Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[catsmate]

Jabba loves him a conspiracy, just google his name and "TWA800"

I'd forgotten about that nonsense.

Pixel,
- I think that there are various ways that bias can affect the results of a study, but one obvious instance here is that Gove and others didn't want STURP involved.

Neither did the Vatican. STURP were an embarrassment, using poor scientific methodology and obsessed with proving the truth of the belief in the shroud being real,

- But the rigorous scientific protocols the experts drummed up were thrown out by the Vatican -- they were not used.

Untrue. As has been repeatedly shown to you.

Present some evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old. Without that, nothing else you presented matters.

Indeed.

 

[Belz...]

I think that there are various ways that bias can affect the results of a study, but one obvious instance here is that Gove and others didn't want STURP involved.

How would that affect the results ?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

How would that affect the results ?

Yes, Jabba, let's focus on this sub-sub-topic.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Repair&Contamination Otherwise

And this was not stuff that we've told Jabba. This was primary research that he did himself. He contacted experts in "invisible" weave technology and discovered all this information himself. Yet, it's as though that research never happened in Jabba's brain. I used to be concerned about Jabba's health. I thought he was maybe losing his memory. It now seems clear that it's pure cognitive dissonance. He seems to simply be incapable of retaining any information that does not agree with his worldview---even when he seeks that information of his own volition. It's very mysterious.

Ward

Ward,
- Memory is part of my problem -- it is getting worse... In my current thinking, I haven't been including what I had learned previously -- from the horse’s mouth, actually -- about "invisible re-weaving." Unfortunately, I can’t remember the names of the book, the current company or the owner of the company involved in my research -- and, I am having trouble finding past relevant discussions… Whatever you could do to help would be appreciated.

- Here's something I did find.

Originally Posted by HighRiser
Jabba, the Whanger's conclusions are based on wishful thinking. No textile repair is truly invisible. How could it not be so?


Pakeha,
- Neither I nor the Whangers is/are claiming that the repair is truly invisible. I am, and the Whangers are, suggesting that repair might be hidden enough so that the tests actually made on the sample area were not sufficient to clearly reveal it -- though Riggi, Hall and Peter South all reported irregularities. And apart from the Whangers and those (above) participating in the dating, Raes, Rogers, Brown and Villarreal claim to have found significant irregularities in the area as well.

 

[Jabba]

...
- For now, I’ll just address the claim that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence...

I don't know of any non-authenticists who make that claim. On the contrary, those I know well have studied the counter-evidence in much greater detail than many authenticists, but have found it wanting...

Hugh,
- Our words seem to be passing in the night...
- I would call the others on this thread "non-authenticists," and would see them as (all) claiming "that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence."

 

[Giordano]

Ward,
- Memory is part of my problem -- it is getting worse... In my current thinking, I haven't been including what I had learned previously -- from the horse’s mouth, actually -- about "invisible re-weaving." Unfortunately, I can’t remember the names of the book, the current company or the owner of the company involved in my research -- and, I am having trouble finding past relevant discussions… Whatever you could do to help would be appreciated.

I fully sympathize. But it appears that this problem reduces you to simply posting statements such as, "Well, I think that this hs been called into question, but I can't really recall why" and "I believe that someone stated the opposite, but I can't name the person or the citation." This is certain to be very frustrating for you. And will only undermine your position here.

I suspect that researching the Shroud is an enjoyable hobby for you, and given that your belief that effective debate requires a highly organized approach, why don't you try this: privately, organize the entire argument from both points of view. You can go back in this thread for the key anti-authenticity arguments. You can begin wherever you wish, but I suggest that the radioisotope argument is the most important (the deal breaker) that you must confront first. For every pro-authenticity position, look up on the web or in your notes the exact argument, the actual facts behind it,, the citation, and the counter-arguments. Write these down in your organizational chart.

Then you can organize these arguments as you wish, without the pressure of dealing with a day-today exchange on a forum. You can link citations to your arguments so that, if later challenged, you can provide these citations as needed. And you can review the exact facts so you don't end up mis-remembering something. Finally, this is actually likely to help your memory in general.

Only then (and it may take many weeks or months) you are ready to return here with the strongest arguments possible. This will be more practical than the present vague, undocumented, non-specific arguments you are making now. Especially given that you are currently asking the anti-authenticity posters to provide your own pro-authenticity arguments back to you- this is highly unlikely to be effective.

 

[pgwenthold]

Hugh,
- Our words seem to be passing in the night...
- I would call the others on this thread "non-authenticists," and would see them as (all) claiming "that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence."

You mean evidence like this?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10489199&postcount=988

The shroud is a medieval fake. This has been well established by scientific testing (chemical, microscopic, spectroscopic and radioisotopic), expert examination (textile, weave and artistic style) and historical research (comparison to others, culture and documentation) and is supported by other evidence:

Historical: the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds); lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings; the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure.

Physiological: the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a bo.dy lying flay (the arms aren't long enough).

Textile: the weave patten of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East but matches medieval Europe well; no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.

Testimony: the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake not many year later.

Artistic: the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period.

Reproducibility: contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods.

Analytic: examination, microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin.

Cultural: the shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices or the only extant sample of such burial cloths; nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts; nor are there any demonstrated artifacts of the putative Jesus extant today; nor does the supposed historical background indicate that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without much publicity prior to ~1355.

Serological: a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies there is no evidence for blood residue.

Frankly the consensus of all the factors is the strongest reason to accept the medieval origin of the shroud, not any one factor.

 

[zooterkin]

Hugh,
- Our words seem to be passing in the night...
- I would call the others on this thread "non-authenticists," and would see them as (all) claiming "that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence."

It might do, if the other evidence were somehow contrary to the dates the dating gives. However, that's a moot point, since none of the evidence supports a 2000 year old date.

 

[Belz...]

Hugh,
- Our words seem to be passing in the night...
- I would call the others on this thread "non-authenticists," and would see them as (all) claiming "that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence."

Are you going to answer my question ?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Credible Believers?

It might do, if the other evidence were somehow contrary to the dates the dating gives. However, that's a moot point, since none of the evidence supports a 2000 year old date.

Zoo,
- There are so many credible scholars who believe the opposite. Can you really just dismiss their opinions?

 

[carlitos]

Zoo,
- There are so many credible scholars who believe the opposite. Can you really just dismiss their opinions?

Sure. Why not?

 

[Belz...]

Zoo,
- There are so many credible scholars who believe the opposite. Can you really just dismiss their opinions?

Without a solid argument ? Absolutely.

Now stop asking people to argue on your terms and answer our questions.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Zoo,
- There are so many credible scholars who believe the opposite. Can you really just dismiss their opinions?

I challenge you.

If there are so many, list five. Be sure to include why they, who DID NOT GET TO EXAMINE THE CIQ IN PERSON, are more reliable that Mme, F-L, who, in fact, did actually get to examine the cloth, handle the cloth, and inspect BOT SIDES of the cloth against the light.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ward,
- Memory is part of my problem -- it is getting worse... In my current thinking, I haven't been including what I had learned previously -- from the horse’s mouth, actually -- about "invisible re-weaving." Unfortunately, I can’t remember the names of the book, the current company or the owner of the company involved in my research -- and, I am having trouble finding past relevant discussions… Whatever you could do to help would be appreciated.

- Here's something I did find.

In other words, "Mme F-L, who did, in fact, handle the CIQ, and did get to examine both sides of the CIQ in detail, MUST BE so incompetent, or dishonest, that she MISSED "some patching", "patching" that SIMPLY HAS TO BE THERE for my hopes not to be dashed."

 

[jond]

You mean evidence like this?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10489199&postcount=988

Speaking of ignoring evidence, I am shocked, SHOCKED, that Jabba ignores this.

 

[Dinwar]

Hugh,
- Our words seem to be passing in the night...
- I would call the others on this thread "non-authenticists," and would see them as (all) claiming "that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence."

Here's the thing: Carbon dating CORROBORATES the other evidence. The shroud shows up in the Middle Ages, with a bright image; it is declared a fraud; the image fades; the weave is not consistent with a Jewish burial cloth of the time; the shroud's image is inconsistent with the Biblical description; the art style is distinctly Medieval and anatomically impossible; and the carbon dating puts it as a Medieval artifact.

Against this, the only data you've been able to provide in several years is an uncontrolled experiment using no duplicates or standards, performed on threads of unknown provenance, using a method of dubious validity. In two or three years (my how the time flies....) that's the ONLY data you've provided.

Honestly, to my mind the C14 dating is increasingly unimportant. It's a nice trump card, but it's completely unnecessary. The fact that one cannot accept the shroud as authentic without committing heresy is, to my mind, the key issue--in as much as it is evidence that both believers and non-believers in Christ's divinity can accept. It's actually obligatory for anyone who believes the Bible to reject the shroud's authenticity--accepting the shroud of Turin as authentic is to declare the Bible in error, and therefore to destroy the value of the shroud! After that, the rest of the data merely pinpoint the history of the cloth. The heretical aspects of it prove it cannot be the cloth described in the Bible, which means it cannot be the burial shroud of Christ, which means it cannot be authentic by definition.

- There are so many credible scholars who believe the opposite. Can you really just dismiss their opinions?

In what way are they credible? If they aren't, I can--it's one of the nice things about being knowledgeable about sampling methods in general and C14 sampling specifically; I know enough that I can dismiss arguments from people who are obviously ignorant of those fields when those people speak on those topics. If they are credible, they need to substantiate their claims, and establish more evidence to support their side of the argument, as well as refuting all of the lines of evidence against authenticity. It's not enough to do either/or; they have to do both.

I suspect that researching the Shroud is an enjoyable hobby for you, and given that your belief that effective debate requires a highly organized approach, why don't you try this: privately, organize the entire argument from both points of view. You can go back in this thread for the key anti-authenticity arguments. You can begin wherever you wish, but I suggest that the radioisotope argument is the most important (the deal breaker) that you must confront first. For every pro-authenticity position, look up on the web or in your notes the exact argument, the actual facts behind it,, the citation, and the counter-arguments. Write these down in your organizational chart.

I did our side a few weeks ago. Really, all he needs to do is link to that post, a few later posts ammending it, and update his side.

 

[zooterkin]

Zoo,
- There are so many credible scholars who believe the opposite. Can you really just dismiss their opinions?

Can you name them? Or, more importantly, present the evidence that supports their conclusion?

 

[hugh farey]

Whenever somebody of one opinion wants to denigrate the opinion of somebody else, they often accuse their opponents of ignoring contrary evidence. So far on this page, Jabba has accused supporters of the radiocarbon dating of "ignoring any other evidence" and jond has accused Jabba of ignoring Catsmate's evidence. I do not know how carefully Jabba has studied Catsmate's list, reproduced by jond above, but I do know that I, a supporter of the radiocarbon date, have studied all the evidence put forward against it in extreme detail, and found it wanting. I have also explained where I find it wanting. The last thing I can be accused of is ignoring it. I do not think that any conviction, however solid, justifies the ignoring of contrary evidence, partly because one must always reserve room for a tiny element of uncertainty, and partly because, if it fails to convince, it often has the effect of strengthening the conviction it set out to weaken.

 

[pgwenthold]

It's actually obligatory for anyone who believes the Bible to reject the shroud's authenticity--accepting the shroud of Turin as authentic is to declare the Bible in error, and therefore to destroy the value of the shroud!

Yeah, you would think. However, Jabba has admitted that he needs the shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ to validate his faith. How it can validate his faith while contradicting the bible is something I never understood.

 

[pgwenthold]

Whenever somebody of one opinion wants to denigrate the opinion of somebody else, they often accuse their opponents of ignoring contrary evidence. So far on this page, Jabba has accused supporters of the radiocarbon dating of "ignoring any other evidence" and jond has accused Jabba of ignoring Catsmate's evidence..

Actually, my goal in posting Catsmate's evidence was to counter the claim that we only look at the 14C data and don't consider any other evidence. In fact, Catsmate says explicitly that it doesn't depend any one factor.

Even without the 14C data the evidence is clear.