer but was expert at guessing logins and passwords[14]. However what Koch lacked in programming skills he more than made up for by his deep intuition, fertile imagination[15], unusual insight, patience, single-mindedness[16] and persistence[17]. Other hackers were part-time but Koch, supported by his inheritance, devoted every waking moment to hacking[18].

• Koch became a paid hacker for the KGB. In 1985, at a hacker meeting in Hannover, Koch was recruited by a Peter Carl as a the first member of a ring of hackers to break into Western computer systems, particularly those on military or defence industry sites, and sell the information and programs to the KGB[19]. Others who joined Koch in the Hannover KGB hacker circle[20] included Hans Heinrich Hübner (Pengo)[21], Dirk-Otto Brzezinski (DOB)[22] and Markus Hess (Urmel)[23]. In September 1986 Peter Carl went to the Soviet trade mission in East Berlin with a proposition to sell them secret information from USA military computers[24]. A KGB agent, Sergei Markov, agreed to Carl's hacking proposition[25]. At subsequent meetings in East Berlin with Carl and Brzezinski, from 1986 through 1988, Sergei paid for information and software the German hacker ring provided[26].

• Koch allegedly installed Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers. By early 1987, Koch had spent his inheritance and his drug dependency had become acute[27]. It is in this 7 month period between October 1987, after the Archbishop of Turin announced that only three AMS laboratories, Arizona, Oxford and Zurich, would date the Shroud[28] and April 1988 when samples were cut from the Shroud and given to the three laboratories for dating[29], that according to my theory, the KGB's Sergei Markov secretly approached Koch, with an offer of drugs[30] and/or money in return for Koch installing Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford AMS computers. How exactly Koch installed Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford AMS computers is not part of my theory. Except that since Arizona's and Oxford's (and presumably Zurich's) AMS computers were never online[31], Linick's program would have had to be installed manually and locally, either by Koch alone, or by a KGB operative following Koch's instructions, or more likely by a KGB operative taking Koch to each of the two laboratories and helping him gain access to their AMS computers.

The hacking itself would have been easy for the very experienced Koch. In 1987 it was known by hackers (including Koch[32]) that VMS, the operating system for the "DEC computer system" that the AMS control console computer at Arizona[33] (and presumably also at Zurich and Oxford) was, had a major security flaw, in that if an unauthorised user entered any login and password and ignored the error messages, he could gain access to the system:

"Two ... Hamburg students. ... had exploited a devastatingly simple flaw in the VMS operating system used on VAX. The machines, like most computer systems, required users to log in their ID and then type their password to gain access. If the ID or the password was wrong, the VMS system had been designed to show an 'error' message and bar entry. But ... if they simply ignored all the 'error' messages, they could walk straight into the system - provided they continued with the log-on as though everything was in order. When confronted with the 'error' message after keying in a fake ID, they would press `enter', which would take them to the password prompt. They would then type in a phoney password, bringing up a second, equally ineffectual 'error' message. By ignoring it and pressing enter again, they were permitted access to the system. It was breathtakingly easy, and left the VAX open to any hacker, no matter how untalented. ... The VAX operating system, VMS, had been subjected to stringent tests ... It beggared belief that VMS could have gone through such testing without the back door being discovered. [Later, it would be established that although early versions of VMS had been fully tested, later ones hadn't. It was these newer versions that contained the back door. (Users update their computers with the latest versions of the operating systems almost as a matter of course, so nearly all VAXen became insecure for a time.)]"[34].

And even when "Digital issued a 'mandatory patch' ... in May 1987. ... many users didn't bother to install it"

"Responding to complaints from its users, Digital issued a 'mandatory patch', a small program designed specifically to close the back door, in May 1987. Despite the 'mandatory' tag, many users didn't bother to install it. So, at least for a time, VAX computers across the world provided hackers with an open house ..."[35].

And a good reason why many system managers did not install DEC's `mandatory patch" is that DEC were: "being real quiet about it. They don't want their customers to panic" (see below).

Indeed, in the "NASA hack," in which both Hess and Koch were involved[36], it was found that "DEC's [VMS] installation procedure works only" for a "SYSTEM account" but "most system managers do not change the preset default password MANAGER" and those who did change it used easy-to-guess passwords:

"In Hess' apartment, public prosecutors found (on March 3, 1989) password lists from other hacks. On Monday, March 6, 1989, the Panorama team (who had disclosed the NASA hack and basically the KGB connection) asked Klaus Brunnstein to examine some of the password lists; the material which he saw (for 30 minutes) consisted of about 100 photocopied protocols of a hack during the night of July 27 to 28, 1987; it was the famous `NASA hack.' From a VAX 750 (with VMS 4.3) ... to log-into other VAXes in remote institutes. They always used SYSTEM account and the `proper' password (invisible). ... DEC's installation procedure works only if a SYSTEM account is available; evidently, most system managers do not change the preset default password MANAGER; since Version 4.7, MANAGER is excluded, but on previous VMS versions, this hole probably exists in many systems! ... the hackers, in more than 40% of the cases, succeeded to login, their first activities were to ... to install ... the Trojan horse. With the Trojan horse ... they copied the password lists to their PCs. When looking through the password list, Klaus observed the well-known facts: More than 25% female or male first names, historical persons, countries, cities, or local dishes ... the password lists contained less than 5% passwords of such nature easy to guess!"[37].

And if the AMS laboratories' VMS was the very popular version 4.5, then "Anyone that logs into the system can become system manager by running a short program":

"Now if you want a tasty security hole, check out VMS. They've got a hole you could drive a truck through.' `Huh?' `Yeah. It's in every Vox computer from Digital Equipment Corporation that runs the VMS operating system Version 4.5.' `What's the problem?' Darren explained. 'Anyone that logs into the system can become system manager by running a short program. You can't stop 'em.' I hadn't heard of this problem. 'Isn't DEC doing something about it? After all, they sell those systems.' `Oh, sure, they're sending out patches. But they're being real quiet about it. They don't want their customers to panic.' `Sounds reasonable.' `Sure, but nobody's installing those patches. What would you do-some tape shows up in the mail saying, `Please install this program or your system may develop problems' ... you'll ignore it, because you've got better things to do.' `So all the systems are open to attack?' `You got it.' `Wait a second. That operating system was certified by NSA. They tested it and certified it secure.' `Sure they spent a year testing it. And a month after they verified the system, DEC modified it slightly. Just a little change in the password program.' ... `And now fifty thousand computers are insecure.'"[38].

So it would be likely the Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers, not being online, were among the many VAX computers which were not patched. And in the "more than 40% of the cases" where the System password was still set to its default "MANAGER." And among the 95% whose passwords were easy to guess!

Hacking into such insecure 1980s computers would be easy for a very experienced hacker as Koch was. It may be significant that in late 1987/early 1988 Sergei wanted Koch excluded from the KGB hacking ring because of his drug-taking and talking to journalists for money[39]. But there is no evidence that Koch's talking was the source of any of the news stories about the KGB's hacking, so perhaps Sergei's real concern was that Koch would talk about his hacking of Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories' computers?

• Koch confessed to hacking for the KGB. Following a period of treatment in psychiatric hospitals and drug rehabilitation centers[40], Koch was on the road to recovery[41]. In June 1987, due to Clifford Stoll's persistence, American and German authorities cooperated in tracing his Hess' modem call from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories in California to his apartment in Hannover, Germany, but due to a police bungle, Hess was not caught in the act of hacking as planned[42], and although he was arrested and charged, Hess was later released on appeal[43]. A year later, in the summer of 1988, first Koch, then Hübner, independently, taking advantage of an amnesty provision for espionage in West German legislation, approached the authorities to confess their hacking for the KGB[44]. Both were interrogated by West German prosecutors[45], and on 2 March 1989 eight were arrested, including Hess, Hübner, Koch, Brescinsky and Carl, but all except Carl and Brescinsky were released after a few days[46]. Koch and Hübner, having confessed to espionage before they were caught, under the espionage amnesty legislation were in no danger of being jailed providing they co-operated[47].

• Koch was murdered between 23 and 30 May 1989. Before noon on 23 May 1989, Koch left his workplace at the Hannover office of Germany's Christian Democratic Union party, in his employer's vehicle, to deliver a package to a government office in Hannover, but he never arrived[48]. In the late afternoon, Koch's employer notified the police of his disappearance[49]. Koch's friends and the German domestic security agency (BFV) sent out search parties looking for Koch but after a week the searches were abandoned[50]. On 30 May a farmer who had been checking his irrigation daily noticed a car parked in the adjoining forest[51] near the village of Ohof, north of Hannover[52]. After a few days in a row, when he saw that the car was still there, he called the police[53], on 1 June. The police investigated the report that day and found that the car's roof, hood and windscreen were thick with dust[54], looking like it had been there for years[55]. In the undergrowth near the car, the police found a charred corpse lying next to an empty gasoline can[56]. He was lying face down with an arm over his head as though trying to shield himself from the flames[57]. The vegetation in the surrounding three or four metres had been burned black[58]. The police concluded that the driver of the car

[Above: Partially burnt forest trees from the gasoline fire that killed Karl Koch[59]. Note that a fire which can partly burn "dry as matchwood" trees would not go out until all the wood was burned, unless it was controlled by one or more persons using fire extinguishers or hoses. Buckets of water would not put out a gasoline fire. But Koch couldn't have extinguished the gasoline fire that killed him and there were no fire extinguishers or hoses left at the scene. Therefore Koch's death was murder, not suicide!.]

had committed suicide[60] by pouring the contents of the gasoline can over himself, soaking the surrounding earth as well, lit a match, and was burned to death[61]. The police noted that the corpse was barefoot but no shoes were found in the car or in the surrounding area[62]. They were puzzled, because there had been no rain for five weeks and the undergrowth was as dry as matchwood, yet the scorched patch around the body was contained, as if it had been carefully controlled[63]. The body was on 3 June 1989[64] publicly identified by the police as that of Karl Koch[65]. But if Koch had committed suicide

[Above (enlarge): Timeline between: a. Koch's disappearance on 23 May 1989[66]; b. a farmer first noticing on 30 May what turned out to be Koch's work vehicle parked in the adjoining forest[67]; c. police responding to the farmer's report found a burnt body near the vehicle[68]; d. police identification on 3 June of the body as that of Koch[69]; and e. Linick's `suicide' a day later on 4 June[70].]

by pouring gasoline over himself and then setting it alight, he could not then have been able to control the fire that killed him to prevent it spreading outside the confined perimeter[71]. Koch would have been wearing shoes when he left his office in the car, but they weren't in the car or the surrounding area[72]. And no suicide note was found.[73].

Moreover, suicide made no sense, since Koch had confessed to the German authorities his selling of hacked Western computer secrets to the KGB[74]. He was therefore in no danger of being prosecuted, being protected from punishment by the terms of the espionage amnesty legislation[75]. The authorities had actually provided Koch with accommodation and found him a job with the Christian Democratic Party[76]. He was also receiving help with his drug dependency and seemed on his way to rehabilitation[77] Koch was even planning to move into an apartment of his own and had embraced conventional religion[78]. So even on those grounds (apart from the impossibility of Koch extinguishing, with no fire extinguisher or hose, the gasoline fire which killed him) murder was much more likely than suicide[79].

When the Nature paper announced on 16 February 1989 that the Shroud had in 1988 been dated by radiocarbon "laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich" as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[80], it was world news. Koch who was employed by the Christian Democratic Party, and had "embraced conventional religion," i.e. Christianity, would have heard about it, either from the news media, or from his Christian friends. If Koch knew that he had in 1988 hacked two computers in laboratories at Zurich and Oxford universities, even if he did not know what their function was, he would have `put two and two together' and realised that the "mediaeval" carbon date of the Shroud was partly the result of his hacking. In which case if Koch then told his Christian friends about it, the KGB would have learnt of it, which would explain why the KGB would have permanently silenced Koch, and then Linick the day after Koch's burnt body was publicly identified on 3 June 1989!

Continued in part #10, Summary (10).

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. Photo, "In memory of Karl Koch. Hagbard Celine. 22.7.1965. 23.05.1989." Translated by Google. http://www.hagbard-celine.de/. [return]
3. Clauss, U., 2012, "Ancestor of the Pirate Party was charred in the forest," Die Welt, 25 May 2012. Translated by Google. [return]
4. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 28 January 2015. Footnotes omitted. Two links added. [return]
5. Jones, S.E., 2014, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #1," The Shroud of Turin blog, May 24. [return]
6. Jones, S.E., 2014, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #5," The Shroud of Turin blog, June 13. [return]
7. Jones, S.E., 2014, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #7," The Shroud of Turin blog, July 5. [return]
8. Clough. B. & Mungo, P., 1992, "Approaching Zero: Data Crime and the Computer," Faber & Faber: London & Boston, p.185. [return]
9. Wikipedia, 2015. [return]
10. Hafner, K. & Markoff, J., 1991, "Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier," Corgi: London, reprinted, 1993, p.207. [return]
11. Clough & Mungo, 1992, pp.164-165. [return]
12. Shea, R. & Wilson, R.A., 1975, "The Illuminatus! Trilogy," Dell: New York NY. [return]
13. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.206. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.206-207. [return]
16. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.216. [return]
17. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.214. [return]
18. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.215. [return]
19. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.164. [return]
20. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.208. [return]
21. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.209, 185. [return]
22. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.209. [return]
23. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.211. [return]
24. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.224. [return]
25. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.225, 293. [return]
26. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.230-231, 239-240, 245, 249, 250, 254, 260. [return]
27. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.266. [return]
28. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.213-214. [return]
29. Gove, 1996, pp.260-261. [return]
30. King, T., ed., 1989a, "Computer Espionage: Three `Wily Hackers' Arrested," Phrack Magazine, Issue #25, March 3. [return]
31. Jones, S.E., 2014, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," The Shroud of Turin blog, March 13. [return]
32. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.173. [return]
33. Linick, T.W., et al., 1986, "Operation of the NSF-Arizona accelerator facility for radioisotope analysis and results from selected collaborative research projects," Radiocarbon, Vol. 28, No. 2a, pp.522-533, 524. [return]
34. Clough & Mungo, 1992, pp.170-172, 228n5. [return]
35. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.172. [return]
36. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991, p.362. [return]
37. King, T., ed., 1989b, "News From The KGB/Wily Hackers," Phrack Magazine, Issue #25, March 7. [return]
38. Stoll, 1989, pp.341-342. [return]
39. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.254, 266. [return]
40. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.283. [return]
41. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
42. Stoll, 1989, p.363. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.184. [return]
45. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.172. [return]
46. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.184. [return]
47. Clough & Mungo, 1992, pp.183-184. [return]
48. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
49. Ibid. [return]
50. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.302-303. [return]
51. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
52. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
53. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
54. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
55. Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 30 May 2014. [return]
56. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
57. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
58. Ibid. [return]
59. "Cliff Stoll visiting Karl Koch's death forest," FirstPost, 2014. [return]
60. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
61. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
62. Ibid. [return]
63. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
64. King, T., ed., 1989c, "One of Cliff Stoll's `Wily Hackers' Is Dead (Suicide?)," Phrack Magazine, June 5. This 5th June Phrack Magazine report states that Koch died on 3 June, evidently wrongly assuming at the time that Koch had died the same day that the police publicly identified his body. [return]
65. Ibid. [return]
66. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.302-303. [return]
67. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p. 303. [return]
68. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163; Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.303. [return]
69. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
70. Galeazzi, G., 2013. "Never solved: The enigma that still divides the Church: The Shroud," Vatican Insider, 1 April. Translated from Italian by Google. See English translation, "Unsolved Enigma that Still Divides the Church: The Shroud." [return]
71. Clough, & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
72. Ibid. [return]
73. Stoll, 1989, p.362. [return]
74. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
75. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.186. [return]
76. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
77. Ibid. [return]
78. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.302. [return]
79. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
80. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615. [return]

---

Posted 17 May 2015. Updated 5 June 2025.