Monday, September 18, 2017

VT-100 terminal to a DEC mini-computer, Timothy Linick and Karl Koch: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #9

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the fifth and final installment of part #9, "VT-100 terminal to a DEC mini-computer, Timothy Linick and Karl Koch," 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: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence #8] [Next: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Vignon markings" #10]

Continuing with tracing the steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Shroud hacker theory in my early 2014 posts (last three): "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? Summary," "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #1" and now "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Further to my replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey".

Arizona laboratory's "control console computer" was a VT-100 terminal 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 to the anti-authenticist Editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, Hugh Farey posted on March 10, 2014 to Dan Porter's now closed blog:

"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 [false - see 22Nov16]. 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

[Right (enlarge): Arizona radiocarbon laboratory's AMS control console `computer' (actually VT-100 terminal to that computer) just after it had displayed on its screen the uncalibrated `radiocarbon date of the Shroud', which was then calibrated to "1350 AD"[2]. I have identified this as probably a DEC VT-100 terminal connected to a DEC VAX-11 (or PDP-11) 32-bit minicomputer (see below).]

led Porter to question 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.[A]


Arizona's AMS computer required an engineer-programmer I then [on March 30, 2014] added a further comment on Porter's blog (lightly edited): I meant to add, but I could not remember the name, that one of those listed by Harry Gove 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"[3].
A Google search on "Art Hatheway Arizona" (without quotes) had

[Left (enlarge): Grave of "Arthur Loyal Hathaway" (1940-2008), East Lawn Palms Cemetery, Tucson Arizona[4]. On 4 December 2015 I received an anonymous comment under my 31Mar14 post:

"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."
I responded that I was not alleging that Hatheway was a hacker but included him to indicate the "high level of sophistication of the Arizona C-14 lab's computers." I ended my response with, "Have you any information you can give me on this?" But I didn't receive a reply. There must be many people out there who knew Linick or Koch (see below) and I am always hopeful that at least one of them will provide me with more information about one of them in support of my hacker theory.]

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"[5]
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 [oxalic acid standard]. 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"[6]. [B]
Prof. Ramsey's downplaying of the AMS computer is significant I had originally thought that the computer which

[Right: Dr Christopher Bronk Ramsey: Science Photo Library]

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":

"The OxCal program is intended to provide radiocarbon calibration ... For further information contact the author: Prof. C. Bronk Ramsey ..."[7]
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 [indeed DEC Vax-11 and/or PDP-11 minicomputers, i.e. mini-mainframe computers - see below], 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 [But see below]. [C]

Timothy Linick and Karl Koch PS: I have posted the following as [on March 31, 2014] 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

[Left: Photo of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances"[8]

"Timothy W. Linick". I then discovered that he died on June 4, 1989[9], 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 had committed suicide[10] (since confirmed - see 30Dec15, although I claim that Linick's, like Koch's, "suicide" was murder by the KGB made to look like suicide.).

It may be significant that Karl Koch [see below right], a self-confessed hacker who had worked for the KGB, died on May 23, 1989[11], less than 2 weeks earlier than Linick, in what appeared to be an execution designed to look like suicide. [It was significant - see 17May15 where Koch's death was between 23 and 30 May 1989, and police publicly identified his burnt body as Karl Koch on 3 June 1989, the day before Linick's `suicide' on 4 June 1989!]

[Right: Karl Koch. "He was involved with the KGB scandal that involved hackers being bought by drugs in exchange for breaking into key NATO and corporate installations ... Koch, of Hanover, West Germany, died Friday, June 3 [1989][12]. No - see 17May15]. Koch died between 23 and 29 May 1989. His charred body was found by the police on 1 June. So 3 June is evidently when the police publicly identified the body as Koch.]

I then Googled the names of other signatories to the 1989 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 harmed.

While I do not claim that Timothy W. Linick WAS a hacker, nor that his untimely death WAS suicide [I do now claim both.], let alone an execution by the KGB designed to look like suicide [I do now claim that also], 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. [D]

PPS: Here is a further comment I posted [on March 31, 2014] 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 mentioned 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 (enlarge): DEC VT-100 terminal[13].]

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"[14]
Whichever DEC computer system it was, whether a PDP or VAX, it

[Right (enlarge): The DEC VAX-11/780[15]. Introduced in 1977[16], this likely was the very 32-bit "supermini- computer" that the AMS computers at Arizona, Zurich and Oxford were, which Prof. Ramsey suspiciously attempted to downplay as little more than a calculator!]

CERTAINLY was programmable and therefore HACKABLE! [E]

Further to my above original assumption that the laboratories were "unknowingly duped by a computer hacker," I still think that was the case, originally. But because of the very responses of Professors Jull and Ramsey, to my mere blogger's comments (since when do Directors of major radiocarbon laboratories deign to respond to blog comments?); let alone that their responses were "self-contradictory, misleading and false" (Jull) and "ad hominem fallacious, misleading and false" (Ramsey); I find it difficult not to think that, following the discovery of Linick's name in David Sox's 1988 book, showing that Linick leaked Arizona's first "1350" date to Sox [see 22Nov16], and then after Linick's `suicide', Arizona laboratory discovered, or at least suspected, that Linick had hacked Arizona's (if not also Zurich's and Oxford's) radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, but they covered it up! [see also my 15Sep16]. It is noteworthy that Profs Jull and Ramsey are in the unique situation that they are Directors of the same laboratories in which they were in 1988 junior scientists involved in radiocarbon dating the Shroud, and signatories to the 1989 Nature paper. As such, if Linick did hack the Shroud's radiocarbon dating (as the evidence indicates) they would know that, and would have a powerful vested interest (not only for themselves but for their laboratory leaders back then) in covering it up! Their very responses (let alone that they were misleading and false) to my anonymous (to them) blog comments, I regard as `body language' that they are covering it up!

To be continued in the next part #19 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference to this post citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," pp.176H, 264. [return]
3. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
4. Extract from "Grave Site of Arthur Loyal Hatheway (1940-2008)," BillionGraves. [return]
5. "Arthur Loyal Hatheway: Obituary," Arizona Daily Star, Oct. 14, 2008, Legacy.com. [return]
6. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
7. "OxCal," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 18 March 2017. [return]
8. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
9. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
10. de Nantes, G. & Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2014, "The Holy Shroud of Turin: II. The conclusion of a new trial," The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st Century, 27 March. [return]
11. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 2 September 2017. [return]
12. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
13. "VT100," Wikipedia, 18 April 2017. [return]
14. "Digital Equipment Corporation: VAX," Wikipedia, 10 March 2014. [return]
15. "File:Vax11-780.jpg," Wikipedia, 17 December 2008. [return]
16. "VAX: History," Wikipedia, 12 July 2017. [return]

Posted: 18 September 2017. Updated: 23 September 2017.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

29 June 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the fifth and final (and an update of the third) installment of part #5, "29 June 1987," of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1, Index. As explained in part #1, the first few significant days 30 years ago have already passed but I will soon catch up and thereafter publish each day's post as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 15Jun87 #4] [Next: 19Oct87 #6]

29 June 1987 Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009) [Below right[2].], the unofficial leader of the Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories[3], phoned Prof. Vittorio Canuto [see 07Jul17], an astrophysicist at the NASA Institute for Space Studies in New York City, and at the time a scientific aide to Prof. Carlos Chagas Filho (1910-2000), the President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences[4]. The purpose of the call was to find out whether Canuto had an update on the long delayed carbon dating of the Shroud[5]. Canuto told Gove that Chagas had received a copy of a letter dated 21 May 1987, addressed to the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989), from Pope John Paul II (r. 1978-2005), but executed by the Vatican's Secretary of State, Cardinal

[Left[6]: Vatican Secretary of State (1979-90), Cardinal Agostino Casaroli (1914–98). It was to Casaroli that Ballestrero appealed, "that the Pontifical Academy was taking things away from him"[7], and it was Casaroli who wrote the letter of 21 May 1987 transferring control of the carbon dating from Chagas and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome to the Archbishop of Turin[8].]

Agostino Casaroli[9]. The letter contained instructions to Ballestrero on the procedures to be followed in radiocarbon dating the Shroud[10]. But because the letter was from the Secretary of State to Cardinal Ballestrero with only a copy to Chagas, Canuto was unable to divulge its contents[11]. However, Canuto did reveal to Gove that the procedures differed substantially from the Turin Workshop Protocol agreed to by the seven laboratories in October 1986[12] [see 31May17]. Chagas was evidently playing his usual "double game" of leaking confidential information to Gove through Canuto[13] Why else would Chagas send Canuto in the USA a copy of a confidential letter from Cardinal Casaroli to Cardinal Ballestrero, unless Chagas wanted Canuto to reveal its contents to Gove?

Gove arranged a conference phone call which took place the next day, 30 June 1987[14], between Canuto in New York, and the leaders of the USA laboratories: Donahue in Arizona, Harbottle in Brookhaven, and himself in Rochester. Despite originally saying the day before that he was unable to divulge to Gove the contents of Casaroli's letter to Ballestrero of 21 May, Canuto had prearranged with Chagas that he wouldn't volunteer anything, but neither would he lie if asked[15]. So when asked in the teleconference about "communication between Turin and the secretary of state," Canuto read key parts of the letter out to the conference call participants:

"It's good to talk to more people because I did not want to volunteer that information, but since you are asking I have to give it to you. The letter from the secretary of state to Ballestrero begins by saying 'Dear Cardinal: We have received a letter from Carlos Chagas on 8 October 1986 ..."[16]
This included, "although never explicitly stated by Canuto," that there would be a reduction in the number of laboratories to "two or three"[17]. So, "Chagas's secretary and confidant [Canuto] had ... failed the basic rule of confidentiality"[18], because there was a third option besides volunteering and lying: to reply, as he had the day before to Gove, that he was unable to divulge the contents of private communication between Casaroli and Ballestrero. And Chagas even more so had "failed the basic rule of confidentiality," because Canuto would not have had a copy of Casaroli's letter without Chagas having sent it to him, and Chagas could have reminded Canuto of the third option, to not divulge to the laboratories the contents of Casaroli's letter to Ballestrero, but didn't. The problem then was, as stated by Gove:
"... how we could use the key information contained in it [Casaroli's letter], even though we were not to know in detail what it was"[19].
Brookhaven laboratory's Garman Harbottle came up with "a way out" which involved lying, in falsely claiming that they were responding to a two months old quote of the Archbishop of Turin's scientific adviser, Prof. Luigi Gonella (1930–2007), in the Turin newspaper La Stampa of 27 April 1987 (see 31May17), when in reality they were responding to Cardinal Casaroli's letter of 21 May 1987 to Cardinal Ballestrero, leaked to them by Chagas via Canuto:
"Harbottle said that he thought there was a way out. We could refer to the La Stampa article. It quoted Gonella as saying only two or three laboratories would be involved. We could always assume that was an authoritative statement and that article certainly was in the public domain. Harbottle said that we could use that as a basis for soliciting opinions on what to do next. We could privately tell the laboratories that there was more to it than that"[20].
The conference call ended with the participants agreeing that Gove would contact the heads of the other laboratories and tell them that:
"... the decision announced in La Stampa, that there would only be two or three laboratories involved, was going to be approved by the pope and the cardinal [Ballestrero]. We had information from a source I could not disclose, that this was the way it was going to be. What was their reaction to it?"[21].
Starting on 30 June, Gove phoned non-participants in the teleconference in the following order: Woelfli of Zurich Laboratory (p.198); Edward Hall of Oxford (p.198); Michael Tite then of the British Museum (p.200); Bob Otlet of Harwell, England (p.202); and Jean-Claude Duplessy of the Gif-sur-Yvette laboratory in France (p.204); to inform them of the teleconference, that there was information from a credible source that only two or three laboratories would do the Shroud dating, as mentioned in the 27 April La Stampa article, and would they each agree to sign a joint letter to the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero, requesting that seven laboratories as agreed in the October 1986 Turin workshop protocol be adhered to[22]. Even though Gove's proposed joint letter would include, in Gove's own words, that:
"... if there were going to be such major revisions in the protocol to which we had all agreed, including the people in Turin, that either they had to have another meeting with the people directly involved in carbon dating or we would just say to hell with it."
Woelfli agreed that his name be added to it (p.198). But when Gove rang Hall, he interrupted Gove to say:
"Now look Harry, I suggest that you don't do anything. If you do anything to your enemies in Turin it will be curtains ... I think you should say that we believe that the meeting should be held and leave it at that and not say 'otherwise we will withdraw'. As soon as you start threatening people, you will only get their backs up" (pp.198-199).
Hall evidently realised that Gove knew that his Rochester laboratory had no chance in being among two or three chosen to date the Shroud [see 19Jun17], so Gove was selfishly prepared to risk that no laboratory would date the Shroud, if his didn't[23]! Gove agreed to omit that threat to withdraw all the laboratories from the radiocarbon dating (p.199) and Hall agreed to sign the joint letter (p.202). Gove also phoned participants in the teleconference: Donahue (pp.199, 202) and Harbottle (p.199) to inform them of Hall's position and to further develop the joint letter. Canuto translated the letter into Italian so that Ballestrero was more likely to read it first without him needing to ask Gonella to translate it from English to Italian (p.201). On 6 July 1987 the joint letter in Italian was sent by Western Union cable to Cardinal Ballestrero, with copies to Donahue, Duplessy, Hall, Harbottle, Otlet, Tite, and Woelfli as well as to Cardinal Casaroli, the Vatican, the Holy See Mission to the UN, and to Chagas (p.204). On 2 August, Hall sent a letter to Gove which Gove described as "breaking ranks" (pp.205, 207):
"He [Hall] recalled our telephone conversation concerning what he described as my 'broadside' to Turin (the letter in Italian to Ballestrero) he had told me he considered unwise. He said he had agreed to sign it as a friendly gesture. He had since learned it had displeased the archbishop ... He stated that from now on he and Hedges intended to distance themselves from the two camps, me on the one hand and Professor Gonella on the other. He thought that any further hectoring would only prolong the decision. He hoped for a positive decision for the shroud dating sometime in the future. Meanwhile he intended to keep quiet and await developments from Italy. He hoped this would not cause offence but he wanted to make his position clear" (p.205).
As we have seen above, and as we shall see, the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was far from being normal, objective, science, because of Gove's "unscientific, anti-Christian, prejudice" [31May17], which had turned what could have been a model of good, co-operative science, into a bitter power-struggle between the laboratories and the Turin Archdiocese, which already had corrupted the laboratories into: 1) being read to without permission key excerpts from a confidential letter between Cardinal Casaroli and Cardinal Ballestrero; and 2) then lying that it was an old article in La Stampa that they were responding to. This was far from the high standard of good science that the leading physicist Richard Feynman (1918–88) called for in his 1974 Caltech graduation address:
"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty ... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying ..."[24]!
To be continued in part #6 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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 page. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 2009, "Obituary - Professor Harry Gove," BSTS Newsletter No. 69, June. [return]
3. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," The Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.95; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.192; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.164. [return]
4. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.84. [return]
5. Gove, 1996, p.193. [return]
6. Bonnici, E., 2007, "Cardinal Agostino Casaroli (1914-1998)," Find A Grave, August 13. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, pp.193-194. [return]
8. Gove, 1996, p.193. [return]
9. Ibid. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.193. [return]
11. Gove, 1996, pp.193-194. [return]
12. Gove, 1996, p.194. [return]
13. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.29. [return]
14. Gove did not give the date, but he had phoned Canuto on 29 June (p.193) and then after the conference call, on 30 June, Gove phoned Willy Wolfli of Zurich Laboratory (p.198). [return]
15. Gove, 1996, p.196. [return]
16. Gove, 1996, p.194. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, p.195. [return]
18. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.37. [return]
19. Gove, 1996, p.194. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.195. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.197. [return]
22. Gove, 1996, p.197. [return]
23. See also Antonacci, 2000, p.195. [return]
24. Feynman, R.P., 1985, "Cargo Cult Science," in "`Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!': Adventures of a Curious Character," Unwin Paperbacks: London, Reprinted, 1990, pp.341-343. [return]

Posted: 13 September 2017. Updated: 18 September 2017.

Monday, September 4, 2017

Blood clots intact #24: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

BLOOD CLOTS INTACT #24
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #24, "The man on the Shroud: Blood clots intact," 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: Real human blood #23] [Next: Blood before image #25]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Blood clots intact #24

Introduction The bloodstains on the Shroud are comprised of intact[2], unbroken[3], unsmeared[4], clots[5].

[Above (enlarge): "Photomicrograph ... Dense blood at the small of back ... Mark Evans 1978"[6]. See also the photomicrograph at 03Jun17. These do not show individual blood clots on the Shroud in close-up detail but I am unaware of any that do. The photomicrograph above is magnified 18 times[7]. It measures ~105 x ~72 mm on my computer screen. That means its actual size on my screen would be ~105/18 x ~72/18 mm = ~5.8 x ~4 mm or ~0.22 = ~7/32 in. x ~ 0.16 = ~5/32 in. See below photo of actual size. Look at a ruler and try to imagine a medieval forger painting

[Left: The above photomicrograph reduced 18 times (651 x 428 pixels to 26 x 24 pixels).]

the above bloodstains, with real human blood (because that is what they are - see #23), on an area ~5.8 x ~4 mm (or ~7/32 x ~5/32 in.), and repeating that for each and every blood area on the Shroud! See future below Dr. Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) on the impossibility of a medieval forger painting the Shroud's bloodstains.]

The blood on the Shroud is in clots The bloodstains on the Shroud

[Above (enlarge): Close up of the `reversed 3' bloodstain on the left forehead of the man on the Shroud, and showing the crown of thorns puncture wound from which the blood originated[8]. As can be seen, the upper majority of this clot is intact, while part of its lower minority has presumably flaked off over a foldline. Since this clot, like all of them, would have adhered to both the man's skin and to the cloth, if the Shroud had been removed by human agency, the clot would be patchy along its entire length as when a bandage is removed from a bloody wound (see below).]

are clots[9]. These clots are blood that has congealed on the skin while flowing over it[10]. Each one of them has a thickened edge[11], a depressed centre[12] and a retraction serum halo or ring[13], as all blood clots do[14].

The blood clots are intact The blood clots on the Shroud are

[Above (enlarge)[15]: The blood clots from the nail exit wound in the left hand. Again the top clot is intact even if part of the lower one has flaked off. The two angles are due to the blood dripping down under gravity from the arm's two positions on a cross, pushing up and slumping down, that a crucifixion victim must continually make to inhale and exhale (see 03Jun17).]

intact[16]. But if a dressing is placed over the moist blood of a wound and after the blood has dried the dressing is removed, only part of the blood will transfer to the dressing, the rest will still adhere to the skin[17]. This means the Shroud separated from the man's body in a special way[18], without it being unwrapped[19], or by any other human agency[20]. This is further evidence that the man is Jesus and the special separation of the cloth from His body occurred at His resurrection (see below).

The blood clots are unbroken The blood clots on the Shroud are not broken[21], even on the man's back where there would have been

[Above (enlarge)[22]: Large mass of clotted blood and lung fluid at the small of the man's back (rotated upright) which came from the spear in the man's side (at left). As can be seen, even this large mass of clotted blood that the body was lying on is unbroken and unsmeared.]

maximum pressure[23].

The blood clots are unsmeared The blood clots on the Shroud are not smeared[24], again even on the back (see above) where the body

[Above (enlarge)[25]: Blood clots in the man's hair at the back of his head (rotated 180 degrees). As can be seen, even these are not smeared.]

lay on the Shroud[26]. That is, except for the shoulder blades where a crossbeam carried by the man on his right shoulder across his upper back (see 17Nov15) has smeared those scourge mark clots[27]. Other- wise, again (see above) this means the cloth separated from the body not by human agency[28]. So again (see above) this is further evidence that the man on the Shroud is Jesus and the separation of the Shroud's cloth and body occurred at His resurrection! (again see below)

Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #21, #22 and #23). As we saw in #23, no known artist used blood to depict blood[29]. Then see the above photo of the actual tiny size of Mark Evans' photomicrograph of blood clots from a back area of the Shroud. Clearly no medieval forger could paint with real, human blood (because that is what they are) the fine details (including their near-invisibility except under ultraviolet light[30] which was only discovered in 1801[31]) of the thousands of such tiny blood clots that must be on the Shroud. In fact no artist in history has painted blood in a clotted form: when artists have depicted blood it has always been as free-flowing[32]. At the time the Shroud entered undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355, no one had the medical knowledge of the details of blood clotting, to even consider painting the Shroud's blood clots in the forensically correct manner that they are on the Shroud[33]. From the more than one hundred tiny scourge marks[34] to the large lesions, the bloodstains on the Shroud are clots which show the characteristics of the process of syneresis (when serum drains from a contracting clot of blood) that occurs when blood coagulates following bleeding[35]. But it was not until the 19th century that those details of blood clotting began to be discovered[36]! And added to all these above problems of the forgery theory, the blood was on the cloth before the image (see future part #25)!

Evidence of Jesus' resurrection As we saw above (here and here), that the blood clots which comprise the bloodstains on the Shroud are intact, unbroken and unsmeared, means that the cloth separated from the man's body in a special way, not by human agency or any other known means. That the Man on the Shroud is Jesus (as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), this special separation of the Shroud's cloth and body is explained by His resurrection[37]! We have already seen in #21 of this series that that there are no signs of decomposition on the man's image, meaning that he was not in contact with the Shroud for more that three days.. And we saw in #22 that the man's finger and hand bones, teeth, skull, spinal column and leg bones are x-ray images. And, as previously mentioned, in future part #25 we will see that the blood was on the cloth before the image!

I conclude with the following quotes, which say it better than me:

"In the end, Vignon couldn't figure out how the body had exited the shroud without distorting the picture-perfect blood stains. If they'd been wet, they would have been ruined when the cloth was removed. If dry, they would have ripped the cloth. Was this possible proof of resurrection? Vignon couldn't say. Such a thing was beyond scientific inquiry. But he also couldn't rule it out. After all, Christian tradition said the resurrection had happened, and Vignon could not come up with another explanation. Was he to believe that a string of unfathomable coincidences had occurred and seemingly impossible tasks had been performed to create both the body images and the differently created blood images? Or was it more probable that the body that had once been in the shroud had belonged to Jesus, to whom history says the things observable in the images actually happened?"[38]
"... a corpse covered with wounds lay for some hours in this shroud. Nothing will explain to us how it left it, while leaving on the shroud a fine and unblemished impression of the body and the marks of its bleeding. A man would not be able to remove the body of another, without destroying them. It is certain that this Body, in its glorious Resurrection, could leave the shroud with the same ease as when it entered the cenacle [upper room] ... `when the doors were shut.' [Jn 20:19] This final difficulty brings us to what is, humanly speaking, more or less a physical impossibility. Science at this point can do no more than keep silence, for it is outside its domain. But the man of learning at least has a glimpse that here is a palpable proof of the Resurrection" (emphasis original)[39]
"When I had published the first edition of les Cinq Plaies ["The Five Wounds of Christ"], I went to the Ecole pratique to read it to my old friend, Professor Hovelacque. He was devoted to the subject of anatomy, which he taught to the faculty in Paris, but he was far from being a believer. He approved of my experiments and conclusions with growing enthusiasm. When he had finished reading he put down my booklet, and he remained silent for a short while in a state of meditation. Then he suddenly burst out with that fine frankness on which our friendship had been built up, and exclaimed: `But then, my friend ... Jesus Christ did rise again!' Rarely in my life have I known such deep and happy emotion as at this reaction of an unbeliever when faced with a purely scientific work, from which he was drawing incalculable consequences. He died a few months later, and I dare to hope that God has rewarded him." (emphasis original)[40]

To be continued in part #25 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, pp.51-52; Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.74,144; 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.156, 218; Morgan, R., 1982, "Shroud Symposium, New London," Shroud News, No 11, February 1982, pp.3-10, 6; Habermas, G.R., 1984a, "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.159; 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; De Vincenzo, V., 1994, "12 Reasons Why I Cannot Accept the Carbon-14 Test Results on the Holy Shroud of Turin," Shroud News No 82, April, pp.3-13, 8. Not yet online); Barbet, P., 1987, "Proof of the Authenticity of the Shroud in the Bloodstains: Part II," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 23, June, pp.3-15, 14. [return]
3. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.156; Morgan, 1982, p.6; Cruz, 1984, p.53; Antonacci, 2000, p.33. [return]
4. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.156; Morgan, 1982, p.6; 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.53; De Vincenzo, 1994. "12 Reasons Why I Cannot Accept the Carbon-14 Test Results on the Holy Shroud of Turin," Shroud News No 82, April, pp.3-13, 8; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.33. [return]
5. Barbet, 1953, pp.28-29; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 27. [return]
6. Lind, A.C. & Antonacci, M., 2015, "Hypothesis that Explains the Shroud’s Unique Blood Marks and Several Critical Events in the Gospels," Shroud of Turin: The Controversial Intersection of Faith and Science Conference, October 9-12, 2014, St. Louis, Missouri. [return]
7. Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.10-27, 15. [return]
8. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
9. Barbet, 1953, p.28. [return]
10. Barbet, 1953, p.28. [return]
11. Antonacci, 2000, p.26; Adler, 2000c, p.12. [return]
12. Wuenschel, 1954, p.36; Antonacci, 2000, p.26. [return]
13. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.34-57, 44; Antonacci, 2000, p.26; Adler, 2000c, p.12; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.141. [return]
14. 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.101; Adler, 2000c, p.12; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.239 [return]
15. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
16. Bulst, 1957, p.74 [return]
17. Bulst, 1957, pp.74, 144. [return]
18. Bulst, 1957, pp.74, 144. [return]
19. Habermas, 1984a, p.159; Habermas, 1984b, p.1116. [return]
20. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.156. [return]
21. Cruz, 1984, p.52. [return]
22. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical," (rotated 180 degrees), Sindonology.org. [return]
23. Cruz, 1984, p.52. [return]
24. Cruz, 1984, p.52; Antonacci, 2000, p.33. [return]
25. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical," (rotated 180 degrees), Sindonology.org. [return]
26. Cruz, 1984, p.52. [return]
27. Barbet, 1953, pp.98-99; Cameron, J. M., "The Pathologist and the Shroud," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.59; Bucklin, R., 1982, "The Shroud of Turin: Viewpoint of a Forensic Pathologist," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 5, December, pp.3-10; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.20-21; Bucklin, R., 1997, "An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud," Third International Scientific Symposium on the Shroud of Turin, Nice, France, 12 May; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.56; Oxley, 2010, p.172; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.123. [return]
28. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.156; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.137. [return]
29. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.142; Lavoie, G.R., 2000, "Resurrected: Tangible Evidence That Jesus Rose from the Dead," [1998], Thomas More: Allen TX, p.73. [return]
30. Heller, 1983, pp.185, 202; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.40; Adler, A.D., 2000b, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138, 132; Adler, 2000c, p.14; Antonacci, 2000, p.76; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.37. [return]
31. "Ultraviolet: Discovery," Wikipedia, 28 August 2017. [return]
32. Barbet, 1953, p.31; Adler, A.D., 1986, "The Origin and Nature of Blood on the Turin Shroud," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.59-66, 60. [return]
33. Adler, 2000b, pp.129-138, 134. [return]
34. Bucklin, R., 1970, "The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ," Medicine, Science and the Law, January; McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, 1978, p.23; Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous - the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-68, 57; Antonacci, 2000, p.27; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.56; de Wesselow, 2012, p.122. [return]
35. Antonacci, 2000, p.28. [return]
36. "Coagulation: Initial discoveries," Wikipedia, 28 August 2017. [return]
37. Bulst, 1957, p.144; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.157; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.137. [return]
38. Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, pp.19-20. [return]
39. Barbet, 1953, p.29. [return]
40. Barbet, 1953, pp.29-30. [return]

Posted: 4 September 2017. Updated: 22 September 2017.

Sunday, September 3, 2017

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

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

[Previous: July 2017, part #1] [Next: September 2017, part #1]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1, of the August 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I may comment on Shroud-related August 2017 news articles in separate posts, linked back to this post, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine. I have listed some linked articles about the Shroud in August as a service to readers, without necessarily commenting on them. If I do comment on an article in a separate Shroud of Turin News post, I will add after it "- see "dd mmm yy, part #n".

Contents:
Editorial
"Turin Shroud: the latest evidence will challenge the sceptics," Catholic Herald, Fr Dwight Longnecker, August 4, 2017.
"What Should Evangelicals Think About the Shroud of Turin?," The Gospel Coalition, Joe Carter, August 5, 2017.


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 August up to issue #83, June 1994 [Right (enlarge)], i.e ~70% completed. Issues in that archive are still up to #76, April 1993.

Posts: In August I blogged only 2 new posts (latest uppermost): "Obituary: Rev. H. David Sox (24 April 1936 - 28 August 2016) - 15th; and "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, July 2017 - 13th. I was still working on a July post, "`Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud,' Shroud of Turin News, June 2017," up to 12 August and so I only started my first August post on the 13th. And then the Obituary of David Sox which I started on the 15th, was longer than I expected, but I felt it was important to cover him fully in respect of the Shroud. And as can be seen in that post, Sox was an important figure in my radiocarbon dating of the Shroud hacker theory.

Updates in the background. In August there were no significant updates in the background of past posts. Except that for some months now I have been going through my posts from 2015 backwards, saving linked photos in case they become no longer online and replacing those which had disappeared. When I get to 2007 when this blog started, will then start saving photos in my posts from 2016 forward.

Comments: In August I deleted as substandard a long comment that was essentially an opinion-piece, with no links or references to support the mere opinions of the commenter. I simply don't have the time (see my 04 Feb17 why) to respond to long-winded, unsubstantiated, comments which are attempts by individuals to use my blog to make their statements. Comments in this my blog are intended primarily to be about my posts they are under.

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: While I blogged no posts specifically about my hacker theory in August, as mentioned above, there was a section about it in my obituary of David Sox.

My book: In August I continued to make progress in writing a dot-point outline of my book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" on my smartphone (see 06Jul17). Chapters in dot-point outline worked on in August were: "6. History and the Shroud: Before 1355 to Present." But I realised that would be too long, so I split it into "1355 to 1898" and "1899 to the Present." But I later realised that there would be no continuity between the events before 1355 and 1355 itself. So I started on "6. History and the Shroud: AD 30 to 1355" but that will probably have to be split at 1204.

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 August 2017, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 788,859. This compares with 584,212 (up 204,647 or 35%) from the same time in August 2016. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "Obituary: Rev. H. David Sox (24 April 1936 - 28 August 2016)," - Aug 15, 2017 - 129; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Eleventh century," Jul 27, 2017 - 117; "`Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud,' Shroud of Turin News, June 2017," Jul 19, 2017 - 106; "John P. Jackson, `An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image' (1991)," Aug 13, 2017 - 87 and "Editorial and Contents, Shroud of Turin News, July 2017," Aug 13, 2017 - 85. It is pleasing to see my 2012 post of Jackson's `cloth collapse theory' still being read widely.


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

Posted: 3 September 2017. Updated: 3 September 2017.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Obituary: Rev. H. David Sox (24 April 1936 - 28 August 2016)

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is my obituary of the former General Secretary of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, turned anti-authenticist, the Rev. H. David Sox who died on 28 August 2016, aged 80. As mentioned in my previous post, Ian Wilson, who knew Sox personally, was not aware of his death until I informed him of it, said he will write an obituary of Sox in the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

About Sox. Harold David Sox (aka H. David Sox or David Sox) was born on 24 April 1936 in Hickory, North Carolina to the Rev. Samuel

[Above (enlarge): David Sox (left) on his 80th birthday, 24 April 2016[2], presumably with "his partner of 45 years, Allan Offermann"[3].]

and Nellie Sox[4]. In 1961 Sox was ordained a priest of the Episcopalian church[5]. In about 1972 Sox commenced a homosexual relationship with an Allan Offermann, which lasted for 45 years until Sox's death[6]. Sox's homosexuality is relevant to the Shroud's radiocarbon dating (see below). In 1974 Sox moved to London where he taught at the American School for 19 years[7], which would have been from 1974 to 1993. However Sox may not have started teaching at the American School in 1974 because Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), who described he and Sox as "quite good friends"[8], in 1996 twice wrote that Sox "teaches [present tense] at the American School in London"[9].

Sox and the Shroud. Sox's first contact with the Shroud was in Turin in 1956 on his way to a nearby ecumenical youth camp[10]. Sox entered the chapel where the Shroud was then kept and realised after

[Above (enlarge): Interior of the Chapel of the Holy Shroud as it would have been in 1956 when Sox entered it [02May15].]

consulting his Italian-English dictionary, that the word "sindone" which featured prominently in the chapel's literature, meant that behind the grille above the altar must be "the Shroud of Jesus"[11]. Sox admitted that he was in "rebellion" against the traditional Christianity of his Lutheran clergymen father and grandfather, and in its place was a "fascination with exotic facets of Christian tradition"[12]. Sox's initial link with the Shroud remained dormant until 1976 when, in his own words, "I started reading everything I could get my hands on concerning this curious object"[13]. In 1977 Sox helped found the British Society for the Turin Shroud[14], and became the Society's first General Secretary[15]. In 1978 Sox wrote the first of his three books on the Shroud, "File on the Shroud," which Wilson claims, "obviously favoured authenticity"[16]. Although I have only dipped into the book, from what I have read in it I must disagree with Wilson on that. In fact, in his third book, "The Shroud Unmasked" (1988), Sox writes of his "first effort, The File on the Shroud," that "in hindsight [I] am only glad I took a step toward scepticism" in it[16a]. So Sox may originally have "favoured authenticity" as Wilson remembered it, but by his first 1978 book Sox had begun to favour "scepticism."

Walter McCrone. Walter McCrone (1916-2002), was an analytical chemist and a leading exponent of the polarised light microscope[17]. His early specialty was ident-

[Right: Dr. Walter C. McCrone, Jr., McCrone Research Institute, 11 October 2015.]

ifying explosives[18] by which he became wealthy consulting for the US government during World War II[19]. With that wealth McCrone set up his own McCrone Research Institute and his own in-house journal The Microscope[20].

In 1979 McCrone began examining under a light microscope 32 sticky tapes, loaned to him by STURP's Ray Rogers (1927–2005), which had been pressed onto the Shroud in 1978[21].

[Left (enlarge): STURP's taking one of its 32 sticky tape samples from the Shroud in 1978[22].]

As an example of McCrone's capacity for self-deception, when Rogers asked for the return of STURP's tapes, McCrone had convinced himself that half the tapes were his and that in giving them back he had been "conned out of my set of tapes"[23] (see 05Jan16)! McCrone admitted he was unable to find any paint particles on the tapes[24], but he did find particles of iron oxide (Fe2O3) [25] and a few particles of mercuric sulfide (HgS), or vermilion, in only one larger agglomerate particle[26] , which he claimed accounted for all the blood[27]! STURP's Alan D. Adler (1931-2000) and John H. Heller (1921-1995) had also found abundant iron oxide[28] but only one particle of vermilion on the same tapes[29]. Without considering any other explanations (e.g. STURP's below), McCrone jumped to the conclusion that the iron oxide particles were red ochre[30] (one of many forms of Fe2O3) which he claimed that a 14th century artist had used to paint the Shroud image[31]! McCrone then needed evidence of an organic binder to glue the 'ochre' in place[32]. Unable to see any particles of a binder[33], McCrone had to resort to a chemical test for protein, amido black, which did return a positive result[34] (however see below).

In 1979-80 at STURP meetings attended by McCrone[34a], other STURP scientists pointed out that: 1) there was no more iron oxide in image than non-image areas[35] (except for blood areas which had slightly more iron as expected since blood contains iron[36]), and the tiny amount of iron oxide that McCrone had found would be invisible[37]; 2) McCrone had failed to consider other explanations for the iron oxide[38] (e.g. it was a consequence of the process of retting flax in streams[39] and/or flaked off blood particles[40]); 3) Amido black was too general a test for protein[41] - it returned a positive result on clean modern linen[42]; 4) the vermilion came from medieval artists pressing their freshly painted copies of the Shroud onto the Original to sanctify them[43]; and 5) McCrone's conclusions conflicted with those of other members of the STURP team[44]. But McCrone simply ignored those criticisms and made no attempt to work as a team with STURP to resolve their differences[45].

In 1980 at a meeting of STURP at Santa Barbara at which Gove and Sox were present[46], McCrone again took no notice of other STURP scientists' contrary evidence but simply reiterated his conclusion that the iron oxide was red ochre pigment and the amido black positive result was evidence of a gelatin binder[47]. McCrone never attended another STURP meeting, even though he was invited[48]. Later in 1980, McCrone presented his conclusions to a closed meeting of the British Society for the Turin Shroud[49], where he fatally conceded:

"I am not saying the Shroud is not authentic. I am saying that the image area has a lot of iron oxide and a lot of artists' pigment associated with it, but I do not know whether the amount of iron oxide present is sufficient to explain the entire image"[50].
However, after the gist of McCrone's address was unauthorisedly reported in the media by a journalist present[51], McCrone used that as a pretext to be no longer bound by STURP'S non-disclosure agreement which he had signed[52] and published his conclusions in a series of articles in his The Microscope[53].

Sox and McCrone. Sox had known McCrone personally since at least September 1976 when they had dinner in London with Ian Wilson and others[55]. McCrone was interested in radiocarbon dating the sample of the Shroud removed in 1973 for textile analysis by Belgian Professor Gilbert Raes (1914-2001)[56]. In July 1976 Sox had travelled to Turin

[Above (enlarge): The 1973 Raes' sample in relation to the 1988 radiocarbon dating sample[57] (see 15Jan12 for its context within the Shroud). As can be seen, the Raes sample is large enough for radiocarbon dating[59] but its lack of documented history (Raes was not present when the sample was taken in 1973[60]) render it unsuitable for carbon dating the Shroud [61] .]

and discovered that the Raes' sample was still with Prof. Raes in his home in Ghent, Belgium[62]. Then, after Sox had written to Prof. Raes, McCrone and Sox visited him in November 1976 and and inspected his sample[63], which they "were surprised to find ... kept in a rather casual manner in an old scrap-book of stamps" but in "excellent condition ... entirely suitable for carbon dating"[64]. Four months later in March 1977, McCrone presented a paper at the first United States Shroud conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico (at which Sox also presented a paper[65]) in which McCrone proposed that the Raes' sample be carbon dated[66]. However, unknown to Sox and McCrone, Raes was skeptical of McCrone's proposed `electron tracks on a photographic plate' method[67], which Gove later dismissed as "scientifically nonsensical on several counts"[68], and so Raes contacted a Belgian radiocarbon dating expert, Prof. Désiré Apers[69]. According to Sox, Prof. Apers' "physics analysis" of McCrone's "nuclear track emulsions" proposal "was devastating"[70]. Raes then contacted Turin because he expected Sox to insist on making the sample available to McCrone, and Turin, which had become disillusioned with McCrone[71], requested that Raes return the sample, which he did in October[72]. The returned Raes sample was then placed in the sacristy vault of Turin's Royal Chapel where presumably it still is[73].

Sox became emotionally attached to McCrone. In his first letter of 24 June 1977 to Gove (see also future below), Sox described McCrone as "... a marvellous person and I am very devoted to him"[74]. As a result Sox, the General Secretary of the BSTS underwent a "sudden conversion" to McCrone's red ochre and vermilion painting theory[75]. As Wilson put it:

"...Sox, earlier favorable to the Shroud's authenticity, underwent a mind-blowingly rapid conversion in order to become McCrone's mouthpiece with The Image on the Shroud, published in 1981"[76]
Having joined the anti-authenticity camp, Sox resigned from the BSTS (he was not pushed) in late 1980, on the eve of the publication of his The Image on the Shroud[77], "amid a brouhaha of publicity"[78]. The strongest thread running through Sox's File on the Shoud is his support for his friend Walter McCrone[79]. In that book, Sox gave full credit to McCrone[80]:
"I would like to thank Walter McCrone for making it possible for. me to do this book as I had intended, with all of his observations and insights. Without his contribution this book would not exist"[81].
Sox, Gove and McCrone. As we saw above, Sox had been interested in radiocarbon dating the Shroud since at least 1976 but his attempt to obtain the Raes sample for McCrone to date ended in failure with Raes returning the sample to Turin. However, on 9 June 1977 an article appeared in the New York Times, based on a University of Rochester press release[82], reporting on a new method of radiocarbon dating using "mass spectroscopy" [sic] developed by a small team lead by Rochester University's Prof. Harry Gove [Right (original) [83].], which could date much smaller and older samples than the conventional method[84]. The story was picked up by Time magazine which interviewed Gove and published an article titled, "New Dating Game"[85] in its 24 June 1977 edition[86], which stated that the new method "requires as little as one-hundredth of the material needed for current dating tests"[87]. When Sox heard about the Time article which had appeared a few days earlier, he wrote to Gove on 24 June 1977, "in strictest confidence," enclosing Prof. Apers' report on McCrone's proposal to carbon-date the Raes' sample"[88]. Sox did not disclose that he was the General Secretary of the BSTS (which Gove learned later[89]), and for Gove not to let McCrone know that Sox had approached him, asking Gove if this new method could carbon-date the Turin Shroud[90]. It was the first that Gove had heard of the Shroud[91]. Gove responded on behalf of the team to Sox, that the new method could date the Shroud but it was too newly developed to be applied to such a renowned object[92]. The next day after Gove's reply to Sox (Gove does not say what date it was), Gove received a phone call from McCrone, asking whether Gove's new method could date "an important piece of cloth" (not mentioning it was the Shroud) to determine "whether it was 2000 years old"[93]. From McCrone's further description, and information Gove realised from Sox's enclosure of Apers' report that McCrone meant the Raes sample[94]. Gove asked McCrone to put his request in writing, which he did on 11 July 1977 but Gove's reply was essentially the same as his to Sox[95]. But Sox and McCrone's "scheme to obtain Raes' shroud samples"[96] failed due to Turin's continued refusal to make the Raes sample available for carbon dating[97](as we saw above).

Sox and the 1988 radiocarbon dating. In May 1978 Gove and his team had agreed that they should explore the possibility of getting involved in dating the Turin Shroud, as "it would be too good an opportunity to miss" since "It would be a highly public demonstration of the power of carbon dating by AMS"[98]. Thereafter Sox's role in the eventual 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was indirect. But Gove acknowledged that Sox's "24 June 1977 ... inquiry led, via a complex chain of events, to the actual dating of the shroud cloth by accelerator mass spectrometry almost exactly eleven years later"[99].

Sox and Timewatch Sox was the sole expert consultant to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)'s 1988 Timewatch television programme, "Shreds of Evidence"[100]. On 8 May 1988 Sox and the BBC Timewatch crew, led by Neil Cameron, arrived at Zurich laboratory when it was about to carry out its dating[101]. Sox obtained information in Zurich which he was able to include in his August 1988 book, "The Shroud Unmasked"[102] (see future below). Sox and the Timewatch crew witnessed the preparation for carbon dating Zurich's Shroud sample[103] but they left before the actual dating, so Sox and Cameron did not know Zurich's eventual date of the Shroud[104]. Back in London on 13 May, part of the Timewatch documentary was filmed at Sox's American School, with one scene of Gove in a school science laboratories explaining AMS radiocarbon dating, and another scene where Gove walked over to a letterbox, picked up a letter and read it, to simulate his receiving Sox's first letter on 24 June 1977[105]. The program aired on 27 July 1988[106], while the dating was still in progress: Arizona and Zurich laboratories had finished their testing and reported their results to Dr. Michael Tite of the British Museum by about 25 May and 21 July 1988, respectively[107] but Oxford laboratory did not complete its testing and report its results until early August[108]. The program had been scheduled for late July in anticipation that the dating results would have been known by then, but since they weren't, its original title, "Verdict on the Shroud," had to be changed[109]. The program leaned heavily in favour of the Shroud being a mediaeval forgery[110] despite Oxford having not then completed its dating[111].

Sox and the leaks On 3 July 1988[112], columnist Kenneth Rose (1924-2014) in the

[Left (enlarge)[113]. "Kenneth Rose ... He never married ..."[114].]

London Sunday Telegraph reported on the then ongoing radiocarbon dating of the Shroud that, "In spite of the intense secrecy surrounding the investigation I hear signs that the linen cloth has been proved to be mediaeval"[115]. The story was picked up by news media around the world[116]. Suspicion fell on Oxford laboratory having leaked the results, but Oxford's Prof. Hall and Dr. Hedges in a letter to The Times of 9 July denied that, pointing out that Oxford had not yet begun its dating of the Shroud[117].

Then on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran a front-page story, "Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake"[118], with an accompanying article by Cambridge librarian Dr. Richard Luckett stating that "a

[Right (enlarge): "Dr Richard Luckett ... "I'll just be having a quiet dinner with a friend on my birthday"[119].]

probable date of about 1350 looks likely" and remarking that "laboratories are rather leaky institutions"[120]. This generated another round of world-wide media stories, yet none of the laboratories nor the British Museum knew Luckett or how he had obtained his information[121]. It was generally assumed that Oxford laboratory, which had since completed its dating, had leaked the "1350" date to Luckett[122]. But not only was Oxford's mean date "several decades less than 1350 AD"[123], in an Associated Press story of 9 September 1988, Luckett was quoted as saying, "I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories and it wasn't Oxford"[124]. Gove, knowing that Luckett's date of 1350 was Arizona's first date of the Shroud on 6 May 1988[125], became "worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement" (as alleged hacker Timothy W. Linick was (see below)[126].

Ian Wilson publicly concluded in a 23 September 1988 newscaster to BSTS members that Sox was the source of Rose's and Luckett's leaks and indeed of all the leaks to the media:

"When in a telephone enquiry to Dr. Luckett I asked whether the Revd. David Sox had been his source, he hastily changed the subject ... On 18 September the Sunday Times carried the front page headline `Official: Turin Shroud is a Fake' ... I complained to the Sunday Times Editor with particular regard to the `official' headline. This prompted a conciliatory phone call from the Science Correspondent who when challenged directly, admitted that his source had been the Revd. David Sox. He said he had in front of him the Revd Sox's already complete book about the Shroud's mediaeval date, awaiting publication the moment this news becomes formally released ... It seems clear that ... the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman whose identity will now be self-evident. This individual's means of obtaining his `inside' information (which can only have come from Arizona or Zurich), and his motives ... can only be guessed at"[127].
On the day of Wilson's above 23 September letter, Sox phoned Gove to deny he was the source of the leaks, but tellingly Gove did not write that he believed Sox[128]. On the contrary Gove wrote that Arizona's Doug Donahue and Paul Damon, as well as Turin's Luigi Gonella, had each come to the conclusion that "Sox was the source of the leaks"[129]. The next day, 24 September, in La Stampa, Sox was quoted as admitting he was partly to blame for the leaks: "May I be damned if I were to let the entire blame fall on myself"[130].

As mentioned in my posts of 24Jun14, 05Mar15, 30Dec15 and 22Nov16, I had been told privately in confidence of a possible connection between Sox, Luckett and Rose, but I was not at liberty to reveal it. Without revealing who told me, except it was from someone who knew Sox, and that from his mannerisms, e.g.:

"David Sox ... very dapper ... invariably wearing modish clothes-a man of considerable charm and humour. He can occasionally be mildly effeminate with a slightly shrill laugh"[131].
he suspected (words to effect) that Sox was a homosexual and that a possible connection between Sox, Rose and Luckett was that they were part of an informal network of homosexuals. This is now supported (albeit not proved) by Sox being confirmed as a homosexual; Rose having been "never married" and Luckett celebrating his birthday with "a friend." (see above). I am not interested in their homosexuality, only in solving the mystery of how Luckett, a Cambridge librarian with no known connection to the laboratories, knew that Arizona's first date of the Shroud was "1350".

Sox and "The Shroud Unmasked." The title of Sox's third book about the Shroud, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time" (1988) [Left (enlarge)], leaves no doubt about Sox's final anti-authenticist position[132]. This was the first book published on the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud[133]. Sox's Introduction states that the book had been written by "August 1988"[134]. But that it was finished even earlier, before Oxford had completed its dating in early August (see above), is evident in that the book does not mention Oxford's dating at all. The London Sunday Times had a copy of the book on 18 September[135], more than three weeks before the official announcement on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!"[136]. Two days after that official announcement Sox's book was published[137]!

Sox's book has an account of Arizona's first dating on 6 May 1988, provided by Gove[138]:

"At 9.50am what matters to the layman was available - the results of the measurements, the first carbon dating test on the Turin Shroud ... Donahue's wife, who believed the Shroud was genuine, was going for 2000 years. So was Shirley Brignall. She and Gove had a bet. Gove said 1000 years ... Whoever lost was to buy the other a pair of cowboy boots. The calculations were produced on the computer, and displayed on the screen. Even the dendrochronological correction was immediately available. All eyes were on the screen. The date would be when the flax used for the linen relic was harvested. Gove would be taking cowboy boots back to Rochester"[139].
From the above it is evident that while Sox then knew that Arizona's first date of the Shroud was closer to 1,000 than 2,000 years old, he did not then know the date was "1350". Gove was adamant that he had not told Sox the "1350" date[140] and Sox later confirmed he did not get the date from Gove[141]. The answer to who told Sox that "1350" was Arizona's first date of the Shroud was in the above quote, replaced by my first set of ellipses (see next).

Sox and Timothy Linick. The words in Sox's 1988 book that were replaced by my first set of ellipses above included:

"Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'"[142].
As pointed out in my previous posts of 24Jun14, 05Mar15, 30Dec15 and 22Nov16, this is evidence (if not proof beyond reasonable doubt) that: 1) Arizona laboratory's Timothy W. Linick (1946-89) was an extreme anti-authenticist, who would not accept that the Shroud was authentic, even if its radiocarbon date was first century; 2) Linick was in contact with Sox, despite signing an Arizona laboratory confidentiality agreement "... not to communicate the results to anyone - spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public"; and 3) Linick was the leaker of Arizona laboratory's first "1350" date to Sox.

[Above right[143]. Photo of Timothy W. Linick and report that, "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances ..."[144]. This is consistent with my theory that the KGB murdered by simulated suicide confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch between 23 and 30 May 1989 (see 02Jun16), and also Linick on 4 June 1989[145], the day after the West German police had publicly released the identity of a burnt body as Koch's on 3 June 1989[146]. This was to prevent Koch or Linick revealing that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as 1325 ±65[147] was the result of a Soviet-sponsored computer hacking of the Shroud's carbon dating by Linick, aided by Koch.]

This is consistent with my theory that Linick was also the primary hacker whose program installed in the fully computerised AMS systems at Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, substituted the actual radiocarbon dates of the first-century Shroud, with computer-generated dates which when aggregated and averaged, yielded the bogus radiocarbon result that, "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is ... mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[148]. And that Linick used Sox to leak Arizona's first bogus "1350" first radiocarbon date of the Shroud to create a climate of expectation that the Shroud was a mediaeval fake so that the laboratories, the media, and the general public would accept without question Linick's hacked dates. See my series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking"

Sox and Anthony Linick. Anthony Linick (1938-) is the older half-brother of Timothy Linick[149], the alleged leaker and hacker (see above and 30Dec15).

[Left: Anthony Linick[150]. He taught at the American School in London from 1982- 2002[151], which means that for at least ~13 years from 1982-1995 he was there at the same time as Sox (see above). ]

As I mentioned in my posts of 30Dec15 and 22Feb16 on 2 January 2016 I discovered that Timothy W. Linick had a half-brother Anthony Linick who had written a biography of his (not Timothy's) stepfather, the composer and conductor (Ingolf Dahl (1912–70), titled, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl" (2008). I didn't then have the book, but reading parts of it online, I found in it where Anthony wrote that, "Timmy ... sank deeper into what seems to have been the family's hereditary introversion" (p.250) and my "half-brother Timothy, took his own life at age 42 in 1989" (p.619). That same day, I emailed Anthony through his website "A Walkers Journal" mentioning Sox:

"Your late half-brother Timothy W. Linick, who was a member of the team at Arizona Radiocarbon dating laboratory which radiocarbon dated the Shroud of Turin in 1988, was quoted by the Rev. David Sox as follows:
`... before the test ... Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material [of the Shroud of Turin] to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'' (Sox, H.D., 1988, `The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time,' Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147).
Sox was in England at that time and he would be unlikely to know your brother even existed, so presumably Timothy had contacted Sox and volunteered that information. This was despite all those participating in Arizona laboratory's dating of the Shroud ... having signed an undertaking `not to communicate the results to anyone' ... Arizona's first dating run of the Shroud returned a date of `1350 AD' ... a leak appeared in the English media that the Shroud had dated `1350' ... Prof. Gove concluded that the original source of the `1350' leak was `from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement'... It was later discovered that Sox was the secondary source of the leaks to the media ... including the `1350' date ... So it seems inescapable that your late half-brother Timothy W. Linick was the original source of the leaks to David Sox in England, who in turn leaked it indirectly to the English media, that Arizona laboratory's first run date of the Shroud of Turin was `1350.' Presumably someone in one of the laboratories would have discovered your brother had been quoted by Sox in his book ... and would have asked him to please explain. If so, were there any repercussions of this on your brother's career?"[152]
I did not know at the time that Anthony knew Sox, by both having taught at the same American school in London for ~13 years, but I used Sox's quote of Anthony's half-brother Timothy as evidence of him having leaked Arizona's "1350" date. The next day Anthony replied by email, not disclosing that he knew Sox:
"Of course I have encountered materials on the controversies surrounding the Turin Shroud ... including those on the death of my half-brother, Timothy Linick, in 1989. I have to say that I have nothing to add to these matters. I spent only one year under the same roof as Tim – and that was when he was six years old ... I knew, of course, that he was a specialist in carbon dating but I don’t remember when I learned that he was part of the team charged with dating the shroud. When my step-mother, Del (Delphine) [Timothy's mother] called to share the news of his passing she said only that he took his own life and that he had been suffering from depression"[153]
However, about seven weeks later, on 22 February 2016, I discovered in Anthony Linick's Wikipedia entry, that he had worked at the American School in London for 20 years from 1982 to 2002, which overlapped with Sox for ~13 years from 1982-95 (see above and 22Feb16). I felt I was owed an explanation why Anthony had not mentioned that he knew Sox, so I emailed him again on 23 February, with quotes from Wikipedia and Gove's book about Sox, putting these questions to him:
"So did you know David Sox? And that he was deeply involved in seeking to discredit the Shroud of Turin? Including being the secondary source of leaks to the media of Arizona's first `AD 1350' date ... It seems an amazing coincidence that your half-brother Timothy was in contact with David Sox, who presumably you worked with? Did you put Timothy in touch with Sox or vice-versa?"[154]
Anthony replied by email the next day, 24 February, claiming that he only had "a suspicion" that the "David Sox" whom I and "others [plural?] mentioned" was the same David Sox "who worked at the American School in London" and that he "did meet him once or twice":
"You have confirmed for me a suspicion that began to grow when you and others mentioned David Sox. I had wondered if this was the same chap who worked at the American School in London and this is now confirmed. I did meet him once or twice and, indeed, my first long-term assignment at ASL was in the middle school, where he was a faculty member. This was in the spring of 1982."[155]
See the rest of my post of 22Feb16 that this, and other things that Anthony Linick claimed, are so implausible that he can only be lying to cover up his part in putting his half-brother Timothy in touch with Sox, or vice-versa. Whichever, that Sox worked with Timothy Linick's half-brother is further evidence amounting to proof beyond reasonable doubt that Timothy Linick leaked Arizona's "1350" through Sox. And that in turn is further evidence that Timothy Linick was the primary hacker of the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, who leaked Arizona's first "1350" date to help create a climate of expectation that the Shroud was a medieval fake so that his hacked 1260-1390 = 1325 ± 65 date would be readily accepted .

Epitaph: Sox the scoffer. In this final section of this very long post, I have been reading through Sox's last book on the Shroud: "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time" (1988).

"... knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days" (2Pet 3:3)

The Greek word translated "scoffer" above is empaiktai, "a mocker, scoffer"[156], which aptly describes Sox attitude towards pro-authenticists (see below).

Not a Christian. Although he was a clergyman, Sox was evidently not a Christian. Indeed, as far as I am aware, Sox did not even claim to be a Christian. His books, as far as I am aware, contain no personal profession of Christian faith. Jesus is "the man some called the Son of God" (p.8) - which would have been the perfect place for Sox to have included himself in those "some" but he didn't. Unmasked reads like it could have been written by an atheist/agnostic like Joe Nickell, because it was!

Falsehoods. (or dishonest/deluded). Sox claimed, "... there just is no historical pedigree for the cloth before its appearance in the little town of Lirey in France in the 1350s" (p.17) and "... its early history [is] missing so absolutely that it will not stand up" (p.20). This is simply false. For starters see my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present" currently up to the 11th century. Wilson has specifically refuted this objection of Sox[157]. Sox also claimed that Bishop d'Arcis' "memorandum ... to Avignon Pope Clement VII ... remains to this day a death blow to dating the Shroud earlier than the fourteenth century" (p.17)! This is so false it is laughable! See my 11Jul16 showing that Bishop d'Arcis was wrong that the Shroud was "cunningly painted" because, for starters, the Shroud image is not a painting, which even Joe Nickell now accepts..

Refusal to accept evidence. The problem is that Sox refused to accept any of the abundant evidence of the Shroud's existence before 1350. For example, he dismissed with no explanation, "... attempts to link the Turin Shroud to the ancient image of Edessa" by "Ian Wilson" (p.17). Despite the fact that Wilson experimentally proved it! See my 15Sep12.

Ad hominems. Sox dismissed pro-authenticist evidence and arguments with ad hominems (against the man). So Wilson is "enthused" in "his theory that the Shroud and the Mandylion of Edessa were the same relic ... the Shroud ... folded so only the facial image was seen" (p.38). Ignoring that Wilson had experimentally proved his theory (see above).

Failure to consider alternatives Sox claimed that "The de Charnys appear to have been unconvinced of the authenticity of their Shroud, and quite willing to accept it as a 'likeness' or 'representation'" (p.19). But Sox failed to consider that Pope Clement VII (r.1378-94) who ordered that Bishop d'Arcis remain "perpetually silent" about the 1389 second Lirey exposition in exchange for Geoffroy II de Charny (c.1352–1398) and his mother Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428) only claiming that the Shroud was "a representation; as Robert of Geneva, was a nephew of Jeanne's second husband Aymon IV de Geneva (1324-88). And after Jeanne married Aymon in c.1359 she took her ~7 year-old son Geoffroy II, her ~3 year-old daughter Charlotte, and the Shroud, to live with Aymon in Anthon, High Savoy, where they were neighbours of Robert (see 16Feb15). There they would have given the future Pope a private viewing of the Shroud and explained to him that it was looted in the 1204 sack of Constantinople by Jeanne's ancestor, Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234) [see 25Oct15). The problem for Pope Clement VII was that the Byzantine Empire (c. 330–1453) still existed and what's more, the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaiologos (1332–1391), was a son of Anna of Savoy (1306-65), a daughter of Count Amadeus V of Savoy (1249-1323), who in turn established Chambéry as his seat. So if the de Charny's continued to claim that the Shroud was Jesus' burial Shroud, John V would have known it was the one looted from Constantinople and demanded it be returned, creating a diplomatic crisis for the Pope! It seems significant that it was only when the Byzantine Empire finally fell in 1453 that Geoffroy II's daughter, Marguerite de Charny (c. 1390–1460), transferred the Shroud to Duke Louis I of Savoy (1440-1465).

Sox the scoffer. I have decided to end this very long post with this quote which shows Sox's un-Christian, mocking attitude towards pro-authenticists:

"Neil Cameron and I were around ETH [Zurich Institute of Technology where Zurich laboratory is] at midnight on our first night in Zurich looking at the surroundings for possible filming sites. There wasn't a soul around, but a few lights were on in various labs, and an odd low howling noise came from somewhere. Our imagination saw it as an unwilling sample ready for the blast of the accelerator - or more likely it was the last wail of die-hard sindonologists unwilling to face a wrong date" (p.142).
But since the Shroud is first-century, it might be the non-Christian Sox who is doing the wailing now (Mt 8:12; 13:42,50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Lk 13:28), having realised, too late that he was wrong and the "die-hard sindonologists" he scoffed at, were right!

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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 page. [return]
2. "David's 80th birthday Apr 24th, 2016," Harold Sox Obituary - Palm Springs, California, Legacy.com. [return]
3. "In Memory of Harold David Sox, April 24, 1936 - August 28, 2016," Trident Society, Rancho Mirage CA, 28 September 2017. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. Ibid. [return]
6. Ibid. [return]
7. Ibid. [return]
8. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.8. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, pp.8, 20-21. [return]
10. Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, p.12. [return]
11. Ibid. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Ibid. [return]
14. 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.234. [return]
15. Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
16. Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
16a. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.152; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.87. [return]
17. 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.93; McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.36-37. [return]
18. Hopen, T.J., 2004, "Dr. Walter C. McCrone's contribution to the characterization and identification of explosives," J Forensic Science, March, 49(2), pp.275-276. [return]
19. Lecture by Prof. Joel Bernstein, "The Shroud of Turin: What science can tell us?," Scitech, Perth, Western Australia, 28 July 2011. [return]
20. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.184; Wilson, 1998, pp.77-79. [return]
21. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.54-56; McCrone, 1999, pp.78, 122. [return]
22. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.21. [return]
23. McCrone, 1999, pp.123-124. [return]
24. McCrone, 1999, p.83. [return]
25. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.47; Rogers, 2008, p.50. [return]
26. McCrone, 1999, pp.129-130; Antonacci, 2000, p.48. [return]
27. McCrone, 1999, pp.1, 130, 134, 137, 140. [return]
28. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.88; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.29. [return]
29. Heller, 1983, p.192. [return]
30. McCrone, 1999, pp.1, 117. [return]
31. Ruffin, 1999, p.89. [return]
32. Wilson, 1986, p.62. [return]
33. de Wesselow, 2012, p.136 [return]
34. Wilson, 1986, p.62. [return]
34a. Wilson, 1986, p.63. [return]
35. Heller, 1983, p.140. [return]
36. Heller, 1983, p.140; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.170. [return]
37. Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, p.38; Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 1994, "Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?: The Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence," HarperCollins: New York NY, p.56; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 23; Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, p.76; . [return]
38. Rogers, 2008, p.36. [return]
39. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.29; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.153. [return]
40. Tribbe, 2006, p.153. [return]
41. Scavone, 1989, p.62. [return]
42. Scavone, 1989, p.62; Rogers, 2008, p.21. [return]
43. Heller, 1983, p.212; Ruffin, 1999, p.90; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.136. [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, p.79; Tribbe, 2006, p.138; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.213-214. [return]
45. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
46. Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, p.15. [return]
47. Wilson, 1986, pp.62, 95; Wilson, 1998, p.228; Ruffin, 1999, p.89 [return]
48. Ruffin, 1999, p.100; Oxley, 2010, p.214. [return]
49. Wilson, 1998, p.79. [return]
50. Whiting, 2006, p.171. [return]
51 . Sox, 1988, p.64; Wilson, 1998, p.79. [return]
52. Wilson, 1998, p.79. [return]
53. Wilson, 1998, p.79. [return]
55. McCrone, 1999, p.62. [return]
56. McCrone, 1999, p.55. [return]
57. Wilson, 1998, p.189. [return]
59. Meacham, W., 1986, "On Carbon Dating the Shroud," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 14, September, pp.4-15, 5; Gove, 1996, p6. [return]
60. Meacham, 1986, p.5. [return]
61. Meacham, 1986, p.5; Gove, 1996, p6. [return]
62. Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, pp.97-98. [return]
63. Sox, 1981, p.21. [return]
64. Sox, 1978, p.98. [return]
65. Sox, H.D., "Some Ecumenical Considerations Concerning the Turin Relic," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.16-22. [return]
66. McCrone, W.C., "Authentication of the Turin Shroud," in Stevenson, 1977, pp.124-130, 124-125; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.233. [return]
67. Gove, 1996, p.18. [return]
68. Gove, 1996, p.18. [return]
69. Sox, 1978, p.98. [return]
70. Morgan, R., 1989, "The Paris Symposium - Part I," Shroud News, No 55, October, pp.5-23, 23. [return]
71. Gove, 1996, p.20. [return]
72. Morgan, 1989, p.23. [return]
73. Sox, 1978, pp.98-99. [return]
74. Gove, 1996, p.15. [return]
75. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.54; Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.74. [return]
76. Wilson, 1986, pp.xiii-xiv. [return]
77. Sox, 1981, p.vi. [return]
78. Wilson, 1986, p.63; Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.54; Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.74. [return]
79. Morgan, R., 1981, "New Book on the Shroud by H. David Sox," No. 6, March, Shroud News, No 6, pp.4-7, 5. [return]
80. Paci , S.M., 1990, "The Case Is Not Closed!," Shroud News, No 60, August, p.4-11, 8. [return]
81. Sox, 1981, p.vi. [return]
82. Gove, 1996, pp.13-14. [return]
83. "Dr. Harry Gove Co-developer, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," El carbono 14, por Manuel Carreira, Sabana Santa, 2013. [return]
84. Rensberger, B., 1977, "A New Method of Carbon‐14 Dating Expected to Double Science's Range," The New York Times, June 9, p.45. [return]
85. The Time article is reproduced on page 20 of Gove, H.E., 1999, "From Hiroshima to the Iceman: The Development and Applications of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK. [return]
86. Gove, 1996, p.14. [return]
87. Gove, 1999, p.20 [return]
88. Gove, 1999, p.17. [return]
89. Gove, 1996, p.8. [return]
90. Gove, 1996, pp.7, 14-15. [return]
91. Gove, 1996, p.7. [return]
92. Gove, 1996, p.7. [return]
93. Gove, 1996, p.18. [return]
94. Ibid. [return]
95. Gove, 1996, p.19. [return]
96. Gove, 1996, p.18. [return]
97. Gove, 1996, p.23. [return]
98. Gove, 1996, p.19. [return]
99. Gove, 1996, pp.7-8. [return]
100. Wilson, I., 1988a, "On the Recent `Leaks' ...," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September; Wilson, I., 1988b, "Two recent B.B.C. Television Programmes," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.23-24, 23,25. [return]
101. Sox, 1988, p.135; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.81. [return]
102. Sox, 1988, p.160; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.81. [return]
103. Sox, 1988, pp.135-138, 140-142. [return]
104. Gove, 1996, pp.269, 274. [return]
105. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
106. Wilson., 1988a; Wilson, 1988b. [return]
106. Wilson., 1988a; Wilson, 1988b. [return]
107. Gove, 1996, pp.269, 274. [return]
108. Gove, 1996, p.274. [return]
109. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
110. Wilson., 1988b. [return]
111. Wilson., 1988a. [return]
112. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.91. [return]
113. "Kenneth Rose - obituary," The Telegraph, 29 January 2014. [return]
114. Shawcross, W., 2014, "Kenneth Rose: we'll miss his wit, warmth and wry sense of humour," The Telegraph, 1 February. [return]
115. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
116. Gove, 1996, pp.272-273. [return]
117. Wilson, 1988b; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.91. [return]
118. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
119. "Birthdays: Dr Richard Luckett," The Times, July 1, 2010. [return]
120. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
121. Ibid. [return]
122. Gove, 1996, p.277. [return]
123. Gove, 1996, pp.277-278. [return]
124. Gove, 1996, p.278. [return]
125. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
126. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
127. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
128. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
129. Ibid. [return]
130. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
131. Gove, 1996, p.23. [return]
132. Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
133. Wilson, I., 1988c, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.19. [return]
134. Sox, 1988, p.6; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
135. Wilson, 1988c. [return]
136. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7. [return]
137. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.109. [return]
138. Sox, 1988, p.160. [return]
139. Sox, 1988, pp.146-147. [return]
140. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
141. Gove, 1996, p.283. [return]
142. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
143. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
TLR. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
144. Bonnet-Eymard, 2000. [return]
145. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
146. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010h; and Clough. B. & Mungo, P., 1992, "Approaching Zero: Data Crime and the Computer," Faber & Faber: London & Boston, p.163. [return]
147. The cited radiocarbon dating range "1260-1390" of the Shroud is equivalent to "the year AD 1325, give or take sixty-five years either way." (Wilson, 1998, p.7). [return]
148. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
149. Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse: Bloomington IN, p.226. [return]
150. "Anthony Linick," Wikipedia, 23 June 2017. [return]
151. "Anthony Linick: Academic life," Wikipedia, 23 June 2017. [return]
152. Jones, S.E., Message, "A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," January 2, 2016, 6:19 am. [return]
153. Linick, A., Email "Re: A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 3 January 2016, 11:08 PM. [return]
154. Jones, S.E., Email "Re: David Sox," 23 February 2016, 10:20 PM. [return]
155. Linick, A., Email "Re: David Sox," 24 February 2016, 1:04 AM. [return]
156. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.557. [return]
157. Wilson, 1998, pp.235, 124-175. [return]

Posted: 15 August 2017. Updated: 10 September 2017.