Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[hugh farey]

Should you find yourself at http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.co.uk, you will find that your "Possibly at least one of the lab techs at each of the three labs was a yeti/'Squatch/human hybrid, a sleeper agent put in place to protect the secret" is seriously proposed by one Stephen E. Jones. As far as I know he is totally alone in this belief, but it's there none the less!

I have recently read a comment by Stephen Jones on his website referring to my remark, in which he calls me a liar and asks me to apologise. Putting aside the "yeti/'Squatch/human hybrid" nonsense, which I hope nobody took seriously, he says specifically that he does not propose that there was "a sleeper agent put in place to protect the secret."

He says that: "A sleeper agent is A SPY WHO IS PLACED in a target country or organization, not to undertake an immediate mission, but rather to act as a potential asset if activated."

But he believes that: "Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-4 June 1989) was allegedly the primary hacker, who: 1) allegedly wrote and installed on Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS computer a program which ensured that the Shroud of Turin samples' actual radiocarbon dates would be replaced by dates which, when calibrated, clustered around 1325; and 2) allegedly passed that program on to the KGB, for which he was allegedly working, to be installed by confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–3 June 1989) on the AMS computers at Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories."

I am happy to make clear the distinction and apologise unreservedly for any confusion.

He also says that: "I am NOT "totally alone in" in my theory that the 1325 +/- 65 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a result of a computer hacking. At least two prominent Shroud pro-authenticists have emailed me privately that my theory may well be true. And I am sure that some of the 60+ readers a day of my blog provisionally agree with my theory. But it is early days and they are understandably reluctant to publicly agree with it."

I have no wish to upset anybody, least of all Stephen, who is a tireless worker on behalf of the Shroud, and am happy to be corrected.

 

[Craig4]

I think it has something to do with the fact that Indiana Jones was an archaeologist, he looked for holy relics, fought the NAZIs, something about aliens.....? I get a little confused after that.

I'm waiting for that unit but they keep insisting on teaching us about pottery and postholes.

 

[Craig4]

I have recently read a comment by Stephen Jones on his website referring to my remark, in which he calls me a liar and asks me to apologise. Putting aside the "yeti/'Squatch/human hybrid" nonsense, which I hope nobody took seriously, he says specifically that he does not propose that there was "a sleeper agent put in place to protect the secret."

He says that: "A sleeper agent is A SPY WHO IS PLACED in a target country or organization, not to undertake an immediate mission, but rather to act as a potential asset if activated."

But he believes that: "Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-4 June 1989) was allegedly the primary hacker, who: 1) allegedly wrote and installed on Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS computer a program which ensured that the Shroud of Turin samples' actual radiocarbon dates would be replaced by dates which, when calibrated, clustered around 1325; and 2) allegedly passed that program on to the KGB, for which he was allegedly working, to be installed by confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–3 June 1989) on the AMS computers at Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories."

I am happy to make clear the distinction and apologise unreservedly for any confusion.

He also says that: "I am NOT "totally alone in" in my theory that the 1325 +/- 65 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a result of a computer hacking. At least two prominent Shroud pro-authenticists have emailed me privately that my theory may well be true. And I am sure that some of the 60+ readers a day of my blog provisionally agree with my theory. But it is early days and they are understandably reluctant to publicly agree with it."

I have no wish to upset anybody, least of all Stephen, who is a tireless worker on behalf of the Shroud, and am happy to be corrected.

That's a remarkably unimpressive straw for someone to grasp at.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

- Thanks, Ward.
- I'm fine -- just even older and slower than I was.

- I've been wanting to get back for a few months now, but needed to finish something else first.
- This time, my primary interest is to see how well we can organize the pros and cons. Our topic has several sub-topics, and then layers and layers of sub-sub-topics. I would like to see how well we can list them -- and, score them.
- Seeya later.

Jabba - 0
Reality - 1

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Banding

- I asked this over on the Porter blog but didn't receive an answer.
- I might have asked it over here already, but can't remember.
- When were the pictures showing banding taken? I assume that they were not taken when the Holland cloth was attached. Is that correct?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Cotton

- Also, why can't we determine, at least roughly, the extent of cotton in the samples?
- Also, I read somewhere that the cotton was not medieval or European. Is that correct?

 

[Garrette]

- I asked this over on the Porter blog but didn't receive an answer.
- I might have asked it over here already, but can't remember.
- When were the pictures showing banding taken? I assume that they were not taken when the Holland cloth was attached. Is that correct?

You don't know and yet you are sure the CIQ is genuine?

- Also, why can't we determine, at least roughly, the extent of cotton in the samples?
- Also, I read somewhere that the cotton was not medieval or European. Is that correct?

You don't know and yet you are sure the CIQ is genuine?

Do your own research. And do it before claiming you know the answer. What evidence do you have that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

 

[ferd burfle]

- Also, I read somewhere that the cotton was not medieval or European. Is that correct?

And your point would be? To quibble over another detail and avoid providing scientific evidence the the C14 results were wrong? BTW, if the cotton was pre-medieval, that doesn't help you.

 

[carlitos]

I won't be doing Jabba's homework, and I'd encourage others to follow suit. He's been playing this game for years now; there is no sense indulging him. He won't even bother to search the web or even this thread for info. Calling his approach "lazy" would be overstating the effort employed.

 

[Nonpareil]

- Also, I read somewhere that the cotton was not medieval or European. Is that correct?

It could be Martian and it still wouldn't help your case.

 

[hugh farey]

When were the pictures showing banding taken? I assume that they were not taken when the Holland cloth was attached. Is that correct?

No. Most photos of the Shroud from 1896 onwards show banding, but as far as I know the front of the Shroud has never been photographed without either the Holland cloth or the new (2002) backing. There is photo of the back of the Shroud (without its backing) at https://shroud.wikispaces.com/PROPERTIES, presumably lying on a cloth-covered table.

Why can't we determine, at least roughly, the extent of cotton in the samples?

The different nature of the samples (threads, fibres, sticky tape extractions), and the different estimates of the proportion of cotton in them (from 0% to 100%) make any estimate of the amount of cotton anywhere on the Shroud simply a guess.

I read somewhere that the cotton was not medieval or European. Is that correct?

No. The Oxford radiocarbon scientists found some stray cotton fibres which they sent to a textile specialist who said they were "possibly of Egyptian origin and quite old." I'm afraid this statement does not exclude medieval European.

 

[John Jones]

This may be my last post here at ISF.

Where is the evidence that the SoT is two thousand years old?

Without any such evidence, there is no point to this discussion.

 

[abaddon]

This may be my last post here at ISF.

Where is the evidence that the SoT is two thousand years old?

Without any such evidence, there is no point to this discussion.

Personally, I would be saddened to see you quit.

The point is that any curious observer would quickly realise that any argument for authenticity is all flap and no wing when it comes to the question of authenticity.

 

[Olowkow]

Personally, I would be saddened to see you quit.

The point is that any curious observer would quickly realise that any argument for authenticity is all flap and no wing when it comes to the question of authenticity.

I'm at a loss to understand the rancor that this thing generates. I think it's funny in a way, and in another rather sad, but c'est la vie. We all have the ability to ignore or to argue with words.

To me the Shroud represents a kind of puzzle or a mystery like the Voynich manuscript for which many of us would enjoy hearing a solution.

Clearly it's age is established. It seems to appear out of nowhere and then become a symbol of Christianity that no one seems to want to claim, aside from a small cult of obsessive compulsives. Personally, I'd just like to know if some art expert out there has figured out who painted the Shroud, how it was done and possibly what its purpose was, much like Charles Freeman has very competently attempted to do. I'm glad this paper was found, and I only wish there were more discussion of his research on its merits. For example, I know nothing about gesso. How could all of the powdered material disappear from the linen? Are there records of concerns that this stuff was flaking off? So many other questions would be of interest to me.

I've always felt that the reason so few serious credentialed experts were interested in offering their views was because of the unpleasant, religious blow back, but it could also be the case that competent analysts simply find the whole issue of a bad work of art just too snickeringly silly to pursue.

I also think it's important in some small way to counter the volumes of fictional nonsense that have been written about the Shroud from a purely fact based point of view. It is eminently critical to expose those who would, without supporting evidence, stoop to accusing honest carbon dating scientists of incompetence as the frauds and dissembling toadies that they really are, while hopefully depriving a few zealots of their profits along the way. I'm guessing there are at least a few readers of this thread who have learned that the Shroud is not from the first century. That's what passes for progress in my book.

 

[Pacal]

To me the Shroud represents a kind of puzzle or a mystery like the Voynich manuscript for which many of us would enjoy hearing a solution.

Clearly it's age is established. It seems to appear out of nowhere and then become a symbol of Christianity that no one seems to want to claim, aside from a small cult of obsessive compulsives. Personally, I'd just like to know if some art expert out there has figured out who painted the Shroud, how it was done and possibly what its purpose was, much like Charles Freeman has very competently attempted to do.

Well the shroud enters history has a fraud and called such by the Catholic Church. In a letter dated to 1389 by Pierre D'Arcis Bishop of Troyes the shroud is denounced has a fraud and lie designed to get money from pilgrims going to see it in the church of Lirey France.

Pierre refers to a previous investigation, (apparently in the 1360s), by a Henry then Bishop of Troyes when the shroud was originally exhibited at Lirey. In the letter Pierre says:

Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [Henry] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. (The Image on the Shroud, H. David Sox, Unwin Paperbacks, London, 1981, p. 148. The full translation of the letter is pp. 148-152.)

Henry it appears suppressed the exhibition of the shroud because it was fraudulent. Years later a renewed attempt to exhibit the shroud to rake in the dough from pilgrims was tried so Pierre's letter to the Pope in Avignon, (Then the residence of the Pope or at least one of them.), about the whole situation. Sadly the documents of the original investigation have not survived.

After Pierre's letter the Church sent instructions that the exhibition of the shroud could go ahead, but only on condition that it touted has a representation of the burial shroud of Jesus not has THE burial shroud.

The shroud seems to have been nothing more than a typical effort to get money from pilgrims like so many Medieval sacred fake relics. This letter is usually ignored by enthusiasts for the shroud and if noticed its devastating comments hand waved away.

 

[Dinwar]

Issue: Is the Shroud of Turin the burial cloth of Jesus?

Conclusion1 : No.

Reasons:

1) Jesus is not proven to exist, therefore attributing anything to him is premature.
(Assumption: Moving forward, assume that "Jesus" refers to the Jesus in the Bible.)

2) The shroud contradicts Biblical descriptions of the burial shroud.
2.A. There is no separate head cloth, which is clearly mentioned in the Bible.


3) The position of the person on the shroud is not possible for a human to achieve.

4) There is not enough space between the "front" and "back" heads for a human to have fit between them.
(Assumption: The shroud sandwiched the person between the two halves.)

5) There is no distortion of the image, which would necessarily arise from the shroud being folded around a human body.

6) Historical records (see Pacal's post) do not mention the shroud until the 14th century, when it was denounced as a fraud.
(Assumption: The records are accurate--not an incontrovertable assumption, but one that stands up to analysis in this case).

7) The image faded remarkably in the past few hundred years, when it did not fade prior to a few hundred years ago.
(This would mean that the image would have remained bright for over a thousand years, then faded wihtout any reason given.)

8) Radiocarbon dating places its origin in the Middle Ages.
(Assumptions: If I have to list these, you don't know enough to comment on anything regarding radiocarbon dating.)

Conclusion 2: The shroud was a Medieval artifact.

Reasons:

1) It's widely known that manufacturing of religious relics was an industry in the Middle Ages. See Mark Twain's writings on the topic for detail.

2) His holiness Pierre D'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, argued it to be fake.

3) Known ceremonies existed at the time the radiocarbon dating presents as the origin of the shroud that involved exactly such artifacts as the shroud (as presented in this thread).

Counter-conclusion: The shroud is the burial shroud of Christ.

Reasons:

1) A poorly-controlled experiment using untested protocols and threads of unestablished provenance dates it at 2,000 years old (roughly).

2) .....

Is there a 2?

 

[catsmate]

I won't be doing Jabba's homework, and I'd encourage others to follow suit. He's been playing this game for years now; there is no sense indulging him. He won't even bother to search the web or even this thread for info. Calling his approach "lazy" would be overstating the effort employed.

Agreed.

Issue: Is the Shroud of Turin the burial cloth of Jesus?

Conclusion1 : No.

Reasons:

1) Jesus is not proven to exist, therefore attributing anything to him is premature.
(Assumption: Moving forward, assume that "Jesus" refers to the Jesus in the Bible.)

2) The shroud contradicts Biblical descriptions of the burial shroud.
2.A. There is no separate head cloth, which is clearly mentioned in the Bible.


3) The position of the person on the shroud is not possible for a human to achieve.

4) There is not enough space between the "front" and "back" heads for a human to have fit between them.
(Assumption: The shroud sandwiched the person between the two halves.)

5) There is no distortion of the image, which would necessarily arise from the shroud being folded around a human body.

6) Historical records (see Pacal's post) do not mention the shroud until the 14th century, when it was denounced as a fraud.
(Assumption: The records are accurate--not an incontrovertable assumption, but one that stands up to analysis in this case).

7) The image faded remarkably in the past few hundred years, when it did not fade prior to a few hundred years ago.
(This would mean that the image would have remained bright for over a thousand years, then faded wihtout any reason given.)

8) Radiocarbon dating places its origin in the Middle Ages.
(Assumptions: If I have to list these, you don't know enough to comment on anything regarding radiocarbon dating.)

Conclusion 2: The shroud was a Medieval artifact.

Reasons:

1) It's widely known that manufacturing of religious relics was an industry in the Middle Ages. See Mark Twain's writings on the topic for detail.

2) His holiness Pierre D'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, argued it to be fake.

3) Known ceremonies existed at the time the radiocarbon dating presents as the origin of the shroud that involved exactly such artifacts as the shroud (as presented in this thread).

Counter-conclusion: The shroud is the burial shroud of Christ.

Reasons:

1) A poorly-controlled experiment using untested protocols and threads of unestablished provenance dates it at 2,000 years old (roughly).

2) .....

Is there a 2?

I'd add a 2B to your points; the fake shroud doesn't match Jewish burial customs or the only known first century CE shroud.

 

[hugh farey]

Olowkow is exactly right in his assessment of how this discussion might fruitfully continue. It doesn't matter when the Shroud was made now; most of this community have established it as a medieval creation. However, as a medieval creation, it is extraordinary to the extreme. If it is indeed just a run-of-the-mill painting, then it is extraordinary that it is the sole survivor, not simply of this kind of relic, but of this artistic style and technique. If it is a bas relief imprint, or a chemical or thermal scorch, then again, it is a unique document in the history of art, and should inspire more serious investigation by medieval art, history and religious historians.

Furthermore, it is a remarkably "good" work or art. Leaving aside the anatomical inaccuracies (which all painters made, sometimes deliberately) the face of Christ as it appears on the Shroud, even though it has to be inverted to be appreciated at its best, is at least as good as, and to my mind considerably better than, almost every other contemporary depiction. Whether this was an accident of manufacture or by deliberate intent does not detract from the inherent quality of the depiction.

Let us move forward along these lines of inquiry. If all any commenter wants is a bit of Jabba-bashing, then by all means give this thread a miss for a while.

 

[jond]

Olowkow is exactly right in his assessment of how this discussion might fruitfully continue. It doesn't matter when the Shroud was made now; most of this community have established it as a medieval creation. However, as a medieval creation, it is extraordinary to the extreme. If it is indeed just a run-of-the-mill painting, then it is extraordinary that it is the sole survivor, not simply of this kind of relic, but of this artistic style and technique. If it is a bas relief imprint, or a chemical or thermal scorch, then again, it is a unique document in the history of art, and should inspire more serious investigation by medieval art, history and religious historians.

Furthermore, it is a remarkably "good" work or art. Leaving aside the anatomical inaccuracies (which all painters made, sometimes deliberately) the face of Christ as it appears on the Shroud, even though it has to be inverted to be appreciated at its best, is at least as good as, and to my mind considerably better than, almost every other contemporary depiction. Whether this was an accident of manufacture or by deliberate intent does not detract from the inherent quality of the depiction.

Let us move forward along these lines of inquiry. If all any commenter wants is a bit of Jabba-bashing, then by all means give this thread a miss for a while.

All good. So take it to the appropriate section of the forum, which is ART, not religion. As long as it's here, and one member continues to insist that it's the burial cloth of a specific bloke from 2k years ago, then it's still his burden to prove it.

 

[Olowkow]

I'd add Charles Freeman's loom size and weave style arguments to Dinwar's list of evidence that the Shroud is a 14th century artifact.

As for moving the thread, why not just move the Jabba bashing to its own thread instead, in CT? The report button is still available for any off topic posts.

I attended a lecture the other day about DNA and various aspects of genomics given by a widely known expert in the field, now retired. He was showing how it was in principle possible to "resurrect" (his term for cloning) various organisms, with some examples along the lines of Frankenstein's monster and Jurassic Park, along with a discussion of what it would take to "resurrect" a wooly mammoth. To further illustrate his points, suddenly a huge image of the Shroud of Turin appeared on the screen. He suggested that using the supposed blood found on the Shroud, one could ...well, he didn't actually finish. The audience was duly amused.

I hesitated, but finally decided I had to speak out even though his intent was merely for humor. I mentioned that the shroud has been reliably carbon dated to the 14th century by three competent labs, so the shroud probably isn't a very good example of "resurrection" possibilities. He was surprised, believing that the dating was under considerable doubt or controversy and asked me to send him some references, which I have done.

The point is, here is an extremely accomplished scientist who somehow was presupposing the doubts which only the religious community have inflicted upon competent scientific procedures, and in my opinion potentially embarrassing himself before an audience of educated people.