Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[catsmate]

Every ¹⁴C lab in the world was snubbed except for those three. Did you have some other, less obvious point?

Back in 1986 AMS was a new technique and few facilities offered it due to the equipment cost. Rochester (which did use AMS) was dropped from the original list of seven labs because of strained relationships between Harry Gove and the Vatican/STURP people (mainly Ballestrero and Gonella).

 

[Vixen]

Based on what science?


Actually true.


No. I suggest you look at the published results.


Conspiracy mongering?


What do you mean by "archeological scientists"? The process for the selection of the sampled are was well considered.
And as for considering content, well that augers very badly for those who believe the shroud is genuine; the context is overwhelmingly in favour of a medieval origin.


Rubbish. The vanillin "test" is utter nonsense.


Irrelevant. The figure on the shroud clearly doesn't show an actual crucifixion.


Again rubbish. There is no evidence of any scourge marks except in the imagination of believers.


Nope. It meshes well with the styles of it's period of origin.


Citations required.


And it's back to the conspiracies. Pathetic.


Correct and irrelevent.


Nope. This nonsense has been debunked. Perhaps you should read up on the testing pro0cess and the decontamination procedures used?


His opinion. Worthless.


Ah but it is for the perspective of science.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_162724fbe8b99a1548.png[/qimg]

Catsmate, please please read Thomas de Wesselow for yourself. He is an art historian and attained his MA and PhD from the Courtauld Institute in London, he became as scholar at the British School in Rome, and a post-doctorate research scholarship at King's College Cambridge. He has analysed various Renaissance paintings.

This is not an appeal to authority. It indicates this is no Dan Brown type pontificator idly pondering on a series of, "what if?".

This is a serious study.

 

[catsmate]

I'll just add that if you demand blinded control samples as a requirement for all scientific data then you have just dismissed ALL astronomy, the vast majority of physics and chemistry, and a fair chunk of biology.

The type of control needed is dependent on the data you are looking at. For instrumental data what is needed are controls that test the accuracy and precision of the instrument, which the C14 test on the Shroud had in ample sufficiency.

It's also worth pointing out that Harry Gove, who'd pushed for blinding of the samples and the main formulator of the original 'Turin Protocol' later said
"arguments often raised, … that radiocarbon measurements on the shroud should be performed blind seem to the author to be lacking in merit … lack of blindness in the measurements is a rather insubstantial reason for disbelieving the result."
Source. (It's on page 3 of the PDF)

 

[Loss Leader]

I sat through abut 15+ accountancy exams, 10 psychology final exams, produced 15 lab reports over two years (ditto), two women's post colonial literature and personal development creative writing diplomas, two Institute of Linguists exams, a couple of Institute of Statisticians exams, the whole range of academic subjects at school (top in most of them, or near top).

Trust me, I have never been one to "take the easy way out"!

Well, I slept at a Holiday Inn last night.

You do no one any favors posting your resume unless that resume includes the line, "Actual scientist who tested the shroud."

Even if we were to dismiss the hard scientific data, we still have a lot of history pointing to the shroud's origin including that fact that written records of it only begin in the middle ages, leaving some 1200 years unaccounted for. We know it turned up in a church in Turin, Italy, leaving its journey from Jerusalem unaccounted for. We know that Christian veneration of relics only began at most a few hundred years after the death of Jesus. We know that the pattern of weave of the cloth is a middle-age technique that did not exist a thousand years ago. We know that all material on the cloth is consistent with earth-based pigments of the middle ages and inconsistent with blood.

None of this changes because you once took a bunch of exams in college. None of it changes because I took the same exams in college, plus statistics exams in graduate school, plus a critical thinking exam to get into law school, plus whatever tests I took in law school, plus two bar exams from two separate states, plus I just took a buzzfeed quiz about my knowledge of "Back to the Future."

Fact be like facting, yo.

 

[John Jones]

The three laboratories (Zurich, Arizona and Oxford) used a technique called Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) which came out of a survey by New Scientist badly. It found the margin of error for 14c carbon dating to be one to three times greater than reported, and of 38 laboratories, only SEVEN were"satisfactory". IOW 80% labs failed in accuracy.

The Zurich results could conceivably have been arrived at because the scientists assessed "it looks right", having decided +1,000 was too much and -1,000 too few. (Halo effect = confirming your preconceptions.)

People who can easily shrug off historians such as Josephus, nonetheless eagerly embrace anything with the label "science", even if demonstrably defective.

Citation for your lay assessment of AMS please? The Vatican chose the method because it is the most sensitive (i.e. would require the least damage to the shroud). If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Vatican.

BTW, your Josephus veneration is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Vixen]

Have you, yourself, looked at the representation of the body?

Have you, yourself, tried to assume the "Shroud Slouch^TM"?

Have you , yourself any experience with blood flow on or in capillary materials?

Does your own head lack a calvarium of human proportions between the occipitum and the frontalis?

...for starters...

De Wesselow deals with all this, complete with colour photos and diagrams. I realise you will be familiar with all of this.

 

[Vixen]

The forum has a search function, two of them in fact. Why should we waste time rehasing the same nonsense already dealt with?


We have.

A lie.

S/he can do his/her own research.


You've comprehensively ignored all the facts in your need for the cloth to be genuine.



ETA: thanks for fixing the tags, I didn't notice.

Where is the "search" function? I haven't been able to find it.

 

[catsmate]

Catsmate, please please read Thomas de Wesselow for yourself. He is an art historian and attained his MA and PhD from the Courtauld Institute in London, he became as scholar at the British School in Rome, and a post-doctorate research scholarship at King's College Cambridge. He has analysed various Renaissance paintings.

This is not an appeal to authority. It indicates this is no Dan Brown type pontificator idly pondering on a series of, "what if?".

This is a serious study.

A "serious" study designed to sell books and never subjected to peer review. Further de Wesselow (whom I have read) relies on the long discredited Rogers claims to support his belief that the radiocarbon dating is erroneous.

I'm quite familiar with de Wesselow's claims regarding carbohydrate formation. Just as I'm familiar with why this disn't happen and wouldn't have altered the dating results.

Nor does his work in any way explain all the other problems evident with attributing a 1stC CE date to the cloth.

Finally de Wesselow having a history Ph.D. doesn't impress me that much; I have one myself.

 

[Vixen]

Maybe he's never seen a human before, and has no mirror in his home.

Many people imagine Jesus to be some Italian-looking guy with long white robes and wearing sandals.

Isaiah does prohecy the Messiah will appear deformed.

 

[catsmate]

Where is the "search" function? I haven't been able to find it.

It's the link at the top of the page helpfully called Search. By default white text on a black background.
There's also a Search this Thread function in the coloured bar (default is blue/purple) just below the top.
Finally the Google Site Search works fine too.

 

[Vixen]

What is it that an archeologist is going to tell you that the two experts in textiles wouldn't have? No one has any idea of the context in which the the shroud was found. Absent that, there's not much an archeologist can tell you. The better plan would be to have textile experts present, which there were.

The big picture here is that the documentary evidence supports a date no later than the 13th century. The typology of the cloth supports a 13th century date as does the carbon dating. How many bites at the apple do we need here. If all the evidence points to a date range, there's a really good chance that the cloth is from that date range.

Nothing is stopping the Vatican from doing more tests. If they really wanted to know how old the thing was, it is in their power to find out.

How many bites? We've only had two so far in the last 2K years.

 

[abaddon]

How many bites? We've only had two so far in the last 2K years.

Who is blocking any further testing?

 

[Vixen]

I'll just add that if you demand blinded control samples as a requirement for all scientific data then you have just dismissed ALL astronomy, the vast majority of physics and chemistry, and a fair chunk of biology.

The type of control needed is dependent on the data you are looking at. For instrumental data what is needed are controls that test the accuracy and precision of the instrument, which the C14 test on the Shroud had in ample sufficiency.

Yes, and just look at how touch - and - miss astronomy has been.

Bad analogy as you can hardly examine stars under laboratory conditions.

"Hey you take a sample of Pluto."

"-and I''l just put some Cassiopaeia dust in this test tube-"

" - yeah, just hold those bits of Saturn and Mars over the bunsen burner -"

"-And don't forget the blind controls guys!"

 

[John Jones]

How many bites? We've only had two so far in the last 2K years.

Take it up with the Roman Catholic Church. They own the thing.

 

[Vixen]

Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy for radiocarbon dating was a new technique and few laboratories had the facilities. The original proposal (from scientists BTW) was to use seven labs and two different techniques for radiocarbon analysis, plus numerous other tests. However the Vatican and STURP prevented this programme.
Hence three labs and an exemplary example of ¹⁴C dating show that, in agreement with the other evidence, the shroud was a medieval fake.

To summarise:
Fact 1: Three independent laboratories used a reputable carbon dating method on an agreed portion of this piece of cloth. They also tested some controls.
Fact 2: All three laboratories dated the cloth within a range of between the mid 13th century to the late 14th century.
Fact 3: One of the laboratories introduced a blinding stage, to ensure that nobody could accuse them of bias, error or collusion.
Fact 4: All the laboratories sub-divided their supplied samples and applied different techniques to remove contamination.
Fact 5: The textile experts who studied the sampled area agreed that it was free from scorching, repair or patching.
Fact 6: The micro-photographs taken by STURP show the linen banding proceeding uninterrupted through the sampled area. This banding is invisible to the naked eye. There is no patch.
Fact 7: To produce the achieved result in error from an actual first century CE cloth a huge amount of modern material would have be needed to be mixed with the cloth. This would be obvious to those who studied the cloth.

And finally: 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 body 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 (including the only actual sample of such cloths) 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.

When you say "fake", it could still be C14 and authentic (but not Jesus).

The elongated Gothic style you mention could be typical of German art (and I was struck by the beauty of these at the Burrows Collection in Glasgow). Or it could be the actually figure really was six foot three inches tall.

When I was in Israel recently, I met plenty of tall Semites, although most were a similar height to me (being quite tall myself).

I take your comments on board, although some strike me as more "urban myth" than fact (eg, De Wesselow claims bodily flluids).

 

[Vixen]

And yet you accuse others of fakery and deceit.

Please substantiate this claim. It comes across as a bit personal. What do you mean?

AMS was used because it requires a small sample, this was the result of a decision made by the RCC.


Citation?





Are you still prattling on about the Testamoniam Flavium? It's a fake, accept it.
Science provides actual answers.


Not really. The standards wouldn't have the necessary data.

 

[carlitos]

Where is the "search" function? I haven't been able to find it.

It's at the top of the page, helpfully labelled "search." For most searches, I'd advise that you choose the "google" option, as it finds the most stuff.

On the top right of any thread, you can also click "thread tools," and search just the one thread.

Good luck.

 

[Vixen]

Why then are you citing only the incompetent ones?

They are the mainstream ones.

 

[Belz...]

Many people imagine Jesus to be some Italian-looking guy with long white robes and wearing sandals.

Isaiah does prohecy the Messiah will appear deformed.

You're missing the point: the image on the shroud in no way could be a real human body.

 

[Dinwar]

Finally de Wesselow having a history Ph.D. doesn't impress me that much; I have one myself.

History is not the appropriate field. This is an archaeological question. Standard archaeological techniques were used, to get the most well-established result EVER.

I haven't read through 500 posts; has there been any serious critique of the C14 dating?

If astronomy is a bad example, how about archaeology? C14 dating of a limited amount of an artifact is common practice, and the results (never anywhere NEAR 12 duplicates) are generally accepted without much question; the technique is well-established and unless there is evidence to believe that the sampling was flawed the results more or less speak for themselves (that's not to say we don't record EVERYTHING, just that we record it and hardly anyone ever looks at it). Frankly, to be honest we typically don't even do that much; C14 dating, being a destructive test, is reserved for cases where the artifacts aren't rare (charcoal and the like), or where it will provide important information (human remains on occasion).

As an aside, the testing is frequently done by field grunts. I'm paleo--dinos and mammoths--and I've collected archaeological artifacts. So long as it's under the supervision of an archaeologist, or the owner, and it doesn't violate standards of practice, there's no problem. The fact that every step but one was recorded on video makes this the most well-documented sample I am aware of; typically we just fill out a sample form, put a tag in with the artifact, and everyone trusts the fact that suspicion of fraud will destroy our career to keep us honest.

In my professional opinion--and I get paid to make this! --there is no reason to doubt the C14 results.

The elongated Gothic style you mention could be typical of German art (and I was struck by the beauty of these at the Burrows Collection in Glasgow). Or it could be the actually figure really was six foot three inches tall.

I'm German stock, and 6'4". However, the issue is that the proportions are off, not merely that it's tall. Plus, there's the fact that there is no possible way to wrap the shroud around someone's head and produce the gap shown in the image--heads have thickness.