Thursday, April 20, 2017

X-rays #22: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The man on the Shroud
X-RAYS #22
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the third installment of part #22, "The man on the Shroud: X-rays," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "The man on the Shroud #8." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: No decomposition #21] [Next: Real human blood #23]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. X-rays #22

Introduction The frontal image of the man on the Shroud includes under-the-skin x-ray images of his skull[2], cheekbones[3], teeth[4], finger bones[5], hand bones[6] and spine[7]. See also 10Dec15.

[Above (enlarge)[8]: A Polarized Image Overlay [9] photograph showing the Shroud face (left) compared to an x-ray image of a human skull (right). As can be seen, the Shroud image contains teeth and skull bone structures that are beneath the man's skin, which are only seen in x-ray radiographs or other modern imaging techniques.]

The Shroud man's finger and hand bones are x-ray images Sceptics had claimed that the Shroud was a medieval forgery because the man's "hands and fingers [were] unnaturally long and spidery"[10]. However in 1984, Giles F. Carter (1930-2010), a Professor of

[Above (enlarge): Extract of positive photograph of the Shroud showing the finger (phalanges) and the hand (metacarpals) bones beneath the skin[11] - see below.]

Chemistry at Eastern Michigan University, proposed that parts of the Shroud man's image were the result of:

"... x-rays emanating from the bones of the man in the Shroud ... absorbed by elements (e.g., sodium, silicon, phosphorus, potassium, calcium) at the surface of the body, which would then fluoresce and emit secondary x-rays of relatively long wavelength"[12].
Carter noted that the fingers in the Shroud image "are extremely long for a man of 1.73-1.78 m (5'8" - 5'10") height" and "the probability is very small that a man of this height would have such long fingers"[13]. After considering other explanations of the Shroud man's too-long fingers, Carter proposed that, "the finger images may be due at least in part to x-rays emanating from the bones in the body":
"...the finger images may be due at least in part to x-rays emanating from the bones in the body. Finger bones continue throughout much of the hand, and they could cause the fingers to look too long. In normal bodies, the ratio of the distance from the middle fingertip to the base of the finger divided by the distance from the middle fingertip to the wrist (wound area) is about 0.5. This compares with a ratio of about 0.6 for the image on the Shroud, meaning that the fingers are unusually long and the rest of the hand is grotesquely small. The probability for this to have occurred must be small"[14].
In 1992, Dr Alan Whanger, using his Polarized Image Overlay technique, was studying both positive and negative photographs of the Shroud man's hands when he realised that he was "clearly seeing the bones in the fingers and the palm of the hand (the phalanges and the metacarpals)" - see above:
"It was immediately apparent to me that I was clearly seeing the bones in the fingers and the palm of the hand (the phalanges and the metacarpals). I have had considerable clinical experience in reading x-rays, but I took a photograph of this to a professor of skeletal radiology who agreed that indeed the bones are visible. I got x-rays of my own hands in the same position as those on the Shroud, and it became readily apparent that we were seeing the knuckles and the base of the thumb on the Shroud image"[15].
Whanger's identification of "the metacarpal bones and the three phalange bones of each finger" was confirmed correct by "Michael Blunt, Challis Professor of Anatomy at the University of Sydney"[16].

To be continued in the fourth installment of this part #22 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp.425-446, 433; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.117; 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.29; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.213-214; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.38; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.241. [return]
3. Carter, 1982, p.433; Wilson, 1998, p.29. [return]
4. Carter, 1982, p.433; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.117; Antonacci, 2000, p.214; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
5. Carter, 1982, p.433; Wilson, 1998, p.29; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.151; Antonacci, 2000, p.213. [return]
6. Carter, 1982, p.433; Wilson, 1998, p.29; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
7. Carter, 1982, p.433; Antonacci, 2000, p.214. [return]
8. Prather, J., 2015, "Autoradiography - Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin," August 29; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.117. [return]
9. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.116-117. [return]
10. Dutton, D., 1984, "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review, 23, pp.243-55; Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the Public, and the Shroud of Turin, The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. VI, No. 3, Spring, pp.44-45, 45; Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.70; Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2. [return]
11. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
12. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, p.42; Carter, 1982, pp.425, 433; Ruffin, 1999, p.151. [return]
13. Carter, 1982, p.430. [return]
14. Carter, 1982, p.430; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.36. [return]
15. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.184-189, 187; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
16. Wilson, 1998, p.29. [return]

Posted: 20 April 2017. Updated: 22 April 2017.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

W. Pinson

This is the second and final installment of my reply in this separate post to your comment under my post, "Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory ...#6" Your words are in bold and prefaced by `greater than' brackets ">" to distinguish them from mine. It is my emphasis unless otherwise indicated.

[Above (enlarge): Photomicrograph taken by pro-authenticist STURP photographer Barrie Schwortz in 2012, of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated part of its Shroud sample[2]. As can be seen it is obviously not 60% or more contaminated with younger carbon (see below), which it would have had to have been to shift the 1st century Shroud 13-14 centuries into the future to have a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date.]

>A review of Radiocarbon Dating (Wikipedia article), there are considerations and error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material. Contamination with younger carbon which cannot be removed by pre-treatment:

"In 1532 the Shroud was being kept inside a silver casket stored in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, when a fire nearly destroyed the building. The intense heat melted a corner of the casket, scorching the folded linen within, and producing the now familiar scorch marks on the Shroud. Since silver melts only at 960 degrees centigrade, the heat inside the casket must have been intense. In these circumstances moisture in the Shroud would turn to steam, probably at superheat, trapped in the folds and layers of the Shroud. Any contaminants on the cloth would be dissolved by the steam and forced not only into the weave and yarn, but also into the flax fibres' very lumen and molecular structure. ... contaminants would have become part of the chemistry of the flax fibres themselves and would be impossible to remove satisfactorily by surface actants and ultrasonic cleaning. More drastic treatments to destroy the contaminants would inevitably damage the flax fibres themselves"[3].
would have explained why the 1st-century Shroud did not have a 1st-century, but an early century (e.g. 4th-5th century[4]) radiocarbon date, if the Shroud samples had been radiocarbon-dated in 1988. But they were not and instead the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking.

Contamination with younger carbon cannot plausibly explain why the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date. Because that would require a level of contamination sufficient to shift the Shroud's radiocarbon date 12-13 centuries into the future.

And to do that would require the Shroud sample to have been 60% or more contamination! That also applies to the invisible repair/patch theories. See my "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail."

But that is obviously not the case with the Shroud, as such a huge level of contamination would be clearly visible, but isn't.

See the above photomicrograph, taken by pro-authenticist photographer Barrie Schwortz, of a piece of Arizona laboratory's original Shroud sample that was never dated (radiocarbon dating requires a sample to be destroyed by burning it down to its basic carbon). As can be seen, the Arizona sub-sample is not mostly contamination. Oxford estimated that their sample (which was cut from the same larger sample as Arizona's), was less than 0.1% contamination:

"... these and similar contamination arguments has been fiercely contested by Professor Edward Hall, the recently-retired director of the Oxford laboratory. He has argued:
`Calculations show that a modern contamination amounting to 65 per cent of the mass of the shroud would be necessary to give a date of 1350 to a fabric originally dating from the time of Christ ... We believe that any such contamination would have been less than 0.1 per cent'"[5].
>Since the Shroud of Turin had been in immediate contact with its backing and patches for 450 years prior to the dating in 1988, that should have been considered in the dating, but it doesn't seem to have been. The radiocarbon dating laboratories would have considered that (see the 1989 Nature paper for details of the laboratories' extensive pre-treatment of the Shroud samples to remove carbon contamination), but because the midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65 years, which was close to "the time its historic record began" i.e. c. 1355:
"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"[6]
they assumed that their pre-treatment cleaning must have removed all non-original carbon. They took the Shroud's 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date as confirmation that the dating must have been carried out "flawlessly":
"My main concern was that this highly public application of the AMS technique, which I had played a major role in inventing and developing, be successful. The new procedures seemed to me to be fraught with peril. If one of the three laboratories obtained an outlier result as one did in the British Museum interlaboratory comparisons it would be impossible statistically to identify it and the three measurements would all have to be included in the average thereby producing an incorrect result. The inclusion of the other laboratories would have obviated this potential risk. As it turned out my fears were not realized. The three laboratories performed their measurements flawlessly and the final result is a public triumph for AMS if not for the `true believers'. That the shroud's age is the historic one is the dullest result one could have wished for"[7].
>It is very possible, and very likely, that the Shroud is much, much older than the carbon dating, because of the affects of the much higher C14 content of the backing and patches. The evidence (apart from the radiocarbon dating) is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic and therefore first-century or earlier. However pro-authenticist arguments that rely on contamination, invisible repair patching, neutron flux, etc, all fail (see above) because they accept the 1260-1390 = 1325 ± 65 years radiocarbon date of the Shroud as correct and then try reconcile that with the Shroud’s 1st century date. But as the pro-authenticist physicist Frank Tipler pointed out, it would be a "miracle" (he believes it was!) for the 1st century Shroud to have precisely the right level of contamination to shift the Shroud’s radiocarbon date to 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years, a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355:
"This could be an explanation for the error made in 1988 on the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. What originally convinced me that the Shroud was a fake was the fact that the date obtained was precisely that expected if the Shroud were a medieval forgery. The Shroud first appeared in France in 1355, and the Arizona laboratory obtained a radiocarbon date of 1350. It seems incredible that later contamination came in exactly the right amount to give an exactly incorrect date. Unless the contamination was adjusted (by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, acting through the laws of physics) .... Unless, that is, the contamination were a miracle"[8].
But that would make God a deceiver! Few, if any, pro-authenticists would accept Tipler's deceiver-God reconciliation of the 1st century Shroud with its 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date. But that is implicit in all pro-authenticist explanations which accept the 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date of the Shroud and then try to reconcile that to the Shroud's actual 1st century date, by contamination, invisible repairs, neutron flux, etc.

The laboratories have stated that the improbability of the Shroud being 1st century yet having a 1260-1390 a radiocarbon date is "astronomical" (Tite)[9], "one in a thousand trillion" (Gove)[10], "totally impossible" (Hall-his emphasis)[11]. But since the Shroud is authentic, and therefore 1st century or earlier, the improbability that it has a 1260-1390 a radiocarbon date must be "astronomical," "one in a thousand trillion" and indeed "totally impossible"!

The only viable explanation that fits all the facts is that the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating of the 1st century Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[12] was the result of a computer hacking! Remember:

"... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"[13]!

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this my post it came from. [return]
2. Schwortz, B.M., 2012, "New Photographs of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Samples," Shroud.com, November 21. [return]
3. Tyrer, J., in Wilson, I., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. [return]
4. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.87. [return]
5. Hall, E.T., 1990, "Letter to Textile Horizons, January 1990, in Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.177. [return]
6. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
7. Gove, H.E., 1989, "Letter To The Editor: The Turin Shroud," Archaeometry, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.235-237, 237. [return]
8. Tipler, F.J., 2007, "The Physics of Christianity," Doubleday: New York NY, pp.216-217. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.6-7. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.303. [return]
. 11. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.114-115. [return]
12. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
13. Doyle, A.C., 2001, "The Sign of Four," Penguin: London, pp.42-43. [return]

Posted: 19 April 2017. Updated: 20 April 2017.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #6

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the eighth and final installment of part #6, "Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory," in my "Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory" series. For more information about this series see part #1, "Hacking an explanation & Index." References "[A]", etc., will be to that part of my original post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: Another form of fraud - computer hacking #5] [Next: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey #7]

Summary Continuing with tracing the steps in the development of my hacker theory in my early 2014 posts: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (1)," "(2)," "(3)," and now "Summary."

The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus Christ[2]. Yet in 1988 the Shroud was radiocarbon dated

[Right (enlarge): Prof. E. Hall (l), Dr M. Tite (c) and Dr. R. Hedges (r) announcing on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated to "1260- 1390!"[3].]

as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390[4] by three radiocarbon dating laboratories at universities in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford. The midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ± 65 years[5], which `just happens' to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c. 1355[6].[A]

■ The three laboratories used the same Accelerated Mass Spectrometry (AMS) method of radiocarbon dating[7]. The results of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud were displayed on Arizona's (and presumably Zurich and Oxford) laboratory's AMS system computer, as described in this eyewitness account by Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the co-

[Left (enlarge)[8]: Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory staff in front of the AMS computer terminal after it had displayed the radiocarbon date of the Shroud which was then calibrated to "1350 AD"[9]. I did not then know about the alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick, who is in the black shirt standing (significantly) most prominently in the foreground.]

inventor of the AMS radiocarbon dating method, of the very first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud:

"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 ... At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first ... 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"[10].[B]
■ Note that after only one dating run, Prof. Gove and all those present, even Prof. Donahue, a Roman Catholic who had up till then believed that the Shroud was authentic[11], accepted as fact what the computer told them, that the Shroud's "flax had been harvested ... [in] 1350 AD." But that would mean that: a) the Shroud's linen would have had to be woven and its image imprinted on the newly

[Right (enlarge): A pilgrim's badge from the Shroud's first undisputed exposition at Lirey, France in c.1355[12].]

woven linen cloth no more than 5 years before the Shroud was exhibited at Lirey, France, in c.1355; and b) the Arizona laboratory's pre-treatment of their Shroud sample would have had to be perfect, removing all traces of non-original carbon.[C]

■ Yet in 1987, when Gove learned that the number of laboratories had been reduced from 7 to 3, and the number of methods from 2 to 1, he was so worried that at least one of those three laboratories would return a wrong date, that he drafted a letter to the Pope, requesting him "not to date the Shroud at all"[13]! And in 1989, a year after the dating of the Shroud, an intercomparison test of 38 radiocarbon dating laboratories (with Oxford abstaining), found that only 7 of the 38 laboratories achieved a satisfactory result with the AMS laboratories being among the worst[14]![D]

■ Even Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, the Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory and a signatory (as "C.R. Bronk") to the 1989 Nature paper, has admitted: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests ... the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow"[15]! Just one example of this "lot of other evidence" that "the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow," is the Pray Codex which is dated 1192-95, yet it depicts at least eight unusual features which are found

[Left (enlarge)[16]: Depiction on the Pray Codex of Jesus naked, with His hands crossed awkwardly at the wrists over His pelvic region exactly as they are on the Shroud[17], about to be laid on a shroud which is more than twice the length of His body[18] [see 27May12].]

on the Shroud, including a set of L-shaped burn holes, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the artist had seen the Shroud[19]. Yet the latest date for the Pray Codex is 1195, which is 65 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[20]. And the Shroud would have had to have existed long before the Pray Codex artist depicted it.[E]

■ But as Prof. Gove pointed out, the chance that the Shroud was 1st century, yet had a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date, is "about one in a thousand trillion"[21]. But since the Shroud is authentic, its actual age

[Right (enlarge)[22]: Only part of Victoria, Australia's Ninety Mile Beach. Ninety miles is ~145 kilometres. One in a thousand trillion (1012) is the probability of finding in only one try a particular grain of sand of 1 mm diameter, on this beach in a strip 145 kilometres x ~5.4 metres wide. And since the Shroud is authentic, that is also the improbability that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was correct!.]

is first century or earlier, so the odds are "one in a thousand trillion" against the radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 being correct! (See part #4).[F]

■ Agnostic but pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow therefore regards fraud in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as a real possibility because of the `too good to be true' 1325 ± 65 years radiocarbon date:

"The third possibility is that a fraud was perpetrated ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with ... the Shroud's historical debut ... Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve"[23].
However, Ian Wilson, who knew the leaders of the 1988 radiocarbon dating, dismissed "as absurd and far-fetched as it is unworthy" that they "may have `rigged' the radiocarbon dating"[24]. But there is another type of fraud which seems not to have occurred to anyone: that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker.[G]

■ As astronomer-turned Berkeley University computer systems administrator Clifford Stoll, revealed in his 1989 book, "The Cuckoo's Egg" [right], in the 1980s university computers were poorly secured[25]. A hacker could in the 1980s break into any university computer "without leaving any trace"[26] and some did. [H]

■ The hacker whom Stoll caught, Markus Hess, was working for the KGB in Germany and from there he hacked into university computers in the USA, and from them he gained unauthorised access to "400 U.S. military computers"[27].[I]

The KGB then had a section called "Seat 12" which conducted "a disinformation campaign of communist propaganda during the Cold War to discredit the moral authority of the Vatican"[28]. Clearly a 1st or early century radiocarbon date of the Shroud would increase the moral authority of the Vatican and Christianity in general, especially inside the Soviet Union.[J]

Embryonic statement of my hacker theory So it is not an unreasonable proposition that a KGB agent hacked into the AMS computer at

[Left (enlarge)[29]: Schematic of Arizona's AMS system in 2005, with its control console computer terminal at bottom left.]

each of the three radiocarbon dating laboratories and inserted a program which, when a Shroud test was run, replaced the Shroud's 1st (or early due to irremovable contamination[30]) century radiocarbon date, with dates which when calibrated, would yield years clustering around AD 1325, just before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history in c. 1355.[K]

■ I am hopeful that now it is out in the public domain, my proposal that the laboratories which dated the Shroud were duped by a computer hacker will elicit confirmation, whether from [one of the signatories to the 1989 Nature paper], an ex-KGB defector, a former university student, etc. However, in the final analysis it is not the Shroud pro-authenticists' problem to work out what went wrong with the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. As de Wesselow points out, we can:

"... legitimately reject the carbon-dating result without determining exactly what went wrong ... Archaeologists routinely dismiss 'rogue' radiocarbon dates out of hand ... The 1988 test may therefore be declared null and void, even though, without further direct study of the Shroud, it is unlikely we will ever be able to say definitively what went wrong"[31][L]

■ PS: See further on "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey." Following Dr. Jull and Prof. Ramsey's clarification that the AMS system computer was never online at the their two laboratories (and therefore presumably also not at Zurich), the hacker, or hackers, would have had to insert a program, or modify the existing program, manually and locally in each of the three laboratories.

That makes it more likely that the KGB was involved, either directly or more likely indirectly, through local hacker recruits, like the Chaos Computer Club, of which Markus Hess was a member. However, I do not claim that the hackers were members of the Chaos Computer Club. I will develop this further in my next post [i.e. after "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey" post] in this series: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised."[M]

To be continued in part #7 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this my post it came from. [return]
2. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.14; Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.116-117, 141; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.86; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.60; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.27; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.6. [return]
3. 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.142C. [return]
4. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
5. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1,141,178,246; Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
6. Wilson, 1998, p.111,278; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.222-223. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178; Wilson, 1998, p.192; Wilson, 2010, p.281. [return]
8. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176H. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
10. Ibid. [return]
11. Wilson, 1991, p.8; Gove, 1996, p.264; Wilson, 1998, pp.10, 188. [return]
12. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
13. Gove, 1996, pp.218-219. [return]
14. Wilson, 1991, p.175; Wilson, 1998, p.193. [return]
15. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Modified 17 July 2009. [return]
16. Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. [return]
17. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.160; Wilson, 1991, pp.150-151; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.178-179. [return]
18. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.104-105. [return]
19. ; Wilson, 1998, p.147; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.181. [return]
20. Maloney, P.C., "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.16-47, 33; de Wesselow, 2012, p.183. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.302. [return]
22. "90-Mile Beach, Gippsland, Victoria," The Grey Nomads, Travel & Holiday Information Australia, 2017. [return]
23. de Wesselow, 2012, p.170. [return]
24. Wilson, 1998, p.11. [return]
25. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991, p.8. [return]
26. Stoll, 1989, p.9. [return]
27. "Markus Hess," Wikipedia, 22 February 2017. [return]
28. "Seat 12," Wikipedia, 22 February 2017. [return]
29. "Basic Principles of AMS," NSF-Arizona AMS Facility, University of Arizona, 2005. [return]
30. Tyrer, J., in Wilson, I., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. [return]
31. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.170-171. [return]

Posted: 11 April 2017. Updated: 17 April 2017.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, March 2017

Shroud of Turin News - March 2017
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: February 2017, part #1] [Next: March 2017, part #2]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1 of the March 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related March 2017 news articles in separate posts, linked back to this post, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine. Click on a link below to go to that article. Articles not yet linked are planned to be commented on in this issue.

Contents:
Editorial


Editorial

Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of the 118 issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz, for him to convert to PDFs and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in March up to issue #72, August 1992 [Right (enlarge)]. Issues in that archive are up to #66, August 1991.

Posts: In March I blogged 6 new posts (latest uppermost): "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Ninth century" - 25th; "No decomposition #21: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" - 14th; "Another form of fraud - computer hacking: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #5" - 10th; "Odds `one in a thousand trillion' against the radiocarbon dating!: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #4" - 9th; "My first use of the term `hacker': Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #3" - 7th; ""Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, February 2017." - 6th

Updates updates to my posts in the background in March included: adding to my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Seventh century":

"614. The Sudarium of Oviedo, the `face cloth' or "napkin" in John 20:7, leaves Jerusalem in its chest (the present day Arca Santa) ahead of an impending invasion by the Persian king Khosrow II (r. 590-628)."

Comments: In March I received an anonymous comment under my "Another form of fraud - computer hacking ..." post:

"If the computers were hacked then the scientists who did the testing must have discovered this soon afterwards. How do you explain than none of them ever talked about this? I am also not aware of any of the three laboratories requesting to test the unused sample."
See my reply below it, which is too long to post here.

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, in March I blogged 3 posts in my new series, "Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory": "My first use of the term `hacker'... #3"; "Odds `one in a thousand trillion' against the radiocarbon dating! ... #4" and "Another form of fraud - computer hacking ... #5".

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 March, Google Analytics [below enlarge] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 718,747. This compares with 515,212 (up 203,535 or 39%) in my March 2016 Editorial. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (latest uppermost) as: "Superficial #18: The man on the Shroud ... ," Nov 11, 2016 - 153; "`Editorial and Contents,' Shroud of ..., February 2017," Mar 6, 2017 - 144; "Fraud a real possibility: Steps in the ...," Feb 21, 2017 - 127; "Did you ask radiocarbon dating experts ...," Nov 3, 2016 - 123; and "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Ninth century," Mar 25, 2017 - 111.

Again it is encouraging to me to see my posts about my hacker theory being among the most read, month after month!


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this my post it came from. [return]

Posted: 3 April 2017. Updated: 199 April 2017.