Tuesday, March 14, 2017

No decomposition #21: 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
NO DECOMPOSITION #21
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the tenth (which is an update of the ninth) installment of part #21, "The man on the Shroud: No decomposition," 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: Three-dimensional #20] [Next: Blood clots intact #22]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. No decomposition #21

Introduction. The image of the man on the Shroud shows no signs of bodily decomposition[2], corruption[3], or putrefaction[4].

[Above (enlarge)[5]: Close-up of the Shroud man's face, which shows no evidence of decomposition at the mouth, nose or eyes. Yet decomposition first shows itself around the mouth[6]. This is even clearer on the counterpart Enrie negative photograph (see below).]

No signs of decomposition at the orifices There was no issue of

[Above (enlarge)[7]: Close-up of the Shroud man's face in negative, which also shows no evidence of decomposition at the mouth, nose or eyes.]

decomposition fluids and gases from the orifices (mouth, nose, eyes)[8], which usually occurs between 30 and 40 hours after death[9]. Decomposition would first leave a stain around the mouth[10], which would then have changed the outline of the face[11].

The man was in the Shroud no longer than three days The lack of bodily decomposition stains on the Shroud means that the man cannot have been in it longer than three days[12]. Even the agnostic art historian, Thomas de Wesselow, admits: "...the fact that the Shroud appears unaffected by any signs of liquid decomposition implies that the cloth was separated from the body within a few days ..."[13]. Any longer than three days, putrefaction would have set in and any image on the Shroud would have been destroyed[14] followed soon after by the destruction of the Shroud itself[15].

The man separated from the Shroud within three days without disturbing the dried blood As we saw above, the Shroud man's body separated from the cloth before putrefaction set in[16], which was within three days of death[17]. Moreover, the dried blood clots that had adhered to both the body and the cloth[18] remained intact[19] and unsmeared[20] on the cloth after that separation! [see future part #22, "Blood clots intact"].

Jesus' body did not undergo decomposition The New Testament, quoting from Ps 16:10, records that Jesus' body "did not see corruption" (Acts 2:27, 31; 13:34-37)[21]. The original Greek is diaphthoran[22], which refers to "the change of the present constitution of the body" following death[23] and "that destruction which is effected by the decay of the body after death"[24]. Jesus' body escaped corruption by being resurrected (Acts 2:32; 13:34,37)[25], after about 36 hours in the tomb[26] and less than 40 hours after His death[27].

Problem for Maillard Reaction theory As we saw in part #18 of this series, a Mailard Reaction is a chemical reaction between amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and carbohydrates[29]. It is what causes the browning of food in cooking[30]. A STURP chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005) proposed the theory that the image on the Shroud was the result of a Maillard Reaction between a carbohydrate, Saponaria officinalis or soapwort, which was used by the ancients in the production of linen[31], and both ammonia and amino acids which were given off by Jesus' (supposedly) decomposing body[32]. However, in addition to other problems of Rogers' Maillard Reaction image formation theory (e.g. vapors do not travel in straight lines but would diffuse in all directions to create a blurry, unclear and non-3D image[33] and they would not remain on the surface (see part #18) but would permeate down throughout the spaces in the weave of the cloth[34]: Rogers himself admitted that the "the discontinuous distribution of the color on the topmost parts of the weave," was a "perplexing" problem for his theory[35]); there is no evidence of decomposition on the Shroud man's body)[36] to produce the ammonia and amino acids required by Rogers' theory. Moreover, after Rogers' death, in 2013 Barrie Schwortz experimentally tested Rogers' Maillard Reaction theory on a decomposing pig and the theory failed that test[37]!

Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #18, a #19 and #20. The lack of signs of bodily decomposition on the Shroud is a particular problem for the Medieval Photography theory of Prof. Nicholas Allen (see 07Aug16, 01Sep16, 05Sep16 & 29Oct16), which requires a human body to be left hanging upright out in the sun for at least six days[38]. But a human body hung out in the necessarily bright full sunshine all day, for at least six days, to form an image in Allen's supposedly medieval camera, would have started decomposing[39], with unmistakable signs of decomposition[40] and loss of shape[41], not to mention being fly-blown with maggots eating the corpse's face[42], all faithfully recorded on Allen's hypothetical medieval photograph. But such decomposition and indeed putrefaction wasn't recorded on the Shroud image, so Allen's medieval photography theory is false!

The image of the man on the Shroud is that of a real human body In 1981, following an intensive series of scientific tests, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) reported:

"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin."[43]
Even some sceptics have now realised that, given its life-likeness and dissimilarity to any medieval work of art, the Shroud image can only be that of a real human body[44]. The agnostic de Wesselow points out:
"Every part of the body-image, then, even the remarkable image of the head, can be explained in terms of a stain produced by a real human body. Indeed, certain distortions and gaps in the image demand to be explained in these terms. The missing feet and neck of the frontal figure, the blank areas around the hands and forearms, the soles of the feet in the dorsal figure: these speak of the cloth having been draped loosely over the body of a man, not tinted by a medieval artist or subjected to a primitive form of photography"[45].
The image of the man on the Shroud is that of a dead man [see 13Dec13] The man on the Shroud is dead[46]. His body is in rigor mortis[47], fixed in the position that he was when he died[48] (except for the arms where the rigor of the shoulders has been broken for burial[49]), which is consistent with his death on a cross[50]. He has

[Above (enlarge): "G. Ricci, `Crucifixion,' sculpture in wood according to research carried out on the Holy Shroud"[51]. Italian artist Giulio Ricci (1913-95) reconstructed from the Shroud image the shape of the man's body, fixed in rigor mortis on a cross, at the moment of his death.]

post-mortem blood flows[52], which have oozed, not spurted as they would have had his heart been still beating[53], notably in the large bloodstain from the spear wound in his side[54]. That spear in his side punctured his heart and would have been fatal had he not already been dead[55]. His legs are unbroken, unlike other Roman crucifixion victims whose legs were broken while alive on their cross to hasten their death (Jn 19:31-33) from asphyxiation[56].

To be continued in the eleventh installment of this part #21 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. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.50; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.127, 155; Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 284; Habermas, G.R., 1984a, "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.158; Habermas, G.R., 1984b, "Turin, Shroud of," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker Book House: Grand Rapids MI., 1990, Seventh printing, p.1116; Habermas, G.R., 1987, "Affirmative Statement: Gary R. Habermas," in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.28; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.65; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.91; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.212, 229; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.3, 181; 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.54; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.33, 88; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, p.189; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.144; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.27. [return]
3. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, pp.30, 94; Wuenschel, 1954, pp.36, 50; Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.107; Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.41; Iannone, 1998, p.88. [return]
4. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.58; de Wesselow, 2012, p.378n.36. [return]
5. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical.," Sindonology.org. [return]
6. Hynek, 1951, p.95; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.212. [return]
7. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
8. Wuenschel, 1954, p.50; Meacham, 1983, p.284. [return]
9. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.212; Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
10. Hynek, 1951, p.95; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.212. [return]
11. Hynek, 1951, p.95. [return]
12. Bulst, 1957, p.107; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.155-156; Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.41; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius ... History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.51; Antonacci, 2000, p.120; de Wesselow, 2012, p.144. [return]
13. de Wesselow, 2012, p.144. [return]
14. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.44; Hynek, 1951, p.94; Wuenschel, 1954, p.20; Morgan, R.H., 1986, "Environmental Study of the Shroud in Jerusalem," Shroud News, No. 37, October, pp.11-14, 13. [return]
15. Wuenschel, 1954, p.20; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.35; Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.69-81, 76; Morgan, 1986, p.13. [return]
16. Robinson, 1978, p.76; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.218; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.230; Wilcox, 2010, p.189. [return]
17. Habermas, 1984a, p.158; Habermas, 1984b, p.1116; Antonacci, 2000, pp.33, 235. [return]
18. Bulst, 1957, pp.74, 144n.219; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.156. [return]
19. Bulst, 1957, p.74, 144n.219; Wuenschel, 1954, pp.51-52; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.156-157, 218; Habermas, 1984a, pp.158-159; Habermas, 1984b, p.1116; Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
20. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.156; Cruz, 1984, p.52; Habermas, 1984a, pp.158-159; Habermas, 1984b, p.1116; Habermas, 1987, p.28; Antonacci, 2000, pp.32, 120, 235; Tribbe, 2006, pp.100, 231; Wilcox, 2010, pp.19, 189. [return]
21. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.127; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.91; Iannone, 1998, p.88. [return]
22. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Second edition, p.843. [return]
23. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.446. [return]
24. Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.143. [return]
25. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.41; Iannone, 1998, pp.88, 181; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.127; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.91. [return]
26. Wuenschel, 1954, p.49; Iannone, 1998, pp.88, 181. [return]
27. Jesus died at the "ninth hour" (Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34; Lk 23:44-46), which was 3pm[28], on the eve of the Sabbath (Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54), a Friday. And Jesus was resurrected at, or before dawn on the day after the Sabbath, the first day of the week, a Sunday (Mt 28:1-6; Mk 16:1-6; Lk 24:1-6). Therefore Friday 3pm-12mn = 9 hours + Saturday 24 hours + Sunday 12mn - 6am = 6 hours, total 39 hours. [return]
28. Carson, D.A., "Matthew," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1984, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 - Matthew, Mark, Luke," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.577. [return]
29. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.100; de Wesselow, 2012, p.155. [return]
30. Rogers, 2008, pp.100-101; de Wesselow, 2012, p.155. [return]
31. Rogers, 2008, p.102; de Wesselow, 2012, p.155. [return]
32. Rogers, 2008, pp.100-102; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.155-156. [return]
33. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.89; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.124; Iannone, 1998, p.182; Antonacci, 2000, p.84. [return]
34. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.89-90; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.124-125; Iannone, 1998, p.182; Antonacci, 2000, p.61. [return]
35. Rogers, 2008, p.102. [return]
36. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.153-154; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.27. [return]
37. Jones, S.E., 2013, "Shroud on SBS 1 Australia at 7:30 pm tonight Sunday 24 March," The Shroud of Turin blog, 24 March. [return]
38. Allen, N.P.L., 1995, "Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photonegative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin," De Arte, 51, Pretoria, UNISA, pp.21-35; Allen, N., 2009, "How Leonardo did not fake the Shroud of Turin," Unisa Press. [return]
39. Antonacci, 2000, p.89. [return]
40. Piczek, I., 1996, "Alice in Wonderland and the Shroud of Turin," Proceedings of the Esopus Conference, August 23rd-25th, Esopus, New York; Wilson, 1998, p.217. [return]
41. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.126. [return]
42. Major, R., 2016, "Movie: Stages of decomposition," Australian Museum, 23 February. [return]
43. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.219; Leafloor, L., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: Controversial Cloth Defies Explanation as Study Shows it Has DNA From Around the World," Ancient Origins, 21 October. [return]
44. de Wesselow, 2012, p.139. [return]
45. de Wesselow, 2012, p.148. [return]
46. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45; Drews, 1984, p.27; Habermas, 1984a, p.158; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.26; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.112; Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
47. Cruz, 1984, p.50; Drews, 1984, p.27; Habermas, 1984a, p.158; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.112-113; Bucklin, R., 1997, "An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud," Third International Scientific Symposium on the Shroud of Turin, Nice, France, 12 May; Antonacci, 2000, pp.32, 88. [return]
48. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.53; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.165; Oxley, 2010, p.130. [return]
49. Cameron, J. M., "The Pathologist and the Shroud," in Jennings, 1978, p.58; Wilson, 1986, p.26; Zugibe, F.T., 1988, "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into the Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon House: New York NY, Revised edition, p.132; Iannone, 1998, p.81; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.65; Tribbe, 2006, p.100; Oxley, 2010, p.168; de Wesselow, 2012, p.146. [return]
50. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.150; Tribbe, 2006, p.126; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.145, 148. [return]
51. Ricci, G., 1978, "The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1982, p.61. [return]
52. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113. [return]
53. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113. [return]
54. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113. [return]
55. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
56. Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]

Posted: 14 March 2017. Updated: 24 March 2017.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Another form of fraud - computer hacking: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #5

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #5, "Another form of fraud - computer hacking," 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 previous post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: Odds "one in a thousand trillion" against the radiocarbon dating! #4] [Next: My first embryonic statement of my hacker theory #6]

Another form of fraud - computer hacking 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)" and now "(3)."

[Above (enlarge: Schematic of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating system at the University of Arizona in 2005. Note the "Control Console" at bottom left next to the photograph of a computer. While this presumably is not the actual system used to radiocarbon date the Shroud of Turin in 1988, both then and now it is the AMS computer which displays at the control console a sample's radiocarbon date[A].]

■ As we saw in part #4, it is easier to believe that a fraud was committed in the radiocarbon dating of the first century or earlier Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" than to believe that by a "one in a thousand trillion" chance the three radiocarbon dating laboratories `just happened' to converge on that 1325 ±65 years date, which `just happens' to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France in c. 1355[B].

■ But leading Shroud pro-authenticist Ian Wilson knew some of the radiocarbon laboratory leaders and he considers it "as absurd and far-fetched as it is unworthy" that "these men may have `rigged' the radiocarbon dating." Accepting that at face value, there is another form of fraud that does not seem to have occurred to anyone, namely that the laboratories may have been duped by a computer hacker[C]!

■ In June 2007 I read David Sox's "The Shroud Unmasked" (1988) in which he described the results of the very first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud on 6 May 1988 at Arizona laboratory when the date (which Sox didn't give because he wasn't there) of the Shroud's flax appeared on the laboratory's computer screen and indicated that the Shroud age was closer to "1000 years" than "2000 years," which meant the Shroud was not authentic[D].

■ Later in 2007 I read Gove's own eyewitness account, in which he gave the date of the Shroud as "1350 AD":

"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. ... 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 ... I had a bet with Shirley [Brignall] on the shroud's age-she bet 2000 ±100 years old and I bet 1000 ±100 years. Whoever won bought the other a pair of cowboy boots. Although my guess was wrong, it was closer than Shirley's. She bought me the cowboy boots"[E].
But I left out of the Gove's above quote what immediately preceded it, that, "All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a ... screen":
"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"[2]
Which indicates that I had not then fully appreciated the significance of Gove's words, which confirmed that between the AMS system actually dating the Shroud sample and the humans reading the numbers on the screen in the laboratory, was a computer and a computer is controlled by a program and a program is hackable[F]!

■ My original proposal (it was too early to call it a theory) was that "a hacker had logged in to each of the three radiocarbon [dating ] laboratories' AMS machine's computer while the Shroud's test was being run and had substituted the Shroud's actual dates coming from the AMS machine for bogus dates which agreed with the ~1350 date when the Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France"[F]. And "The same presumably happened at the other two laboratories, Zurich and Oxford when they later ran their tests in May and August, respectively"[G].

But this reasonable assumption that the AMS computers would have been online turned out to be wrong, as Arizona's Prof. Jull and Oxford's Prof. Ramsey later stated that their AMS computers had never been online. So I modified my proposal to include that "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"[I].

■ Based on that wrong assumption that the three laboratories' AMS computers were online, I attempted to deduce whether the hacker was an "insider" or an "outsider":

"The hacker could have been someone inside one of the three laboratories or an outsider. In favour of it being an insider is that the hacker would have to produce an uncalibrated date which would then be calibrated to `1350 AD.' But any one of Arizona University's archeology or geophysics students would know how radiocarbon dating calibration worked and an especially computer literate one could gain access to each of the computer at the end of the accelerated mass spectrometers, not only at Arizona but also its counterparts at Zurich and Oxford laboratories. All three laboratories had AMS systems, presumably with the same hardware and software. And all would have been online, as [Clifford] Stoll [see 23Jan17] explained that all university computers were, and only those in military establishments with the highest need for security were offline[H]."
■ I also wrongly assumed that the hacker would more likely have been someone outside the laboratories because of the lack of sophistication in the "too good to be true" first run "1350" calibrated date:
"In favour of it being an outsider, is that the 1325 +/- 65 years average of the three laboratories' dates for the Shroud is (again) too good to be true. If the hacker was one of the laboratories' radiocarbon dating staff or graduate students he/she would more likely substitute the Shroud's AMS dates with more sophisticated bogus dates, like Gove's `1000 ±100 years', which would still appear to refute the Shroud's first century date, but would not look too good to be true. And an outsider would more likely feel the need to start with the `1350 AD' date and then vary that date slightly on successive runs to avoid anyone becoming suspicious"[J].
But I latter realised that, "if a hacker wanted to break down pro-authenticity psychological resistance then 1350 was the date he would have used for that very first dating"[08Jun14]. I also overlooked that the hacker "would have needed to create a climate of expectation that the Shroud was medieval, so his program's combined average 1325 ±65 calibrated date of the Shroud across the three laboratories would be unquestioned" and Linick did that by leaking to the media, through Sox, that Arizona's first date was "1350"[31Mar15].

■ Although I was wrong about the AMS computers being online, that early assumption enabled me to make the connection with the German hacker ring, whose member Markus Hess, Stoll had detected:

"The hacker whom Stoll detected, Markus Hess, was actually a German, living in Germany, and dialing in to a pre-Internet network in the USA, from where he could hop from one university and military network to another, due to their lax security in the 1980s"[K]
to which the alleged secondary hacker, Karl Koch (whom I would later first mention in my post of 31Mar14) belonged.

■ Hess was "a freelance spy who sold any secret information he discovered to the KGB"[L], from which I made the connection, which in my next post I will call, "My first embryonic statement of my hacker theory," that "the atheistic Soviet regime of the 1980s ... to discredit ... Christianity," was behind the 1988 hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating:

"So it would not be surprising if the atheistic Soviet regime of the 1980s would see it as a legitimate target to discredit the Shroud, and through that Christianity, by one its agents hacking into each of the three radiocarbon dating laboratories' computers, and replacing the actual radiocarbon dates of the Shroud that the laboratories' accelerated mass spectrometers were determining, with bogus dates which when calibrated would cluster around 1325 +/- 65 years"[M]
■ At that early stage I could not see how I could provide any further evidence to answer my question, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" So I did not call my question a "theory" but merely a "proposal":
"I have presented this proposal as a question, `Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?' because in the nature of the case, barring a belated confession, my proposal is unlikely ever to be confirmed as correct, even if it is correct. The hacker would be unlikely to admit it because he would be prosecuted ... for breaking into government computers, as Hess was. And the laboratories would be unlikely to admit they had been duped by a hacker, even if they realised they had been. Whatever evidence there was in the laboratories' computers, the hacker would almost certainly have deleted it, and even if he didn't, it is most unlikely that it would still exist in the laboratories' 1988 computers"[N].
■ However, so as not to finish on that pessimistic note, I concluded with de Wesselow's point:
"... in the final analysis it is the Shroud anti-authenticists' problem to find a explanation for what went wrong with their carbon dating of the first-century Shroud to the 13th-14th centuries. As Thomas de Wesselow pointed out, we Shroud pro-authenticists don't need to find an explanation of what went wrong with the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud. We can just dismiss it out of hand as a "'rogue' radiocarbon date" as archaeologists routinely do when a radiocarbon date is contradicted by the majority of the other evidence."[O]
Besides, as we shall see, my pessimism was unjustified as I was later to find, unexpectedly, a lot of evidence that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking!

To be continued in part #6 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of it (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. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]

Posted: 10 March 2017. Updated: 23 March 2017.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

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

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #4, "Odds `one in a thousand trillion' against the dating!" of 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 previous post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: My first use of the term "hacker" #3] [Next: Another form of fraud - computer hacking #5]

Odds "one in a thousand trillion" against the radiocarbon dating! Continuing in my post of 20 February 2014, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (2)," I

[Above (enlarge)[2]: Part of Victoria, Australia's Ninety Mile Beach. Ninety miles is ~145 kilometres. Best of luck 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. Because that is about the probability, "one in a thousand trillion," of the Shroud being first century (as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), yet its radiocarbon date is 1260-1390![08Dec14]]

presented the following evidence and arguments:

■ Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009) pointed out that the "probability that the shroud [radiocarbon] dates between 1260 and 1390" yet it is actually "first century" was "about one in a thousand trillion"[A]. But since the Shroud is authentic, according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and therefore its actual age is first century or earlier, the odds are "one in a thousand trillion" against the radiocarbon dating being 1260-1390!

■ Given the above it is easier to believe that a fraud was committed in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" than to believe that by a "one in a thousand trillion" chance the three radiocarbon dating laboratories `just happened' to independently converge on the 1260-1390 date range, the midpoint of which, 1325±65 years, `just happens' to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France in c. 1355[B].

■ Which 1325±65 years date the laboratories were aware of (as we saw in part #3). A leading Shroud sceptic, Denis Dutton (1944–2010), had publicly predicted in a journal two years before the 1988 tests, that if the Shroud "were to be carbon-dated it would come in at A.D. 1335, plus or minus 30 years"[C]. I didn't then know it but another leading Shroud sceptic Walter McCrone (1916-2002), had in 1981 publicly predicted in another journal that the Shroud image had been "painted ... about 1355"[D]. So a fraudster would know what date to aim for!

Agnostic but pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow, on the basis of the art history evidence, regards the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud to be the equivalent of claiming that "the Shroud was deposited in medieval France by aliens"[E}!

■ Therefore de Wesselow considers fraud in the Shroud's "1325 ± 65 years" radiocarbon date to be a real possibility, because "Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve."[F]

To be continued in part #5 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of it (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. "90-Mile Beach, Gippsland, Victoria," The Grey Nomads, Travel & Holiday Information Australia, 2017. [return]

Posted: 9 March 2017. Updated: 16 March 2017.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

My first use of the term "hacker": Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #3

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #3, "My first use of the term `hacker'" of 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 previous post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: Fraud a real possibility #2] [Next: Odds "one in a thousand trillion" against the radiocarbon dating! #4]

First use of term "hacker" In my post of 18 February 2014 I first used the term "hacker" but only in the title of the post, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (1)," and only as a question.

[Right[2]: Clifford Stoll's 1989 book, "The Cuckoo's Egg," which I had read in c. 1990, and remembered that it had documented how poorly secured university computers were in the 1980s, leaving them vulnerable to hacking and many had been hacked.]

Briefly my evidence and arguments in this post were:

■ The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Christ[A].

■ Yet three laboratories: Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, which radiocarbon dated the Shroud in 1988, claimed that "... the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval... AD 1260-1390."[B]

■ But even the current Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsay, who as "C.R. Bronk" was a signatory to that 1989 Nature paper, has admitted: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow ..."[C]

■ And Philip Ball, a former editor at Nature, wrote in 2005: "... the shroud is a remarkable artefact ... It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made ..."[D]; and again in 2008: "... despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever ... the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling"[E].

■ The midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325±65 years, which `just happens' to be only ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France in c. 1355. Which date the laboratories were aware of, and even cited it in the Nature paper[F].

■ Before the 1988 dating, Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the co-inventor of the Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method which was used to date the Shroud, when he found out that the number of laboratories had been cut from seven to three, and the methods from two to one, he was so sure that at least one of the three laboratories would produce a wrong date, that he drafted a letter to the Pope, calling on him "not to date the Shroud at all"[G]!

■ Gove had good reason to be worried. Before the Shroud dating, in 1986, three British radiocarbon laboratories, including Oxford, dated Lindow Man 800 years apart"[H]!

■ Then a year after the Shroud's dating, in 1989, an intercomparison test of 38 radiocarbon dating laboratories (with Oxford abstaining), found that only 7 of the 38 laboratories dated the artifacts of known date correctly, with the AMS laboratories being among the furthest out[I]!

■ After the 1988 tests, when the three AMS laboratories claimed to have reached agreement that the Shroud was dated 1260-1390, Gove admitted that before the tests he thought the "new [AMS] procedures seemed to me to be fraught with peril" but he was relieved that the "three laboratories performed their measurements flawlessly"[J].

■ But what is the likelihood that the three AMS laboratories "flawlessly" dated the Shroud, yet a year later, with the experience of dating the Shroud behind them, two of the three laboratories "far[ed] particularly badly" in an intercomparison test and the third laboratory, Oxford, declined to take part? Not likely at all![K].

Continued in part 4 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of it (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. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Amazon.com. [return]

Posted: 7 March 2017. Updated: 11 March 2017.

Monday, March 6, 2017

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

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

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

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1 of the February 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related February 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
"Ex-Atheist Lee Strobel Explores Shroud of Turin in 'The Case for Christ' (Trailer)," The Christian Post, Stoyan Zaimov, February 10, 2017.


Editorial

Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz, for him to convert them to PDFs and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in February up to issue #70, April 1992 [Right (enlarge)]. Issues in that archive are still up to #66, August 1991.




Posts: In February I blogged 4 new posts (latest uppermost): "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Eighth century," "Fraud a real possibility: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #2"; "Three-dimensional #20: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" and "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, January 2017"

Updates From memory there were no significant updates to my posts in the background in February.

Comments: In February an evidently Hebrew-speaking Ms Rona Hart commented under my 2008 post, "Shroud name index `W'," that she had read in Ian Wilson's 1978 book The Turin Shroud that (with light editing):

"Wilson relates the story of the woman who wipes Jesus' face with her veil; the cloth then reveals 'the true image' (`Veronica') of Jesus' face. Jesus is reported to have said: `All honour to you, courageous woman'. This may sound somewhat flowery in English, but the phrase 'all honour to you' is a regular expression in Hebrew (don't know about Aramaic) and is often used in the sense of 'good for you', or 'well done'. Similarly, the words courageous woman, recall another well known expression in Hebrew - eshet chayil. These are the first words in the famous lines in Proverbs [Pr 31:10], where the phrase is usually translated as 'a woman of worth' but could perhaps more readily be translated as woman of courage. Although, as Wilson notes, the story doesn't come from the New Testament, and is thought of as a myth, I found it very interesting that the reported speech would translate back to Hebrew so readily."
See my replies to Ms Hart in in comments under my then latest post, "Three-dimensional #20: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," in which I concluded:
"Ian Wilson has replied by email today, but doesn't want to be quoted, so I will put what he wrote in my own words as far as possible:

1) "All honor to you, courageous woman" being Hebraic. Ian had not previously heard of this and he regards it as an interesting point, for which he asked me to thank you.

2) The word "icon" not being in my Collins Latin-English Dictionary. Ian pointed out that it is in his more academic Latin-English Dictionary. But he did agree that it was a loan word from Greek, unlike vera.

Which however confirms my point that "Veronica" being a compound Latin-Greek word is, together with the Hebraic greeting, evidence that the 11th century Veronica story of Jesus imprinting the image of His face on a woman's veil, which is traditionally linked to the gospel accounts of Jesus' healing the woman with a 12-year flow of blood [Gk haimorroousa] (Mt 9:20-22; Mk 5:25-34; Lk 8:43-48), originated in the earliest Aramaic/Hebrew-speaking church and so is contemporary with, or even earlier than, the story of Jesus imprinting the image of His face on the towel of Abgar V's servant Ananias.

The bottom line is that unless "All honor to you, courageous woman" can be shown to be a normal medieval European greeting, the fact that, according to you, whom I presume are Hebrew-speaking, it translates readily back into a standard Hebrew greeting, it must be a `linguistic fossil' from the earliest Jewish-Christian church.

An example of which is the Aramaic word, "maranatha" in 1Cor 16:22 (KJV). Of which one of my commentaries notes:

"22. Paul ... follows with the Aramaic Maranatha (which NIV translates Come, O Lord!). Being Aramaic, the expression cannot have originated among the Greeks, but must go back to the early days of the church in Palestine." (Morris, L.L., 1985, "The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1987, p.243. My emphasis).

In which case, as I wrote in my first comment to Ms Hart:
"...if the greeting `All honour to you, courageous woman' is not medieval European, and the fact that vera eikon is a Latin-Greek compound, it may be evidence that the Veronica story originated in the very early church, when it was still predominantly Aramaic-speaking. If so, it would be a contemporary parallel to [or even earlier than] the Abgar V story of Jesus wiping his face on a towel, to explain how Jesus' image came to be on the Image of Edessa (the Shroud tetradiplon = "four-doubled") (my emphasis).

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, in February I blogged one post about my hacker theory: "Fraud a real possibility: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #2." Originally the name of this post began with "9 January 2014 ..." but as I explained in part #1 of this series, which was originally named "June 2007 ..." but later renamed "Hacking an explanation ..."), "... I later realised that it will be more informative to include in the title of each post in this series a brief description of the actual step in the development of my hacker theory."

Pageviews: At midnight on 28 February, Google Analytics [below enlarge] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 701,730. This compares with 504,195 (up 197,535 or 39.2%) in my February 2016 Editorial (as at 1 March 2016). It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (latest uppermost) as: "Three-dimensional #20: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Feb 5, 2017 - 209; "Did you ask radiocarbon dating experts their opinion on this?," Nov 3, 2016 - 193; "My radiocarbon dating hacker theory mentioned in Joe Marino's `The Politics of Radiocarbon Dating'!," Oct 24, 2016 - 159; "Medieval photography: Nicholas Allen," Aug 7, 2016 - 137 and "`Editorial and Contents,' Shroud of Turin News, October 2016," Nov 2, 2016 - 199.

It is encouraging to see my posts about my hacker theory being among the most read, month after month. I once read somewhere, but I have forgotten where, that a major factor in a shift from one scientific paradigm to another, is becoming familiar with the new paradigm, even if that is through reading it antagonistically. Subconsciously the truth of the new paradigm takes hold in the minds of those initially opposed to it, if they keep reading about it! My hacker theory is not an incremental change to the body of pro-authenticist explanations of how the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th radiocarbon date. It is a complete replacement of that body of pro-authenticist explanations! My theory therefore requires a paradigm shift to accept it, which makes acceptance of it difficult and slow.


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 it. [return]

Posted: 6 March 2017. Updated: 7 March 2017.