Thank you all for your recent comments. Some have indeed addressed the hypothesis, which is what I was hoping for, and other the hypothesiser, the nature of hypothesis, or some other issue altogether.
Having been asked by wardenclyffe what current authenticist thinking was - and thank goodness he did, given that his example was so extreme that even authenticists do not generally hold it - I wanted to choose one that specifically addressed the common idea - also completely fallacious - that authenticists think the image could have been the result of a cloth wrapped closely around the body.
I chose Dr Spicer’s hypothesis carefully. He is an indisputable physicist, and his hypothesis is therefore physically viable, and does not invoke any magic or miracle. However, as I told you before, I have examined it in considerable detail, from physical, chemical and biological points of view (which, to be fair, he does not pretend to be as confident in as in physics), and found it wanting. As some of you have tried to point out - and as Spicer admits - his idea depends on the existence of a specific electric field at a specific strength, so that although there is nothing wrong with his physics, one can fairly challenge the peculiar set of circumstances that were needed to achieve it. If one is attempting to recreate the events surrounding the burial of Jesus, one is entitled to make certain assumptions -such as the limestone tomb, the enveloping sheet, the removal of the body before putrefaction, and one may allow for other circumstances which are disputed, such as whether the body was in rigor mortis or whether it was washed, which do not conflict with Gospel accounts, and are not unreasonable within the scenario. None of this is special pleading. However, in order to produce the specific electric field required for the success of Spicer’s hypothesis, an even more particular coincidence of circumstances is required, and these I cannot find justified.
As for the chemistry, I have myself prepared various combinations of ammonia, urea, myrrh, aloes, saponin and dextrin, not to mention putrescine and cadaverine, all on a linen substrate, and have not observed the discolouration hoped for by theoretical, rather than practical authenticists, although I have not carried out ‘ageing’ experiments by putting all these preparations in an oven. For the biology, it is not easy to find documentation on gaseous emissions from traumatised corpses, but such as there is does not confirm that ammonia (the principal hope of the authenticist) is generated in anything near adequate quantities.
The above constitutes a skeptical examination, and refutation of, Spicer’s hypothesis. What’s more, it is addressed, not to those who think the shroud is medieval anyway and that therefore the whole idea must be wrong, but to those who, not understanding the flaws in the argument, think it must be correct. That, I think, is an important function, if not the most important function. of the skeptic: to face irrationality with rationality, and thereby make it untenable. Of course, no amount of rationality will persuade people who do not think rationality is necessary, but most authenticists think that their views are rational, and therefore can be persuaded by an explanation of where they are going wrong. Otherwise they are simply speaking to the converted.
Further, it is important that skeptics are not too arrogant. Just because an opponent holds a different belief does not mean he is an idiot. He may, as we have seen, be a practising scientist, so to think that he is unaware that a sheet wrapped round a face produces ‘Agamemnon Mask’ distortion (and many skeptics here think that authenticists as a group are indeed unaware of it) is silly, and leads to the setting up of all sorts of straw horses, which are easy to shoot down, but which are not views held by their opponents.
When I restarted active commentary on this thread, I was not expecting that the interminable Jabba-bashing would suddenly come to a halt, but I was hoping that there may be people here who could help understand, explain, and refute, those authenticist hypotheses with which I had difficulty myself. I also hoped that that I might find others interested in pursuing how, why and where the Shroud was made. However, I did not find that the case. Given Jabba’s Bayesian equation, of which I knew very little, I asked what was wrong with it. Not with the numbers, which I understood fine, but the equation itself, which did not, at least at first, cohere with my own rather simplistic experiments with coins. After a while, I found a worked example in wikipedia, which showed the equation in action, without clearly explaining why the quotient was necessary, or how it was derived. Still, it seemed to be a valid equation. Even JayUtah seemed to explain that the equation was fine but the numbers were not, until finally, in #3017, he made everything a great deal clearer. Sadly, posts were so thick and fast at that point that I missed it, which accounts for my nonsensical comment at #3022, and for which I apologise. But still, even that only turned up as a response to a fellow skeptic, rather than to Jabba or myself.
I'm sorry too, that I seem to claim more expertise on the Shroud than many of the commenters here. I can only judge by what I read, and from what I read, it seems that many here really do have no idea about current thinking in sindonological circles, and think authenticists cannot see the perfectly obvious (such as wrap around distortion), or all believe in miracles. There are major scientific conferences on the Shroud almost every year, and they are all reported on, in detail, at shroud.com. If the commenters on this thread want to address themselves to the Shroud, rather than exclusively to Jabba, they really ought to keep up to date.
Anyway, It's been fun but I think I'll give it a rest for a while. I thank particularly slowvehicle, JayUtah and RC Hans, among others, for often appreciating what I was up to, and for those who never understood, no hard feelings.
