Monday, March 31, 2014

Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Further to my replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey

Further to my post, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," Prof. Ramsey gave the misleading impression in his email:

"Yes – I agree with all that Tim says. This would seem to be a suggestion from someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s. In the case of Oxford the AMS had no connection to any network (and indeed even today our AMS control computers have no network connections). The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured. Age calculation was done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS."
that the AMS control console computer in the Arizona University's radiocarbon dating laboratory was little more than a calculator. Which led Dan Porter to

[Right: Arizona radiocarbon laboratory's AMS control console computer just after it had displayed on its screen the uncalibrated `radiocarbon date of the Shroud', which was then calibrated to "1350 AD" (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," pp.176H, 264). I have identified this as probably a DEC VT-100 terminal connected to a DEC VAX-11 32-bit minicomputer-see below.]

question in a recent post on his blog, whether the AMS control console computers were even "programmable." My reply to Porter on his blog, included:


>Has he determined if the AMS Control Consoles at all three labs had programmable computers

There is no such thing as a NON-programmable computer. Prof. Ramsey confirmed that the AMS control console computers were under the control of "software," which is just another name for a program. When I get to that part of my series I will give further evidence about this.


I then added a further comment on Porter's blog (lightly edited):


>Has he determined if the AMS Control Consoles at all three labs had programmable computers

I meant to add, but I could not remember the name, that one of those listed by Harry Grove as present at Arizona’s C-14 dating of the Shroud was "Art Hatheway" who was "connected with the Arizona AMS facility" and was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper:

"The next morning at about 8 am (6 May 1988) I arrived at the Arizona AMS facility ... I would be the only one present outside the Arizona AMS group. Doug immediately asked me to sign the following statement:
"We the undersigned, understand that radiocarbon age results for the Shroud of Turin obtained from the University of Arizona AMS facility are confidential. We agree not to communicate the results to anyone-spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public." It had been signed by D J Donahue, Brad Gore, L J Toolin, P E Damon, Timothy Jull and ART HATHEWAY, all connected with the Arizona AMS facility, before I signed. My signature was followed by T W Linick and P J Sercel, also from the Arizona facility." (Gove, 1996, p.262. My emphasis).

A Google search on "Art Hatheway Arizona" (without quotes) had turned up an obituary of an "Arthur Loyal Hatheway" who was "Senior Staff Engineer at the AMS Lab in the Physics Department at U of A." and a "computer programmer":

"Arthur Loyal Hatheway Obituary HATHEWAY, Arthur Loyal, born in Los Angeles on March 26, 1940 to Philip and Pauline Hatheway, went suddenly to Jesus on October 11, 2008. ... In 2006, Art retired from his position as Senior Staff Engineer at the AMS Lab in the Physics Department at U of A. There his skills as COMPUTER PROGRAMMER and small instrument engineer, his thorough nature and precise workmanship, his understanding of chemistry and physics, as well as his abilities to invent and mentor, WERE PUT TO GOOD USE. Art met Jesus in 1992. This new relationship changed his perspective on life ... Arizona Daily Star on Oct. 14, 2008".

I am NOT alleging that Art Hatheway was one of the hackers, just that there was at least one member of the Arizona C-14 lab staff who was a "computer programmer" and indeed a "Senior Staff Engineer," which is indicative of a high level of sophistication of the Arizona C-14 lab’s computers, and presumably of the other C-14 labs’ computers.

And that presumably a major role of Senior Staff Engineer Hatheway was ensuring the AMS control console computer program controlled the AMS C-14 dating process:

"The first sample run was OX1. 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." (Gove, 1996, p.264).
I had originally thought that the computer which controlled the AMS dating was different from the AMS control console computer, but according to Gove’s words above, they were ONE AND THE SAME. Now a lab does not need to employ a "Senior Staff Engineer" who is also a "computer programmer" and who "put[s] to good use" those "skills," on a computer which Prof. Ramsey gave the misleading impression was little more than a calculator:
"The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured. Age calculation was done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS." ("Comment Promoted: On the Hacking Hypothesis," March 9, 2014).
and which led Dan to question whether it was even "programmable".

Now Prof. Ramsey is highly computer literate, being himself a computer programmer, as the author of "OxCal" a computer "program ... intended to provide radiocarbon calibration":

"OxCal The OxCal program is intended to provide radiocarbon calibration ... For further information contact the author: Prof. C. Bronk Ramsey ..."
So Prof. Ramsey presumably KNOWS VERY WELL that the AMS control system computers at Arizona, Zurich and Oxford were not little more than "a calculator" but were PROGRAMMABLE computers, controlling the entire complex AMS radiocarbon dating process as well as outputting the uncalibrated C-14 dates of each sample onto their screens.

I personally find Prof. Ramsey’s (and Dr Jull’s) defensiveness significant.

But again, I repeat, that I am NOT alleging that the late Art Hatheway (or Prof. Ramsey) was one of the hackers. All I am seeking to establish is that the C-14 labs’ AMS control console computers were PROGRAMMABLE. And therefore HACKABLE!


I regard this evidence that the AMS control console computer at Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory (and therefore presumably at the Zurich and Oxford laboratories which had the same Accelerator Mass Spectrometry system), was programmable and therefore hackable, as a further step forward in my proposal that the radiocarbon dating laboratories at universities in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, which in 1988 dated the Shroud of Turin as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390," against the preponderance of the evidence, may have been unknowingly duped by a computer hacker.

PS: I have posted the following as a comment on Dan Porter's blog (slightly edited):


I decided to Google the name which was after Art Hatheway's on Prof. Harry Grove's list of those present at the Arizona lab's 6 May 1988 dating of the Shroud. It was "T. W. Linick". I found out his name was "Timothy W. Linick". I then discovered that he died on June 4, 1989, aged 42, a few months after the Nature paper to which he was a signatory appeared, on February 16 of that year. Moreover, it was rumoured that Linick committed suicide.

It may be significant that Karl Koch, a self-confessed (after was caught) hacker who had worked for the KGB, died on May 23, 1989, less than 2 weeks earlier than Linick, in what appeared to be an execution designed to look like suicide.

I then Googled the names of other signatories to the 1988 Nature paper but found no other untimely deaths. However, as the Wikipedia article on Karl Koch notes, Koch's fellow hackers Pengo (Hans Heinrich Hübner), and Urmel (Markus Hess) also confessed that they had worked for the KGB but were not eliminated.

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.


PPS: Here is a further comment I posted to Dan Porter's blog (with light editing):


I have discovered what make and probably the model of the AMS control console computer was. On Googling "Linick Arizona computer" (without the quotes) I found the paper, 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.

In it the late Dr Linick, described the computerised process that Prof. Gove wrote of Arizona lab's AMS control console computer, and wrote that it is a "DEC computer system":

"The DEC computer system largely controls the cycling of isotopes, accumulation of data, and calculation of results for each 15-minute run."

"DEC" stands for Digital Equipment Corporation, the maker of the powerful PDP and VAX range of minicomputer which were very popular in laboratories in the 1980s. However I have been unable to discover what model it was, e,g. PDP-11, VAX-11, etc.

Googling "DEC" and then selecting "images," the Arizona Lab's AMS control console computer in the photo on page 176H of Prof. Gove's book (see above), looks like a DEC VT-100 terminal.

[Left: DEC VT-100 terminal: Wikipedia, 29 March 2014]

If that is so, and given that Arizona's AMS system was installed in 1981, its AMS control console computer was probably a 32-bit VAX-11:

"In 1976, DEC decided to extend the PDP-11 architecture to 32-bits while adding a complete virtual memory system to the simple paging and memory protection of the PDP-11. The result was the VAX architecture, where VAX stands for Virtual Address eXtension (from 16 to 32 bits). The first computer to use a VAX CPU was the VAX-11/780, which DEC referred to as a superminicomputer. Although it was not the first 32-bit minicomputer, the VAX-11/780's combination of features, price, and marketing almost immediately propelled it to a leadership position in the market after it was released in 1978. VAX systems were so successful that in 1983, DEC canceled its Jupiter project, which had been intended to build a successor to the PDP-10 mainframe, and instead focused on promoting the VAX as the single computer architecture for the company. Supporting the VAX's success was the VT52, one of the most successful smart terminals. Building on earlier less successful models (the VT05 and VT50), the VT52 was the first terminal that did everything one might want in a single chassis. The VT52 was followed by the even more successful VT100 and its follow-ons, making DEC one of the largest terminal vendors in the industry. With the VT series, DEC could now offer a complete top-to-bottom system from computer to all peripherals, which formerly required collecting the required devices from different suppliers." " ("Digital Equipment Corporation: VAX," Wikipedia, 10 March 2014).

Whatever DEC computer system it was, whether a PDP or VAX, it CERTAINLY was programmable and therefore HACKABLE!


Posted: 31 March 2014. Updated: 21 September 2017.

12 comments:

Bippy123 said...

Stephen I wish I had the time to go through this article as it seems more and more that you have come up on something that has some smoke to it , and where there is smoke there is certainly some fire.

I have been going through health issues lately with this crazy itch that I have been experiencing throughout my body for 3 months and I finally got an appointment with the dermatologist in hopes he can find out what is causing this persistent itch. Been praying every day for you wife :)

I was just recently at the shroud story blog and I can't believe how Dan warning you against questioning someone's intellectual honesty, when I have seen nothing but this going on in his blog.

I know he has done that with you , but it goes much further than that . Collin berry has thrown ad hom's after as hom's yet he has been allowed to post there for God knows how long.

He has hurled even worse accusations against Ray Rogers yet I didn't see any warnings given to him.
I feel that blog is more like an uncle you know what blog (won't say the name of the uncle) that is afraid to anger the secularists.

I have always sensed this about the blog but never spoke it out loud. You confirmed what I was thinking all along.

Considering that someone has accused me of being Mark Antonacci (got a laugh out of that), how does a person respond to something like that.

I thank you for having the courage to speak out as you wrote what many of us were really thinking anyways.
Hopefully you will bring out even more info on the hacker theory.
God bless

Stephen E. Jones said...

Bippy123

Stephen I wish I had the time to go through this article

Try to make the time to go through it carefully.

>as it seems more and more that you have come up on something that has some smoke to it , and where there is smoke there is certainly some fire.

Yes. I am certain that I am on the right track. Between the AMS machine which dated the Shroud samples and outputted its uncalibrated C-14 dates to the control console computer and lab staff reading uncalibrated C-14 dates on that computer's screen is a computer PROGRAM.

If a hacker had modified the program to convert the Shroud samples' dates to dates which clustered around 1325, then all but the hacker would be none the wiser.

In my next post I will provide evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the hacker.

>I have been going through health issues lately with this crazy itch that I have been experiencing throughout my body for 3 months and I finally got an appointment with the dermatologist in hopes he can find out what is causing this persistent itch. Been praying every day for you wife :)

That must be terrible. I will pray for your healing. Thanks for your prayers for my wife. Her MS downward progression has stabilised, praise the Lord. I am still praying for your mother's healing.

>I was just recently at the shroud story blog and I can't believe how Dan warning you against questioning someone's intellectual honesty, when I have seen nothing but this going on in his blog.

Yes. He has a double standard towards me, but doesn't seem to realise it. Or maybe he does realise it and wants to discredit me because he sees me as a rival?

As G.K. Chesterton is supposed to have said: "behind every double standard is a single hidden agenda"!

I have finally left Dan's blog completely. Last November I stopped automatically receiving his posts and from now on I am not going to read comments under his posts nor comment myself.

In my last comment (which I don't know appeared) I told Dan that I would continue to read his posts but any about me I would respond to on my blog, if warranted.

>I know he has done that with you , but it goes much further than that .

I told Dan and his commenters that the Holy Spirit had been prompting me to warn both them and Dan that they who personally attack me, a Christian who is only seeking to serve his Lord, that Jesus will, if they don't repent, avenge their attacks on me:

Romans 12:19: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, `Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"

>Collin berry has thrown ad hom's after as hom's yet he has been allowed to post there for God knows how long.

Dan has banned Berry from time to time and then allowed him back. Berry is permanently banned from commenting on my blog, after many warnings for his offensive language. He seems unable to argue his position without descending into personal insults.

>He has hurled even worse accusations against Ray Rogers yet I didn't see any warnings given to him.

See above on Dan's hidden agenda. Most of the intelligent commenters seem to have stopped commenting on Dan's blog. I warned him that that would happen if he allowed personal attacks to continue as a substitute for reasoned arguments.

>I feel that blog is more like an uncle you know what blog (won't say the name of the uncle) that is afraid to anger the secularists.

I don't know what you mean by "uncle" but Dan is himself close to being a secularist. In the past he has said he has `no problem with evolution'. But the "evolution" which rules the secular scientific world is that "...God had NO PART in this process."

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

Dan also has said he has no problem with there being multiple universes, but the Multiple Universe Theory is the Atheistic attempt to explain away the fantastic level of design evident in the laws and constants of the one and only Universe that science can detect.

Dan has often referred to Biblical supernatural events as "metaphors." He even seems to think the resurrection was not physical: one instant Jesus body was in the tomb, and the next instant it is resurrected, with nothing in between.

So Dan is against John Jackson's theory that the Shroud's image was caused by the cloth's collapse into the field of radiation where Jesus' body had been.

That is close to, if not actually Gnosticism, the super-spiritual position that was already a problem in the New Testament letters and became a major problem in 2nd century.

They (and Dan) fit the description of the Apostle Paul:

Tim 3:5: "having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people."

Because of all the above, I don't regard Dan as a fellow Christian, but one of the "many" whom Jesus warned THINK they are Christians but aren't because Jesus doesn't know them PERSONALLY:

Mt 7:22-23. "22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

>I have always sensed this about the blog but never spoke it out loud. You confirmed what I was thinking all along.

You probably are one of the silent majority of Dan's readers who don't agree with his sitting on the fence position:

"Is the Shroud real? Probably." As I wrote in my last comment on Dan's blog, that gives him he tactical advantage of looking down from his Mt. Olympus and hurling down the occasional thunderbolt on us mere mortals arguing for or against the Shroud's authenticity.

One of the wisest pieces of advice I have been given was by one of mu university lecturers who said: "Don't believe what people say, believe what they DO".

And what Dan DOES is to praise and be soft on anti-authenticists, but criticise and come down hard on pro-authenticists like me.

Going by his early Shroud web pages, Dan used to be strongly pro-authenticist but he has drifted into a close to anti-authenticist position.

>Considering that someone has accused me of being Mark Antonacci (got a laugh out of that), how does a person respond to something like that.

Say, "thanks for the compliment"!

>I thank you for having the courage to speak out as you wrote what many of us were really thinking anyways.

Thanks for your support and encouragement.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>Hopefully you will bring out even more info on the hacker theory.

I will. I am preparing a post, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: The evidence for Timothy W. Linick being the hacker." And then I will continue with my "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" series.

>God bless

Thanks and the same to you.

I strongly believe that Jesus is going before me in this and that He will progressively reveal what REALLY happened in the C-14 dating of His Shroud.

If Jesus is for me, who CAN be against me! (Rom 8:31).

Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
Reader, if you like this my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its Google PageRank number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.

Bippy123 said...

>And what Dan DOES is to praise and be soft on the anti-authenticists, but criticise and come down hard on pro-authenticists like me.

That's exactly what I saw when he posted on that one skeptics site. I was amazed at his very accommodating style of writing towards anti-authenticists.us

>Say, "thanks for the compliment"!

I gotta remember that for the next time hehe. :)

>I strongly believe that Jesus is going before me in this and that He will progressively reveal what REALLY happened in the C-14 dating of His Shroud.

I agree Stephen. Sue Benford also believed that Jesus was leading her on to check the area that was cut for the 88 c14 testing.
.
Ray Rogers didn't believe her at first but he sure did after he did his chemical analysis on it.

God sure has a way to humble these skeptics, yet they keep fighting him.


>If Jesus is for me, who CAN be against me! (Rom 8:31).

Amen Stephen :)



Stephen E. Jones said...

Bippy123

>>what Dan DOES is to praise and be soft on the anti-authenticists, but criticise and come down hard on pro-authenticists like me.

>...I was amazed at his very accommodating style of writing towards anti-authenticists.

Dan might be bending over backwards to be fair to anti-authenticists.

But then why was he so unfair to pro-authenticists like me, that he allowed me to be continually defamed on his blog, without him lifting a finger?

And what is interesting is that the anti-authenticists don't criticise Dan. As I pointed out in one of my last comments, Dan's position on the C-14 dating, according to his blog's sidebar is:

"The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless."

But as far as I am aware, the anti-authenticists don't challenge Dan on that.

Either they are cowards, or they intuitively recognise in Dan a kindred spirit, or well on the way to becoming one.

[...]

>>I strongly believe that Jesus is going before me in this and that He will progressively reveal what REALLY happened in the C-14 dating of His Shroud.

>I agree Stephen. Sue Benford also believed that Jesus was leading her on to check the area that was cut for the 88 c14 testing.

Unfortunately the Benford-Marino invisible repair theory has a major problem. Absent fraud, it would be a MIRACLE if a mix of 1st and 16th century linen just happened to C14 date to 1325 +/- 65, just before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in the 1350s.

>Ray Rogers didn't believe her at first but he sure did after he did his chemical analysis on it.

Again, that there was some degree of reweaving is agreed; but that it ALONE explained the Shroud sample's 1325 +/- 65 date, absent some kind of fraud, is disagreed.

>God sure has a way to humble these skeptics, yet they keep fighting him.

They are unwitting participants in the play written by Jesus. But we Christians have read the end of the book (Rev 21:1-22:5) and we win!:

"When things get bad and you can't stand to look
It's time to read to the end of the book
Don't put it down 'til you get to the end
When Jesus come and His Kingdom begins
... WE WIN..." (Michael W. Smith,
"End of the Book." My emphasis).

>>If Jesus is for me, who CAN be against me! (Rom 8:31).

>Amen Stephen :)

My assumption is that because it IS Jesus' Shroud, which He went out of His way to imprint His image upon, and then preserved it down through the ages, He must be PLEASED with the efforts of those who, like me, STRONGLY defend its authenticity.

My corollary assumption is that Jesus must be DISPLEASED with those who attack me (and allow me to be attacked) because of my strong defence of the Shroud.

Stephen E. Jones

Bippy123 said...

Hello again Stephen, I was wondering if you saw this article that just came out, it involved Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli. Now I know that Luigi was involved in the failed 2009 shroud replica , but I have a feeling I have seen borinni being mentioned in shroud skeptic circles .

Here is the article. Could you take a look at it and give me your opinion on it.mi don't know if its worthy of a blog article though. I'll leave that up to your
good judgement .

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229633.100-shroud-of-turin-depicts-yshaped-crucifixion.html#.Uz6zYZK9KSP

This is practically the only major shroud blog I visit and it's because your research is extremely thorough . :)

Stephen E. Jones said...

Bippy123

>Hello again Stephen, I was wondering if you saw this article that just came out ... shroud-of-turin-depicts-yshaped-crucifixion ...

I haven't yet read the article and I am going to be too busy this weekend to respond properly to it.

Off the top of my head I can see major problems with it.

But I am working on an election today from 7am-9pm so I may not be able to dash off even a quick reply until late tonight or tomorrow morning.

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

Bippy123

Off the top of my head, the claim that the Shroud depicts a Y-shaped cross, has the following problems:

• Blood flows on the arms of the man on the Shroud are consistent with a raised position of 55 degrees and a slumped position of 65 degrees, both from the vertical:

"We are now drawn to the wounds of the crucifixion itself. First we must establish that we can be quite confident we are dealing with a crucifixion victim. The principal evidence for this lies in the flows of blood from the wound in the left wrist. One of the most important aspects is the angle of the two streams of blood closest to the hand, flowing toward the inner border of the forearm. Other, interrupted streams run along the length of the arm as far as the elbow, dripping toward the edge of the arm at angles similar to the original flows. The first two flows are about ten degrees apart, the somewhat thinner [26] one at an angle of about fifty-five degrees from the axis of the arm and the broader one closer to the hand at about sixty-five degrees. This enables us to do two things: (1) to compute that at the time the blood flowed, the arms must have been raised at positions varying between fifty-five and sixty-five degrees from the vertical, i.e., clearly a crucifixion position; (2) to compute that because of the ten-degree difference the crucified man must have assumed two slightly different positions on the cross, that at sixty-five degrees representing full suspension of the body, that at fifty-five degrees a slightly more acute angle of the forearm produced by flexing the elbow to raise the body. We are enabled to deduce then that the crucifixion forced on the victim an up-and-down or seesaw motion on the cross-perhaps, according to one school of thought, in order to breathe, the arms in that position taking a tension equal to nearly twice the weight of the body, inducing near-suffocation if there was no crutch support; perhaps, according to another school of thought, by the victim attempting to relieve himself of one unbearable agony, the pain in his wrists, by raising himself, at the price of yet more pain, on the living wounds in his feet." (Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," pp.25-26).

• Christian tradition has from the earliest times depicted Jesus' cross as a Roman cross † . See my post with a photo of a Roman cross on a fountain in ancient Edessa dated ~215.

Jn 19:17 says that Jesus "went out, bearing his own cross". He could have carried a horizontal cross-beam (patibulum) but not two long beams making a Y-shape.

• the charge was placed "over his head" (Mt 27:37) which best fits a Roman cross, not a Y-shaped cross.

• Garlaschelli claims the Shroud is a medieval forgery, but a forger would have depicted the tradition Roman cross not a non-traditional Y-shaped cross.

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

I wrote above:

>In my next post I will provide evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the hacker.

and:

>I am preparing a post, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: The evidence for Timothy W. Linick being the hacker."

But I am still seeking further information on Timothy W. Linick, which may take some time, so I will for the time being continue with my series, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?"

Even if I do receive further information which points to Timothy W. Linick being the hacker, I may wait until near the end of the series, when I have presented the evidence for there having been a hacker, who modified the program on each of the three radiocarbon dating laboratories' AMS control console computers, and substituted the Shroud's 1st or early century date with dates which clustered around 1325.

Stephen E. Jones

Anonymous said...

You will be sorely pressed to find a more ethical and upstanding character than that of the late and sorely missed Art Hatheway. His search for truth was genuine and dutiful.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>You will be sorely pressed to find a more ethical and upstanding character than that of the late and sorely missed Art Hatheway. His search for truth was genuine and dutiful.

Thanks. As I wrote:

>I am NOT alleging that Art Hatheway was one of the hackers, just that there was at least one member of the Arizona C-14 lab staff who was a "computer programmer" and indeed a "Senior Staff Engineer," which is indicative of a high level of sophistication of the Arizona C-14 lab’s computers, and presumably of the other C-14 labs’ computers.

That was an early post: "March 31, 2014" when I was merely asking the question: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?"

I since discovered information which points to one of Hathaway's Arizona laboratory colleagues, Timothy W. Linick, as both the leaker of Arizona's first run "1350" date, and also the hacker who wrote a program which substituted the Shroud's first century (or early century because of irremovable contamination) date for computer-generated dates which ensured the Shroud dated 1260-1390 or 1325 +/- 65, about 30 years before it first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c. 1355.

See my current in process series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking" which has links back to my previous posts on this topic.

Have you any information you can give me on this?

Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.