Saturday, May 13, 2017

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Tenth century

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
TENTH CENTURY
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the tenth (which is a continuation of the ninth) installment of part #10, "Tenth century," of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see part #1, "1st century and Index." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 9th century #9] [Next: 11th century #11]


10th century (901-1000)

[Above (enlarge)[2]: King Abgar V (c.25 BC-AD 50) of Edessa is depicted in this 10th century icon at Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai[3], receiving the Image of Edessa (the Shroud "four-doubled" - tetradiplon) from Jesus' disciple Thaddeus[4] [see "50"]. Abgar's face is that of Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 913-959)[5], to commemorate the arrival of the Image of Edessa/Shroud in Constantinople on 15 August 944[6] [see below].]

943 In the Spring of 943, Byzantine usurper Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 920–944)[7] sends an army led by his best general, John Curcuas (fl. 915–946)[8], to Edessa to negotiate with its Muslim emir ruler for possession of the Edessa cloth[9], to add to his collection of Christian relics[10]. In exchange for the Cloth, Curcuas offered on behalf of the Emperor, a guarantee of perpetual immunity of Edessa from Byzantine attack, 12,000 pieces of silver and the release of 200 Muslim prisoners[11].

944a After lengthy consultations with his superiors in Baghdad[12], in the Summer of 944[13], Edessa's emir accepts Curcuas' terms and Bishop Abraham of nearby Samosata[14], enters Edessa to receive the cloth, and despite the resistance of Edessa's Christians[15], he is

[Above (enlarge): "The surrender of the Holy Mandylion (the `Image of Edessa'), bearing the face of Christ [and behind it the full-length Shroud!], by the inhabitants of Edessa in Mesopotamia to the Byzantines in 944," by John Skylitzes (c. 1040s – aft. 1101)[16] [see future "c. 1070"]. Note that in the 11th century Skylitzes depicted the Image of Edessa/Mandylion, at the time of its transfer from Edessa to Constantinople, as known to be full-length[17]! This occasion is usually assumed by pro-authenticists to be the arrival of the Image in Constantinople in 944[18]. But not only does its Wikipedia title contradict that, the persons on the left appear to be wearing red turbans and hence are Islamic, and also the buildings on their side have no Christian crosses. However, that the buildings on the right have Christian crosses suggests that by artistic license Skylitzes depicted both the Image being handed over in Edessa and its arrival in Constantinople!]

satisfied that he has the original, as well as two copies of the Image[19] and Abgar V's (spurious [see "50"]) letter from Jesus[20]. After a short stay in Samosata[21], the bishop travels with the Image, escorted by Curcuas' army[22] across Anatolia back to Constantinople[23].

944b On Thursday 15 August 944 the Image of Edessa arrives in Constantinople[24]. It is carried in its framed portrait, fastened to a board and embellished with gold[25], through the streets of the city amidst great celebration[26]. The Image is then taken to the church of St Mary at Blachernae[27], where it is viewed by members of the imperial family[28]. Romanos' two sons Stephen and Constantine find the face blurred and cannot distinguish its features[29] (further evidence that this was the Shroud: its image is faint and difficult to see close-up[30]). But the legitimate Emperor, Constantine VII, son of the late Emperor Leo VI (r. 886–912), was artistic and readily discerns them[31]. The Image of Edessa/Shroud is then taken to the Imperial (Boucoleon) Palace where it is placed overnight in the Pharos chapel[32].

944c The next day, 16 August 944, the Image is carried around the walls of Constantinople[33], thereby establishing it as the city's new palladium (guarantee of a city's Divine protection)[34]. The Image is then taken to Constantinople's Hagia Sophia cathedral[35], where it is placed on the "throne of mercy"[36]. During that enthronement of the Image ceremony[37], Gregory Referendarius (overseer of relationships between the Patriarch and the Emperor[38]), Archdeacon of Hagia Sophia[39], an eyewitness of these events[40], delivers a sermon[41] in which he says that the Cloth bears not only "the sweat from the face of the ruler of life, falling like drops of blood" but also "drops from his own side ... [of] blood and water":

"This reflection, however - may everyone be inspired with the explanation - has been imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the ruler of life, falling like drops of blood, and by the finger of God. For these are indeed the beauties that have coloured the true imprint of Christ, because that from which they dripped was also embellished by drops from his own side. Both are highly instructive - blood and water there, here sweat and image. O equality of happenings, since both have their origin in the same person. The source of living water can be seen and it gives us water, showing us that the origin of the image made by sweat is in fact of the same nature as the origin of that which makes the liquid flow from the side"[42].
By "the sweat from the face of [Christ] ... falling like drops of blood" Gregory refers to Lk 22:44:
"And being in agony he [Jesus] prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground."
which occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36; Mk 14:32)[43]. But the "drops from his own side ... [of] blood and water" refers to Jn 19:33-34 which was after Jesus' death on the cross:
"But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water."
Clearly the face-only Image of Edessa does not show the blood-stained wound in Jesus' side that is evident on the Shroud[44]. But Gregory could not have made that reference unless he had been aware of the wound in the side of the image and of bloodstains in the area of that wound[45], and hence had known that the Cloth was full-length rather than merely a face-cloth[46]. And to know that, Gregory must have seen that under the Image of Edessa face was a full-length, bloodstained, body image of Jesus[47]. This is a further corroboration of Ian Wilson's insight that the Image of Edessa was the Shroud ("four-doubled" - tetradiplon)[48]!

944d In December 944, the co-Emperor sons of Romanos I, Stephen and Constantine, fearing their ~74 year-old father was going to confirm Constantine VII as his successor[49], forced him to abdicate[50].

945a On 27 January 945, with the help of his wife, Romanos I's daughter Helena Lekapene (c. 910–961), Constantine VII exiled Stephen and Constantine (Helena's brothers!) and became sole emperor at the age of 39[51]. Within weeks of his accession, Constantine VII had a new gold solidus coin struck[52], bearing

[Above (enlarge): "Coin ... [a gold solidus] minted in 945 under the reign of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII. On the obverse, a bust of Christ similar to the Shroud face image; on the reverse, Constantine VII ... Notice ... the overall similarity of the facial representation with the face on the Shroud ... the left cheek of Christ, that is, the cheek that appears on our right, shows a clear protuberance, which is also on the Shroud. The beard and hair are also similar to the Shroud. Note the very peculiar lock of hair on the forehead. This is similar to the inverted '3' shape as seen on the forehead on the Shroud"[53].]

a very Shroud-like Christ 'Rex Regnantium' (King of Kings) portrait, inspired by the recently arrived cloth of Edessa[54]. Note also the `pellets' within Jesus' halo above, two groups of four each forming an

[Above (enlarge)[55]: Two sets of L-shaped `poker holes' on the Shroud man's dorsal image and two sets of three in a line on the frontal image.]

L-shape and the other two groups of three each in a line, match the so-called 'poker holes' on the Shroud (see above), as pointed out by Ian Wilson[56].

945b On 16 August 945, the anniversary of the solemn exposition of the cloth in Hagia Sophia cathedral, Constantine VII proclaimed 16 August as the Feast of the Holy Mandylion in the Eastern Orthodox church calendar[57], which it continues to celebrate to this very day, even though the Image has been lost to them since 1204[58]!

945c Soon after becoming sole Emperor, Constantine VII commissioned[59] an official history of the Image of Edessa[60], the "Narratio de imagine Edessena"[61], or "Story of the Image of Edessa"[62]. Indeed it may have been written by Constantine himself[63]! The Story is actually a sermon to be read to Eastern Orthodox congregations on each 16 August Feast of the Holy Mandylion, starting in 946[64], hence it is also known as the "Festival Sermon"[65] . Fastened to a board The Official History states that the Image of Edessa "now to be seen" in Constantinople in 944, had in Edessa been fastened to a board and embellished with gold by Abgar V:

"Abgar ... set up this likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ not made by hand, fastening it to a board and embellishing it with the gold which is now to be seen, inscribing these words on the gold: `Christ the God, he who hopes in thee is never disappointed'"[66].
This fits Ian Wilson's theory that the Shroud was folded and mounted in such a way ("four-doubled" - tetradiplon) that only the facial area was visible and accessible, so "every description of the Image of Edessa during the period in question is compatible with a viewing of the Shroud"[67].

To be continued in the eleventh installment of this part #10 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 page[return].
2. "Image of Edessa or Holy Mandylion," Digital Journal, 28 March 2012. [return]
3. "Abgar V," Wikipedia, 12 May 2017. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 154-155. [return]
5. Wilson, 1979, pp.151,154. [return]
6. Wilson, 1979, pp.116,151,255; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.148,268; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.4-5; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.24; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.165, 300. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.255; Wilson, 1998, p.267; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.31. [return]
8. Wilson, 1979, p.148; Wilson, 1998, p.148. [return]
9. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.84; Oxley, 2010, p.31. [return]
10. Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.36; Scavone, 1989, p.84; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.4. [return]
11. Morgan, 1980, p.36; Wilson, 1998, pp.267-268; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.130; Guerrera, 2001, p.4; Tribbe, 2006, p.24; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
12. Wilson, 1998, p.148; Antonacci, 2000, p.130; Tribbe, 2006, p.24; Oxley, 2010, p.31; Wilson, 2010, p.158. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.255; Tribbe, 2006, p.24. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, pp.149, 255; Antonacci, 2000, p.130; Tribbe, 2006, p.24; Oxley, 2010, p.32; Wilson, 2010, p.159. [return]
15. Wilson, 1979, pp.149-150, 255; Oxley, 2010, p.32; Wilson, 2010, pp.159-160. [return]
16. "Chronography of John Skylitzes, cod. Vitr. 26-2, folio 131a, Madrid National Library, in "File:Surrender of the Mandylion to the Byzantines.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 20 December 2012. [return]
17. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, 193-194; Scavone, D.C., "Underscoring the Highly Significant Historical Research of the Shroud," in Tribbe, 2006, p.xxvii. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 1990, "Correspondence," BSTS Newsletter, No. 25, April/May 1990, p.10; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, pp.54-55. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, p.255; Antonacci, 2000, p.130; Tribbe, 2006, pp.24, 39. [return]
20. Wilson, 1979, pp.286-287; Oxley, 2010, p.32; Wilson, 2010, pp.159-160. [return]
21. Wilson, 1979, p.255; Tribbe, 2006, p.24. [return]
22. Wilson, 1998, p.148; Wilson, 2010, p.159. [return]
23. Wilson, 1979, pp.149, 255; Tribbe, 2006, pp.24, 39; Oxley, 2010, p.32; Wilson, 2010, p.159. [return]
24. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.92; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Guerrera, 2001, p.4. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, pp.282; Drews, 1984, pp.35, 57; Scavone, 1989, p.84; Antonacci, 2000, p.131. [return]
26. Scavone, 1989, p.84; Scavone, 1991, p.194; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
27. Wilson, 1998, pp.148-149, 268; Guerrera, 2001, pp.4-5. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, pp.149, 268. [return]
29. Wilson, 1979, p.116; Maher, 1986, p.92; Scavone, 1991, p.192; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Antonacci, 2000, p.130; Tribbe, 2006, p.25. [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, pp.116, 122; Scavone, 1991, p.192; Antonacci, 2000, p.130. [return]
31. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.94; Scavone, 1991, p.192; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Tribbe, 2006, p.25; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, pp.149, 268. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.256; Wilson, 1998, pp.149, 268. [return]
34. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.57; Wilson, 1998, p.149. [return]
35. Wilson, 1979, p.256; Wilson, 1998, pp.149, 268. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.256; Maher, 1986, p.92; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.57; Wilson, 1998, pp.149, 268. [return]
37. 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.58. [return]
38. Guscin, M., 2009, "The Image of Edessa," Brill: Leiden, Netherlands & Boston MA, p.4. [return]
39. Scavone, 1991, p.192; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.143; Oxley, 2010, p.13. [return]
40. Scavone, 1991, p.192; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.185. [return]
41. Scavone, 1991, p.192; Wilson, 1991, p.143; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.115; Oxley, 2010, pp.13, 36; de Wesselow, 2012, p.185; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.56. [return]
42. Guscin, 2009, p.85; Oxley, 2010, p.36. [return]
43. Wilson, 1998, p.268. [return]
44. Scavone, 1991, p.192. [return]
45. Oxley, 2010, p.36. [return]
46. Iannone, 1998, p.115; Ruffin, 1999, p.58; Oxley, 2010, p.36. [return]
47. Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.58-70, 63; Wilson, 1998, p.268. [return]
48. Scavone, 1991, p.192; Guerrera, 2001, pp.5-6; Scavone, 2006, p.xxvii. [return]
49. "Romanos I Lekapenos: End of the reign," Wikipedia, 4 November 2016. [return]
50. Maher, 1986, p.92. [return]
51. "Constantine VII: Reign," Wikipedia, 15 March 2017; Wilson, 1979, p.154; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Wilson, 2010, pp.166-167. [return]
52. Wilson, 1979, p.154; Maher, 1986, p.92; Tribbe, 2006, p.164; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
53. Latendresse, M., 2007, "The Shroud of Turin and Byzantine Coins," Sindonology.org. [return]
54. Wilson, 1998, p.268. [return]
55. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
56. Wilson, 1998, p.268. [return]
57. Wilson, 1979, p.256; Maher, 1986, p.92; Wilson, 1998, p.149; Guerrera, 2001, p.6; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
58. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.113; Wilson, 2010, p.167. [return]
59. Wilson, 1979, pp.116-117; Wilson, 2010, pp.167, 174. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, p.272; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.112; Wilson, 1998, pp.151, 268; Oxley, 2010, p.34. [return]
61. Wilcox, 1977, p.95; Wilson, 1998, pp.256, 268 [return]
62. 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, p.207; Antonacci, 2000, p.130; de Wesselow, 2012, p.185. [return]
63. Wilson, 2010, pp.167, 174. [return]
64. Antonacci, 2000, p.130. [return]
65. Drews, 1984, p.115. [return]
66. Wilson, 1979, p.280; Oxley, 2010, p.34. [return]
67. Wilson, 1986, p.112; Wilson, 1998, pp.152-153; Oxley, 2010, p.34; Wilson, 2010, pp.140, 174. [return]

Posted: 13 May 2017. Updated: 23 May 2017.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Dr Jull's and Prof. Ramsey's prompt, misleading and false replies: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #7

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #7, "Dr Jull's and Prof. Ramsey's prompt, misleading and false replies," 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: Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory #6] [Next: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #1" #8]

Continuing with tracing the steps in the development of my hacker theory in my early 2014 posts: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (1)," "(2)," "(3)," "Summary" and now "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey."

My reply to Dr. Timothy Jull's email On Dan Porter's now closed blog he posted on 9 March 2014, under the heading "Comment Promoted: On the Hacking Hypothesis," a reply email that the anti-authenticist Editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, Hugh Farey, had received from Dr. Timothy Jull [Right[2]], Director of the University of Arizona's radiocarbon dating laboratory and a signatory to the the 1989 Nature paper, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," which claimed that the linen on the Shroud was "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[3].

■ Here is Dr. Jull's email, as posted on Porter's blog and copied in my post of 13 March 2014:

"This is impossible. In our case, the software for the calculations is offline. In any case, the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph, as I recall.

Indeed, in 1988 the internet (as we know it today) didn't exist – there was a pre-existing network run by the US government which was quite restricted.

Anyway, the machine we used at that time couldn't have been attached to it, and that one still isn't."[A]

I later realised [see 05Jul14] that the response (and prompt at that by Dr Jull - and Prof. Ramsey - see below) was itself evidence for my theory. Since when do two nuclear physicists who are Directors of major radiocarbon dating laboratories deign to respond to a mere blogger's post? Only if they knew (or suspected) that that blogger was right, that their 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud had been hacked, and they wanted to quickly discredit him!

And also that what Jull wrote above is self-contradictory ("... the software for the calculations is offline. In any case, the calculation does NOT require software ...") [see 27Apr15], misleading, and false. And what's more, Jull must know it to be false. Jull was there at that first dating of the Shroud at Arizona and he would know that, as Gove described it:

"All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The age of the control sample could have been calculated on a small pocket calculator but was not-everyone was waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue"[4].
the "calculations" were produced by the AMS computer and the "calibration" (for past fluctuations in atmospheric carbon-14) of those calculations was what was "plotted on a graph."

■ My reply to Dr. Jull's email on Porter's blog, lightly edited, was as follows (emphases in capitals replaced by italics):

No, Jull's email does not refute my hacking hypothesis, First, it is clear from my quote of Gove, the final calibration was done offline by Donahue: "The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue."

But it was the computer at the end of the AMS C-14 dating system that supplied the "OX sample"'s raw years which Donahue calibrated.

[Note: I didn't then know that the "OX sample" is an oxalic acid standard. See the above quote by Gove. The "ratio" was the "carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio" (see below). So the what I should have written was, "... it was the computer at the end of the AMS C-14 dating system that supplied the "measurements'" raw years which Donahue calibrated."]

I allowed for that: "... a KGB agent hacked into the AMS system control console computer at each of the three C-14 labs and inserted a program which, when each test was run, replaced the Shroud's 1st or early century c-14 date, with dates which when calibrated, would yield years clustering around AD 1325, just before the Shroud's appearance in undisputed history in the 1350s."

Second, Jull's "... in 1988 the internet (as we know it today) didn't exist – there was a pre-existing network run by the US government which was quite restricted." I did not say it was the "Internet". What I said was: "... in the 1980s university computers were all interconnected by ARPANET, the precursor to the internet ..."

Jull's "quite restricted" does not mention that Arpanet was originally restricted but was expanded to universities, and in particular to "research laboratories in the US":

"ARPANET ... was one of the world's first operational packet switching networks, the first network to implement TCP/IP, and the progenitor of what was to become the global Internet. The network was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later DARPA) within the U.S. Department of Defense for use by its projects at universities and research laboratories in the US." (ARPANET," Wikipedia, 6 March 2014. Emphasis mine).
A Google search of "Arpanet" and "University of Arizona" shows that Arpanet was at the University of Arizona by 1984.

Jull's "Anyway, the machine we used at that time couldn't have been attached to it, and that one still isn't", is ambiguous. If he means by "machine" the AMS machine itself, I don't claim that machine was attached to Arpanet. But if Jull means by "machine" the computer which processed the data coming from the AMS machine, then I doubt that is true, although Jull may believe it to be true. Stoll's book makes clear that all university computers in the 1980s were connectable to Arpanet, and most were, especially laboratories.

[Note: I did later accept Dr Jull and Prof. Ramsey's statements that the AMS computers at Arizona and Oxford (and presumably Zurich) were never online - see 05Jul14.]

But if it can be proven that Arizona, Zurich and Oxford's AMS control console computers were not ever connected to Arpanet, then that does not mean that a hacker could not have inserted a program into those computers, as he could have done it manually. Stoll's book (and he did his PhD at the University of Arizona) makes it clear that physical security at universities in the 1980s was also poor. You and your commenters may scoff at the idea that the KGB would have as one of its goals to discredit the Shroud, but you fail to consider what a perceived threat it would be to the Soviet Union if the Shroud was dated to the first or early centuries.

Dan, your commenters, and you ... are not facing up to the fact that if the Shroud is authentic (as all the evidence apart from the C-14 dating indicates), then it would be "a remarkable coincidence" (to put it mildly) that its C-14 date was 1325 +/- 65 years, just before "the Shroud's historical debut", as the agnostic Thomas de Wesselow saw clearly:

"One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with the date [of] ... the Shroud's historical debut. But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve." (de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," p.170).
My bottom line is that, since the Shroud is authentic, there had to be some form of fraud to convert a 1st century actual date of the Shroud into the `too good to be true' 1325 ± 65 years date. Harry Grove's worries before the test that at least one of the AMS labs would return an outlier date, and the 1989 Intercomparison Test in which the AMS labs fared badly, makes it difficult to believe (again to put it mildly) that all three AMS labs independently dated the Shroud "flawlessly," as Gove later assumed they would have to have done, to date the Shroud so accurately, to within 25-30 years of the Shroud's appearance at Lirey in the 1350s.

My proposal that the labs were duped by a computer hacker fits all the facts (Jull's ambiguous email notwithstanding), and it allows for Ian Wilson's assurance that the lab leaders were basically honest. I am hopeful that now my proposal is in the public domain, it will eventually be confirmed by someone in a position to know.[B]

My reply to Prof. Christopher Ramsey's email I must say I was surprised that Farey had made Dr. Jull aware of my proposal and that Jull had responded to it. That surprise became even greater when further reading of the comments under Porter's post

[Left: Prof. Christopher Ramsey: Merton College, Oxford]

revealed another comment by Hugh Farey which contained a response from Prof. Christopher Ramsey, Director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, and also a signatory to that 1989 Nature paper:

"Yes – I agree with all that Tim says. This would seem to be a suggestion from someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s.

In the case of Oxford the AMS had no connection to any network (and indeed even today our AMS control computers have no network connections). The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured. Age calculation was done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS."

■ My reply to Prof. Ramsey's email on Porter's blog, with comments from Hugh Farey omitted, but otherwise lightly edited, was as follows (again my emphases in capitals replaced by italics):
No. I was one of the first to have a personal computer in 1980. I pioneered the introduction of computers into Health Department of WA [Western Australia] hospitals in the mid-to late 1980s and in the late 1980s/early 1990s, I was the Systems Administrator of a network of 7 hospitals' UNIX systems.

And also I have read Clifford Stoll’s 1989 book, "The Cuckoo’s Egg" which relates how easy it was to hack into university computers in the 1980s.

>In the case of Oxford the AMS had no connection to any network (and indeed even today our AMS control computers have no network connections).

Thanks to Prof. Ramsey for this unambiguous statement.

>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."

Nevertheless, it was "software" on each lab’s AMS control computer, which outputted "counts of 14C" which were, according to Gove’s eyewitness account, displayed on the AMS control computer’s screen:

"The first sample run was OX1. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The age of the control sample could have been calculated on a small pocket calculator but was not-everyone was waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue ... At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first. ... Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ’s burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began." (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," p.264).
It is those "calculations produced by the computer" which when calibrated, yielded a date of "1350 AD". So all that a hacker would have to do is modify the program which displayed those "counts of 14C", to replace those coming from the Shroud samples, with bogus "counts of 14C" which when calibrated, yielded the too good to be true date of "1350 AD".
I am now going to post a revised version of my proposal, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #1," based on the information contained in Dr. Jull's and Prof. Ramsey's emails.[C]

See above on my later realisation that the prompt responses by Dr Jull - and Prof. Ramsey to my mere blogger's post was itself evidence for my theory. And especially Prof. Ramsey's attempt to discredit me by claiming falsely that I was "someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s" when the very opposite is true! I later discovered that the AMS computer was a very powerful DEC PDP-11 or VAX-11 - see

[Left: A DEC PDP-11[5]. The AMS computer was one of these, or the more advanced VAX-11. Yet Dr Jull and Prof. Ramsey downplayed it as no better than a "calculator." Why would they both do this, if it was not to hide that they knew, or suspected, that Arizona's AMS computer (at least) had been hacked?]

31Mar14. See also 05Jul14 where I wrote:

"Prof. Ramsey's response was also misleading in that like Jull, he also strangely, and suspiciously, downplayed the role of the AMS control computer. Indeed some on Porter's blog (including Porter himself) took Prof. Ramsey to be claiming that the AMS computer was little better than a calculator, and Porter even questioned whether it was `programmable'! When as we have seen, both Jull and Ramsey knew it was a `DEC computer system', probably either a PDP-11, or more likely a VAX-11, both of which were very powerful, programmable, and therefore hackable computers!"
Both Jull and Ramsey's prompt, misleading and false responses to my hacker proposal, and especially Ramsey's attempt to discredit me personally, strongly suggests that they have something to hide, namely that they know (or at least suspect) that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" was the result of a computer hacking!

To be continued in part #8 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this my post it came from. [return]
2. "Prominent guest researchers arrive in Hungary," Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2013 (no longer online). [return]
3. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
4. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
5. "PDP-11," Wikipedia, 4 May 2017. [return]

Posted: 10 May 2017. Updated: 17 May 2017.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

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

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

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

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

Contents:
Editorial
"Modern Science Can't Duplicate Image on Shroud of Turin," Church Militant, Bradley Eli, April 4, 2017.
"Easter and the Shroud of Turin: `Nothing Is Impossible with God'," National Review, Myra Adams, April 15, 2017.
"Are you related to Jesus?," The Sun, Mark Hodge, 18th April 2017.
"Shroud of Turin coins may finally have been identified," Aleteia, Daniel Esparza, April 26, 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 April up to issue #74, December 1992 [Right (enlarge)]. Issues in that archive are up to #66, August 1991.

Posts: In April I blogged 4 new posts (latest uppermost): "X-rays #22: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" - 20th; "`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'" - 19th; "Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #6" - 11th; "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, March 2017" - 9th.

Updates From memory I did not update any of my posts in the background in April.

Comments: In April I received (amongst others) a comment from a W. Pinson who correctly pointed out that:

"... there are considerations and error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material ... It is ... very likely, that the Shroud is much, much older than the carbon dating, because of the affects of the much higher C14 content of the backing and patches."
In my reply via a separate post, "`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'," I made the following points: ■ Contamination with younger carbon which cannot be removed by pre-treatment ... would have explained why the 1st-century Shroud did not have a 1st-century, but an early century (e.g. 4th-5th century) radiocarbon date, if the Shroud samples had been radiocarbon-dated in 1988. ■ But they were not and instead the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking. ■ Contamination with younger carbon cannot plausibly explain why the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date. Because that would require a level of contamination sufficient to shift the Shroud's radiocarbon date 12-13 centuries into the future. And to do that would require the Shroud sample to have been 60% or more contamination! That also applies to the invisible repair/patch theories. See my "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail." ■ But that is obviously not the case with the Shroud, as such a huge level of contamination would be clearly visible, but isn't. See the photomicrograph [Right (enlarge)], taken by pro-authenticist photographer Barrie Schwortz, of a piece of Arizona laboratory's original Shroud sample that was never dated. As can be seen, the Arizona sub-sample is not mostly contamination. Oxford estimated that their sample (which was cut from the same larger sample as Arizona's), was less than 0.1% contamination. ■ The evidence (apart from the radiocarbon dating) is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic and therefore first-century or earlier. However pro-authenticist arguments that rely on contamination, invisible repair patching, neutron flux, etc, all fail (see above) because they accept the 1260-1390 = 1325 ± 65 years radiocarbon date of the Shroud as correct and then try reconcile that with the Shroud’s 1st century date. ■ But as the pro-authenticist physicist Frank Tipler pointed out, it would be a "miracle" (he believes it was!) for the 1st century Shroud to have precisely the right level of contamination to shift the Shroud’s radiocarbon date to 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years, a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355 ■ But that would make God a deceiver! Few, if any, pro-authenticists would accept Tipler's deceiver-God reconciliation of the 1st century Shroud with its 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date. But that is implicit in all pro-authenticist explanations which accept the 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date of the Shroud and then try to reconcile that to the Shroud's actual 1st century date, by contamination, invisible repairs, neutron flux, etc. ■ The laboratories have stated that the improbability of the Shroud being 1st century yet having a 1260-1390 a radiocarbon date is "astronomical" (Tite), "one in a thousand trillion" (Gove), and "totally impossible" (Hall-his emphasis). ■ But since the Shroud is authentic, and therefore 1st century or earlier, the improbability that it has a 1260-1390 a radiocarbon date must be "astronomical," "one in a thousand trillion" and indeed "totally impossible"! ■ The only viable explanation that fits all the facts is that the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating of the 1st century Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" is that it was the result of a computer hacking! Remember:
"... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, in April I blogged two posts about my hacker theory: "`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'" and "Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #6."

My book: In April I began writing a book, The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! Unlike my previous attempt to write a book about the Shroud [06Aug07], I won't progressively post it here on my blog in parallel. At this early stage I intend to make the first edition of the book available as a free PDF, and then later self-publish an expanded second edition at a minimal price. My aim is for the book to have the widest possible distribution. I was not going to mention my book here again until it is finished (or abandoned - Lk 14:28-30!), but on second thoughts it would help its eventual distribution if I gave brief progress reports here in my Editorials.

Pageviews: At midnight on 30 April, Google Analytics [below enlarge] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 735,259. This compares with 524,526 (up 210,733 or 40.2%) in my April 2016 Editorial. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified.," Dec 2, 2013 - 224; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Ninth century" Mar 25, 2017 - 167; "Superficial #18: The man on the Shroud ... ," Nov 11, 2016 - 138; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 135 and "`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'," Apr 19, 2017 - 106. Again it is fascinating to see two of my 2013 posts being among the most viewed!


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

Posted: 9 May 2017. Updated: 9 May 2017.