Was the Shroud and Edessa Cloth one and the same?
Bobbycindi
Pantocrator images, why did artists from the 6th century to the 12th have
access to the Shroud, and yet there is absolutely no evidence for its
existence. The answer would seem to be this- the Edessa cloth, which was famous
far and wide in its day, was in fact the Shroud folded up.
It is known that in the 6th and 7th centuries, the Edessa cloth would have been
accessible to Byzantine artists and coin die makers because Edessa was part of
the Byzantine Empire. Counter to popular opinion that there is little evidence
that the Shroud and the Edessa cloth were one and the same, I think just the
opposite is true and here's why. Coinciding with the rediscovery of the Edessa
cloth in its rock niche in the walls of Edessa, Jesus is suddenly depicted on
coins and in icons in the exact manner that is seen on the Shroud. In addition,
the Edessa cloth sounds suspiciously like the Shroud.
1) The Edessa cloth was known to have been made of linen and bear the
'miraculous' image of Christ. The image itself was described as
'acheiropoietos' or not made by human hands. It was also described as a
'divinely wrought' image and an 'impression' comprising a 'moist secretion
without coloring or painter's art.'
2) The Edessa cloth was referred to with the word 'tetradiplon' meaning
'doubled in four' which the Shroud was at one time as shown by the raking
photos done by STURP. Folded in this way, the Shroud reveals a face in a
'frame' that is wider than it is tall. Early paintings of the Edessa cloth
(10th century) show exactly this 'landscape aspect' cloth with the equivalent
facial area that would be seen if the Shroud were doubled in four.
3) Early paintings of the Edessa cloth show exactly the same monochrome
front-facing bearded man seen on the Shroud.
4) One of the Greek words used to describe the Edessa cloth is 'sindon'- the
very same word used in three of the Gospels that describe Jesus's burial
shroud.
5) In the tenth century, one Gregory Referendarius, in a speech which was
recently discovered in the Vatican, specifically talked about JESUS' LANCE
WOUND AS SEEN ON THE EDESSA CLOTH.
6) Not long after its arrival in Constantinople, (944) Byzantine Easter liturgy
began to include 'epitaphioi' cloth which are cloths which show Jesus laid out
in death exactly as he appears on the Shroud.
7) Several references are made by various individuals about seeing a shroud in
Constantinople bearing the blood and body of Christ.
8) The Edessa cloth disappears forever during the sak of Constantinople, and
the Shroud appears 150 years later in France. Circumstantial evidence exists
that it has been in the hands of the Knights Templars during this time.
9) There are numerous oddities called the 'Vignon markings' that exist on the
Shroud that have obviously been depicted on early icons. These include markings
that seem to serve no artistic purpose such as a 'triangle' on the bridge of
the man's nose. The early icons and coins show an image that is so remarkably
like the Shroud's, that it is simply not possible that it is a coincidence.
10) There exists in Buckingham Palace a several centuries old icon that shows a
shroud-like face in the middle surrounded by several scenes that show a cloth
being delivered to King Abgar as per Jesus's instructions- a cloth that bears
Jesus's image. The cloth is then shown being placed in a niche over the city
gates of Edessa, being rediscovered and later transported to Constantinople
where it finally disappears during the sak of Constantinople in 1204.
Bob Haroldsen
Chris Cunningham
Bobbycindi wrote:
>
> 1) The Edessa cloth was known to have been made of linen and bear the
> 'miraculous' image of Christ. The image itself was described as
> 'acheiropoietos' or not made by human hands. It was also described as a
> 'divinely wrought' image and an 'impression' comprising a 'moist secretion
> without coloring or painter's art.'
This being, of course, a relatively common description, covering
anything not easily recognized as a modern painting. People who want to
believe don't generally look too deep or question the things they saw,
especially back in the days of the uneducated.
>
> 2) The Edessa cloth was referred to with the word 'tetradiplon' meaning
> 'doubled in four' which the Shroud was at one time as shown by the raking
> photos done by STURP. Folded in this way, the Shroud reveals a face in a
> 'frame' that is wider than it is tall. Early paintings of the Edessa cloth
> (10th century) show exactly this 'landscape aspect' cloth with the equivalent
> facial area that would be seen if the Shroud were doubled in four.
>
> 3) Early paintings of the Edessa cloth show exactly the same monochrome
> front-facing bearded man seen on the Shroud.
>
Not surprising...the front-facing portrait was and still is a
standard pose. And the monochromatic image was always shown to be
in positive...but as the sidonologists tell us frequently, there was
no way anyone could have been able to convert the Shroud to a positive
until the invention of photography. Ergo, the Edessa cloth was most
likely a positive image.
> 4) One of the Greek words used to describe the Edessa cloth is 'sindon'- the
> very same word used in three of the Gospels that describe Jesus's burial
> shroud.
>
More often called a 'mandelion' by the Byzantines, which means
handkerchief. Unless the Byzantines had damned big noses, that's a bit
too big to become a shroud, even one folded in four.
> 5) In the tenth century, one Gregory Referendarius, in a speech which was
> recently discovered in the Vatican, specifically talked about JESUS' LANCE
> WOUND AS SEEN ON THE EDESSA CLOTH.
>
On something that was supposed to be only showing a face? Dang,
Longinus must have been drunk when he tried to stab Jesus in the ribs.
> 6) Not long after its arrival in Constantinople, (944) Byzantine Easter liturgy
> began to include 'epitaphioi' cloth which are cloths which show Jesus laid out
> in death exactly as he appears on the Shroud.
>
Note Nickell's timeline, showing the evolution of images from the head,
to the head and chest, to the full body. This is just the natural
progression.
> 7) Several references are made by various individuals about seeing a shroud in
> Constantinople bearing the blood and body of Christ.
Actually, I've only heard of one, being from de Clari, the Crusader.
There is some doubt as to whether he was describing a full body or just
a
face, as the Veronica was there, to. And, being a Crusader, it seems
unlikely
that he'd be allowed to see something that was used to protect the city
spiritually. His type weren't overly popular in that area, for some
reason.
>
> 8) The Edessa cloth disappears forever during the sak of Constantinople, and
> the Shroud appears 150 years later in France. Circumstantial evidence exists
> that it has been in the hands of the Knights Templars during this time.
>
Other evidence says it disappeared forever when the ship carrying it
sank during the French Revolution.
> 9) There are numerous oddities called the 'Vignon markings' that exist on the
> Shroud that have obviously been depicted on early icons. These include markings
> that seem to serve no artistic purpose such as a 'triangle' on the bridge of
> the man's nose. The early icons and coins show an image that is so remarkably
> like the Shroud's, that it is simply not possible that it is a coincidence.
>
You're right, it is improbable that it's a coincidence (assuming that
you're not seeing what you expect to find, like Whanger typically does).
Things like the triangle were likely part of a style of painting
portraiture,
to perhaps give a more stern appearance to the visage. Many of the
things
that you referenced...like the flowers...are rather strange seeing as
how
no one noticed them until Whanger started comparing the image on the
cloth
to various items. I thought he developed the PIOT technique. Are you
saying
now that people around the early part of the last millenium had
developed
projectors and understood the concepts of light polarization?
> 10) There exists in Buckingham Palace a several centuries old icon that shows a
> shroud-like face in the middle surrounded by several scenes that show a cloth
> being delivered to King Abgar as per Jesus's instructions- a cloth that bears
> Jesus's image. The cloth is then shown being placed in a niche over the city
> gates of Edessa, being rediscovered and later transported to Constantinople
> where it finally disappears during the sak of Constantinople in 1204.
>
Which really doesn't prove anything except what we know of the Edessa
cloth's actual history.
--
Chris Cunningham
><NOTE: Remove the last 'o' from my e-mail to reply><
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"The best defense is to keep your conscience clean....
If you don't lose your integrity, you can't be had and you
can't be hurt"
--VADM James B. Stockdale, USN (ret.)
/|\ "Y GWIR YN ERBYN Y BYD"
Bobbycindi
somebody back then had to be either smart enough to mint a tiny coin that
matched detail for detail what is seen on the Shroud, or make a Shroud (but in
the negative) that matched detail for detail what's seen on this tiny coin. The
same can be said for the artists who painted the Pantocrators. This, to me,
doesn't sound like people incapable of recognizing a painting when they saw
one- modern or not!
You made the statement that "people who want to beleive don't generally look
too deep or question the things they saw, especially back in the days of the
uneducated." But this would apply even more today to those who DON'T want to
believe but have no excuse. After all, the science has been done and the
verdict is in- the Shroud is anything BUT a painting. It is, instead, a real
gravecloth bearing the substanceless image of a real man- one who appears to
have been crucifed in the manner of the Romans and buried in the manner of the
1st centruy Jews.
To simply ingore the overwhelming evidence and brush aside coincidence after
coincidence (such as the similarities between the Shroud and the Edessa cloth)
with sweeping and inaccurate generalizations strikes me as nothing short of
pigheadedness. Nothing could illustrate this better than your response to
Referendarius's statement concerning the bloody lance wound seen on the side of
Jesus on the Edessa cloth. ("On something that was supposed to be only showing
a face? Dang, Longinus must have been drunk when he tried to stab Jesus in the
ribs.") While humorous, which is well and good in and of itself, it also shows
a willingness on your part to disregard important evidence. Harly a trait
worthy of someone interested in the truth.
Your statement that "sindonologists tell us frequently, there is no way anyone
could have been able to convert the Shroud into a positive until the invention
of photography" is not correct. What the sindonolgist points out, is that the
early icons are in fact EXACTLY what one would expect from just such an
attempt- the artist (or die maker) ends up with a face that shows large staring
eyes (because he didn't realize that the man's eyes were shut) long hair parted
down the middle, mustache, beard and facial dimensions that match point for
point. Even tiny oddities that make no artistic sense were faithfully
represented.
The argument that the word "mandylion" means that the Edessa cloth was too
small to be the Shroud is untenable also. Go to Barrie's website and follow the
argument that unfolds under "Doubts Concerning the Coins over the Eyes."
(British newsletter #45) It would seem that Mark Guscin gets the last word with
Antonio Lambatti when he points out that the word "mandil" came about as a
translation of the Greek word "ekmageion." "Emageion" according to Guscin,
doesn't mean small at all, but rather an object on which an impression is made,
or the impression itself. This, as Guscin points out, is actually a point in
favor of the Edessa cloth being the Shroud.
Likewise, incorrect is your statement that it was Alan Whanger who first saw
flower images on the Shroud. Is was in fact a physicist named Oswald
Scheuermann. This was the man who also showed how the application of static
electricity to flower petals can cause them to leave their imprint on linen.
Your statement that the icon of Buckingham Palace doesn't prove anything accept
what we already know about the Edessa cloth is true. It reinforces the fact
that there actually was a cloth that bore what people considered to be the
miraculous image of Christ- a famous cloth that did in fact come originally
from Jerusalem during the time of Christ and ended up in Constatinople where it
disappeared forever in 1204. A cloth that, again, sounds suspiciously like the
Shroud.
Bob Haroldsen
Chris Cunningham
Bobbycindi wrote:
>
> Chris, I didn't realize the Byzantine's were such a daft lot! The thing is,
> somebody back then had to be either smart enough to mint a tiny coin that
> matched detail for detail what is seen on the Shroud, or make a Shroud (but in
> the negative) that matched detail for detail what's seen on this tiny coin. The
> same can be said for the artists who painted the Pantocrators. This, to me,
> doesn't sound like people incapable of recognizing a painting when they saw
> one- modern or not!
>
Or perhaps made the Shroud using details that had, over the years,
come to be incorporated in certain styles of iconography, of which
Byzantine
art was a highly influential force.
> You made the statement that "people who want to beleive don't generally look
> too deep or question the things they saw, especially back in the days of the
> uneducated." But this would apply even more today to those who DON'T want to
> believe but have no excuse. After all, the science has been done and the
> verdict is in- the Shroud is anything BUT a painting. It is, instead, a real
> gravecloth bearing the substanceless image of a real man- one who appears to
> have been crucifed in the manner of the Romans and buried in the manner of the
> 1st centruy Jews.
Actually, Bob, I added the "back in the days" comment specifically
because I was trying to avoid implying that the same applied to
believers
today. Unfortunately, you seem to have called my bluff...I was indeed
referring
to those who, even today, ignore the mountain of evidence against the
Shroud,
and instead find convoluted leaps of logic that tie tenuous threads
together
into a story with more holes and contradictions than the Bible itself.
Oops,
my atheist nature is getting the better of me there! :P
I have no concern about wanting to believe or not believe. I'm
quite willing to admit when I'm wrong...I'd be a poor skeptic if I
weren't.
But so far, there hasn't been a shred of evidence that doesn't either
have
an alternate explanation or that hasn't been cooked up without leaps of
faith.
>
> To simply ingore the overwhelming evidence and brush aside coincidence after
> coincidence (such as the similarities between the Shroud and the Edessa cloth)
> with sweeping and inaccurate generalizations strikes me as nothing short of
> pigheadedness. Nothing could illustrate this better than your response to
> Referendarius's statement concerning the bloody lance wound seen on the side of
> Jesus on the Edessa cloth. ("On something that was supposed to be only showing
> a face? Dang, Longinus must have been drunk when he tried to stab Jesus in the
> ribs.") While humorous, which is well and good in and of itself, it also shows
> a willingness on your part to disregard important evidence. Harly a trait
> worthy of someone interested in the truth.
Um, so, would you care to explain the convolution of anatomy required
to have a rib wound in an image that was supposedly stored in a frame
for
hundreds of years and that only showed the figure from about the neck
up?
[snip]
>
> The argument that the word "mandylion" means that the Edessa cloth was too
> small to be the Shroud is untenable also. Go to Barrie's website and follow the
> argument that unfolds under "Doubts Concerning the Coins over the Eyes."
> (British newsletter #45) It would seem that Mark Guscin gets the last word with
> Antonio Lambatti when he points out that the word "mandil" came about as a
> translation of the Greek word "ekmageion." "Emageion" according to Guscin,
> doesn't mean small at all, but rather an object on which an impression is made,
> or the impression itself. This, as Guscin points out, is actually a point in
> favor of the Edessa cloth being the Shroud.
>
Hmmm...I'm willing to check that one out, but I'm afraid etymology
is not one of my strong points. Unfortunately, it's not listed in the
online
Webster's, so I'll have to defer until I can find it. I'll agree with
whatever the most commonly accepted derivation of the word is.
Otherwise,
it's just more of the same from sidonology...finding the data that best
fits the answer you want.
> Likewise, incorrect is your statement that it was Alan Whanger who first saw
> flower images on the Shroud. Is was in fact a physicist named Oswald
> Scheuermann. This was the man who also showed how the application of static
> electricity to flower petals can cause them to leave their imprint on linen.
Ah, forgive me. So the Byzantines didn't need projectors. They just
needed a good grasp of theoretical and applied electromagnetics. That's
so
much better.
As to my use of humour, I try to do that in everyday life to keep
things from getting to heated. That applies particularly when I'm
dealing
with matters that are of a controversial and sensitive nature. It in no
way implies a lack of seriousness in my study of an issue, nor in my
ability
to separate the wheat from the chaff. This newsgroup and my study of
the
Shroud is nothing more than a pasttime for me, and as all pasttimes is
intended merely to be enjoyable. I don't expect to change anyone's
mind on here...most people that come here made up their minds long ago.
In fact, despite the fact that your constant references to imaginary
mounds of evidence drive me crazy once in a while, I'd be quite
disappointed
if you changed your mind. Who would I argue with then? Most people
have
the sense not to give a damn about a 700 year old piece of cloth :)
Bobbycindi
some of us who DO give a damn about a two thousand year old piece of cloth. And
indeed, I am one of them.
As for my "convolution of anatomy required to have a rib wound in an image that
was supposedly stored in a frame for hundreds of years and that only showed the
figure from about the neck up," I would say that what we have, is an image
that includes more than just the face. You were joking about this right? The
point is, there is much evidence that once the Edessa cloth made it to
Constantinople, more and more people seem to have become aware that it bore the
full-length figure of a man- hence the changes in liturgical ceremony that
exists to this day in the Eastern Orthodox church.
(I'm talking about the carrying of cloths that show a figure of Christ
stretched out on a cloth in exactly the same manner as seen on the Shroud.)
As for the "mountain of evidence" against the Shroud, would this by chance be
the mountain of evidence conjured up by Walter McCrone who peer-reviews his own
work, and smoke and mirrors Joe Nickell who pulls rabbits out of his hat for a
living?
And what about the fact that neither you nor I nor anyone else can duplicate
the Shroud using any technology? What is your smoke and mirrors explanation for
that? And for that matter, why do you reject the ACTUAL mountain of
peer-reviewed evidence that was generated by STURP? Is it that when it comes
to the Shroud you skeptic types have a tendency to embrace the very thing you
pretend to abhor- psuedo science?
To me, the man on the Shroud is literally
asking us this question; who am I? And of course the answer is Jesus. But is it
really Jesus, or an insanely clever forger who is asking the question. The
answer would seem to depend on whether one wants to accept the truthfulness of
the overwhelming scientific verdict, or ignore it in favor of the "smoke and
mirrors" types that would have us believe that it's no big deal that we can't
duplicate the thing- that it's really just a man-made object no matter what the
science says. Basically, it's an intellegence test- as the Pope recently
pointed out.
This is my feeling. Throughout history, and especially the history of science
when something not understood was finally figured out, the door was invariably
opened a bit wider to a universe more fantastic than imagined. Astronomy for
example- we went from a flat earth to a solar system to the realization that we
live in a galaxy of a hundred billion suns to the realization that we live in a
universe of myriad endess galaxies. Take the discovery of DNA- we now know that
the human body is made up of trillions of cells, each one more complex than the
biggest city on earth. Or take consciousness itself. How fantastic is it that
this old universe, through us, can unlock its own secrets? And wasn't it Kurt
Godel who showed us that we will never run out of secrets to unlock? That
reality runs infinitely deep?
And so it is with the Shroud. To me, this hauntingly beautiful and mysterious
cloth is evidence that this fantastic universe is more fantastic still- that it
is the created universe of a God who cares about us, and that just possibly we
actually do live forever and that our lives matter- that the grave is not our
ultimate destiny.
Of course these are matters of faith, and I have strayed into this forbidden
territory. But I think the man of the Shroud is asking us to do just this. He
is asking us- who am I? I say he's Jesus.
Bob
Chris Cunningham
Bobbycindi wrote:
>
> And what about the fact that neither you nor I nor anyone else can duplicate
> the Shroud using any technology? What is your smoke and mirrors explanation for
> that? And for that matter, why do you reject the ACTUAL mountain of
> peer-reviewed evidence that was generated by STURP? Is it that when it comes
> to the Shroud you skeptic types have a tendency to embrace the very thing you
> pretend to abhor- psuedo science?
What about the fact that it has been done, by both Nickell and by
Allen, and you simply won't accept it? As for peer review, it only
takes
you so far. All that does is tell the world that you apparently did the
procedures right and that it is worth listening too. Being published
doesn't
automatically make it good science. Look at cold fusion...it was
published
and became quite popular, until others tried to do the same thing and
failed.
And there's the rub, Bob. STURP is reporting things, saying "looky
what we found," but then hold all of the original data close to the
vest.
If it can't be checked, it's worthless, Bob. If anyone wants to check
on
something, ever since McCrone, they've had to go from what was recorded
by
STURP scientists. That is _not_ how the scientific process works.
Until
STURP is willing to let the world (and particularly their detractors)
have
access to the original data (not the Shroud, I'm talking about the
sticky-tapes)
none of their precious peer-reviewed articles count worth much.
Especially
if there are questions brought up, like with the blood or the pollen.
It's no wonder the skeptics can't do much in the way of peer-reviewed
articles. Without anything to work from, you're not going to have much
interest from the publishing community. Not to mention, showing that
something which has been carbon-dated to the time all the iconographic
and
historical data says it was made doesn't count as being very important,
whereas showing that it really is 2000 years old would be worth
publishing.
Remember, it's you authenticity folk that have the proving to do, which
is
why you get more air time. It's unfortunate that STURP is too afraid to
let more than their white-washed articles be studied. Once they let the
sticky-tapes out for analysis, then maybe I'll sit up and take notice.
Assuming, of course, that disinterested third parties actually agree
with them...
Bobbycindi
Shroud is BOTH an "early photograph" AND a powder rubbing! This clearly makes
no sense. As for STURP's work being peer-review, how many times does it have to
be done before it's considered peer-reviewed? Anyone is welcome to look at the
data, but how ludicrous to insist that one has to look at the original samples
all over again. If we're to go down this road, generation after generation
could rightfully demand that new samples be taken until there is nothing left
to sample. After all, there is only one Shroud. As for the old samples, I see
no reason why they couldn't be looked at again if they still exist- I, for one,
am all for it if it will make folks happy!
In the mean time, the Catholic church has shown a willingness to entertain new
non-destructive testing such as the recent scanning of the back side of the
cloth. And Barrie talks about super-advanced spectroscopic analysis. This is
where the future lie- not collecting endless samples and chopping off more and
more pieces of this unique and priceless artifact.
Once the Shroud's gone, it's gone. With nothing left to look at but the
disgusting looking thing (face) Nickell came up with, or the far better but
still infinitely inferior "shroud" of professor Allen's, we'd all be out of
luck when it comes to something to get really passionate about!
Bob
Chris Cunningham
Bobbycindi wrote:
>
> Chris, if both Nickell and Allen have duplicated the Shroud, this means the
> Shroud is BOTH an "early photograph" AND a powder rubbing! This clearly makes
> no sense.
No, it means that there are at least two possible explanations
for it. Further testing would show which is correct. That's the idea
behind science, Bob. Multiple theories are tested until one that
explains
everything shows up. Neither of these have explained everything yet,
but
they're close. The devil is in the details. Meanwhile, STURP hasn't
even managed to come up with a single explanation that doesn't defy
some of the natural laws. It's 2 to 0 in favor of the skeptics when it
comes to reproducable images.
> As for STURP's work being peer-review, how many times does it have to
> be done before it's considered peer-reviewed? Anyone is welcome to look at the
> data, but how ludicrous to insist that one has to look at the original samples
> all over again. If we're to go down this road, generation after generation
> could rightfully demand that new samples be taken until there is nothing left
> to sample. After all, there is only one Shroud. As for the old samples, I see
> no reason why they couldn't be looked at again if they still exist- I, for one,
> am all for it if it will make folks happy!
Oh, dear, Bob. You accuse me of adhering to pseudoscience, and you
apparently don't even understand science itself. What use is publishing
your
data if everyone takes your word for it? You ignored the infamous
example
I gave you, cold fusion. Everyone simply took the scientist's word for
it. It was a huge thing, until someone actually decided to test it and
found
out that what was reported, while it sounded good, didn't match with
reality thanks to (IIRC) data mining. How do we know all of this
peer-reviewed
stuff was reported properly? The submitters don't provide all of their
notes
for review...it's not a graded homework assignment. The reviewers give
the
submitters benefit of the doubt, and assume they used fair, unbiased
methods
of recording data, and that they didn't leave out anything important
(like,
oh, the reported presence of pigments that give false positives for
forensic blood tests that were submitted for review.)
Bobbycindi
be either a painting or a photograph, I'd say we believers are in better shape
than I thought.
Also, the fact that STURP couldn't come up with a single explanation for the
mysterious imprint on this most enigmatic cloth only lends support to the fact
that it is exactly what it looks like- an image of Jesus as he lay in his tomb.
But I sincerely hope the skeptics keep trying duplicate the Shroud because the
harded they try, the more they prove how impossible it is to do.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20010620024456...@ng-mg1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Chris asks this excellent question; If the Shroud was the source for the
>Pantocrator images, why did artists from the 6th century to the 12th have
>access to the Shroud, and yet there is absolutely no evidence for its
>existence. The answer would seem to be this- the Edessa cloth, which was famous
>far and wide in its day, was in fact the Shroud folded up.
This requires considerable stupidity on the part of the Edessans.
And a total lack of curiousity.
>Coinciding with the rediscovery of the Edessa
>cloth in its rock niche in the walls of Edessa,
There is no reason to believe this part of the legend of the
Mandylion.
However, if you are going to accept THIS part of the legend, what is
the explanation for rejecting the REST of it? The legend states that
the cloth contains a facial image ONLY of Jesus made when he was
still alive, brought to Edessa at the request of a King Apgar in the
first century.
Adopting the part of the legend that you can make fit your story,
while brushing the part that doesn't fit under the rug isn't
intellectually honest.
>Jesus is suddenly depicted on
>coins and in icons in the exact manner that is seen on the Shroud. In addition,
>the Edessa cloth sounds suspiciously like the Shroud.
As seen above, that is categorically false. Neither the appearance
nor the legend of the Mandylion of Edessa (when you're intellectually
honest about them) bear any but the most surface resemblance to the
shroud. Even that resemblance is easily accounted for by the shroud
artist intentionally copying salient features of the Edessa Mandylion
to confer verisimilitude on his fake.
>1) The Edessa cloth was known to have been made of linen and bear the
>'miraculous' image of Christ. The image itself was described as
>'acheiropoietos' or not made by human hands. It was also described as a
>'divinely wrought' image and an 'impression' comprising a 'moist secretion
>without coloring or painter's art.'
These are sufficient to make the image 'conventional' -- that is, to
make it the standard model that artists would follow (much like a
photograph in our day is the 'official' image of a person). The
shroud follows the *evolved* convention of the Christ-image.
>2) The Edessa cloth was referred to with the word 'tetradiplon' meaning
>'doubled in four' which the Shroud was at one time as shown by the raking
An alternative, apparently less strained, translation is 'hand
cloth,' 'handkerchief.' No more strained than, say, four-in-hand.
>3) Early paintings of the Edessa cloth show exactly the same monochrome
>front-facing bearded man seen on the Shroud.
This is indeed the 'acheiropoietos' tradition. It is another
convention that any artist wishing to fashion a fake 'miraculous'
image would have followed. It is reported, in fact, on a substantial
number of claimed miraculous cloths, including at least two that are
still in existence: the shroud of Turin and the Holy Face cloth stored
in the cathedral of Manopello, Italy.
>4) One of the Greek words used to describe the Edessa cloth is 'sindon'- the
>very same word used in three of the Gospels that describe Jesus's burial
>shroud.
That's just blatantly false. What you keep calling the cloth of
Edessa was known as a mandylion (kerchief). In fact, it was called
THE Mandylion as a reflection of its presumed importance.
The Mandylion and the sindon (shroud) of Christ were listed as
separate objects on Byzantine relic lists, proof that the Mandylion
was never regarded as the sindon.
>5) In the tenth century, one Gregory Referendarius, in a speech which was
>recently discovered in the Vatican, specifically talked about JESUS' LANCE
>WOUND AS SEEN ON THE EDESSA CLOTH.
Document or retract. I'd wager good beer that the insertion of the
Mandylion into this account is a specious interpretation of shroudies
themselves. Throughout its admittedly dubious history, the Mandylion
was reported to be a facial image only.
>6) Not long after its arrival in Constantinople, (944) Byzantine Easter liturgy
>began to include 'epitaphioi' cloth which are cloths which show Jesus laid out
>in death exactly as he appears on the Shroud.
The image is a logical one to show on Easter -- once the idea of
showing Christ as a cruficied man evolved c. 1100.
I'm looking at one of these epitaphioi, c. 1300, as pillustrated in Ian
Wilson's "The Blood and the Shroud." An interesting thing is that
the image, although it is of a Jesus laid out in death, differs in
many details from the image on the shroud. The nail wounds are
pictured in the palms. There is no side wound. The thumbs are very
clearly shown. And so forth.
If the shroud was its model, especiallly if the shroud was considered
as authoritative as an acheiropoietos would have been, these deviations
border on blasphemy.
The deviations are simply explained if this epitaphios is the
imagining of one artist with no knowledge of the shroud. The
similarities are just as easily accounted for if the shroud artist
were familiar with the existing epitaphios tradition (as he would
have been) and adopted its conventions in laying out his own image.
>7) Several references are made by various individuals about seeing a shroud in
>Constantinople bearing the blood and body of Christ.
So?
>8) The Edessa cloth disappears forever during the sak of Constantinople, and
>the Shroud appears 150 years later in France. Circumstantial evidence exists
>that it has been in the hands of the Knights Templars during this time.
This 'evidence' is pure fantasy.
>9) There are numerous oddities called the 'Vignon markings' that exist on the
>Shroud that have obviously been depicted on early icons. These include markings
>that seem to serve no artistic purpose such as a 'triangle' on the bridge of
>the man's nose. The early icons and coins show an image that is so remarkably
>like the Shroud's, that it is simply not possible that it is a coincidence.
As you have already pointed out, some images show only some of these
Vignon markings.' Others show a different set. Only the shroud
shows them all.
Now, taking the shroud to be the authoritative model for all of these
copies, the failure to observe ALL of the required markings
punctiliously is direct distortion and tantamount to blasphemy.
The simple, parsimonious alternative is that the markings evolved
over time. Older Christs included only those markings that were
conventional at that time. Later Christs added new conventions. The
shroud appears to combine several of the existing conventions. That
is indeed strong evidence that the shroud not only was NOT the
Mandylion, but was a late construct compared to the other coins,
paintings, etc.
>10) There exists in Buckingham Palace a several centuries old icon that shows a
>shroud-like face in the middle surrounded by several scenes that show a cloth
>being delivered to King Abgar as per Jesus's instructions-
This is just an illustration of the existing legend of the Mandylion.
That it shows a FACE only -- long after the full-length shroud is
known to exist -- provides strong evidence that no connection was
ever made between the two until desperate shroudies dreamt it up
about 20 years ago.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOzgyd6yjdWYzk1A5AQEzCgf/UcVikIfYALT4/bQL6SHFgfcZyeRKX2AI
20l+f8Z7RxGI9r56yDYS05cV9emBct2Xnrk4R068X7NK1SZk0JPr2ERZF6r4sK+w
GVLHqUqFz5FVHz1we2wRfb8DOw3ZCQ/uEnEbBL3u4VZvDOi0+pYDgsJIpnlkOetF
lutzZqhDLE/ywsMQccNBR+uNo3qOmrhQC7xt/zlZkkQbH1NdAA5fdWYYZw47uPRI
oIgP72W/wMh4mPXNEAn4IecX6DqZRndbqkbGe7DD+Px/FkDIjsdEarxwiAVshPKZ
16gTTxXWO5EcpQzG3pMvQFxkxlTA4+EJ9DZMUYBo05hmUGozN6ovWA==
=b8cF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
be happy to get in to this, but it won't be for a day or two. In the mean time,
I would only point out that anyone can buy a book on the Shroud such a Alan
Wangher's book called the Shroud of Turin: an Adventure in Discovery, and see
with their own eyes that a Byzantine coin minted in the seventh century looks
EXACTLY like the the face on the Shroud right down to tiny individual markings.
And then he must ask himself- which came first, the Shroud or the coin- keeping
in mind that NOBODY using ANY technology (especially Joe Nickell) has ever been
able to duplicate the Shroud.
Bob
Chris Cunningham
Begging the question does not become you, Bob. The fact that you
consider even the inability of STURP to come up with an answer to be
support
of your belief in the authenticity of the shroud should be a ringing
bell
to you that there's something fundamentally wrong with your claims of
science on your side. I'd say the best the skeptics have come up with
is
pretty damned good...we're still waiting either for a non-miraculous
explaination from the believers, or for them to stop trying to prove
their
faith with science and simply admit that they want to believe
irregardless
of the evidence against them.
Trenton G. Twining
>
<SNIP>
> consider even the inability of STURP to come up with an answer to be
> support
> of your belief in the authenticity of the shroud should be a ringing
> bell
> to you that there's something fundamentally wrong with your claims of
> science on your side. I'd say the best the skeptics have come up with
> is
> pretty damned good...we're still waiting either for a non-miraculous
> explaination from the believers, or for them to stop trying to prove
> their
> faith with science and simply admit that they want to believe
> irregardless
> of the evidence against them.
>
one set of theories is based upon a miracle. I don't think you can cry
foul when that is part of the whole matter. So far, none of the
artistry theories holds any water. I'll grant that when one says "A
miracle occurs here", that it begs for a little more detail.
But my contention has always been that the complete inability of modern
science to explain the image on the Shroud is incontrovertible evidence
of a miracle. Whether of Divine grace on human ingenuity. Maybe I'm
easy, okay, I am. I consider the pyramids to be miracles. That bronze
age, bottom land farmers could pile 45 stories of large stone blocks
into shapes stable enough to last for 4,500 years is miraculous.
Explain to me how they did it; it's still miraculous THAT they did it.
Explain to me how:
a medieval artist, who had never seen a contemporary realistic
painting (so far as we know) paints a photo-realistic picture, that
looks more photographic than Boris Vallejo's paintings from photographs
does so while painting largely in negative and so cannot see most
details of his work, thus having no real motivation to practice it,
since the results look poorer than conventional art to the naked eye;
does so without disturbing bloodstains on the canvas (eliminates the
rubbing approach insofar as I can see);
includes forensic evidence that would have been far more expensive to
acquire in Medieval times than could be hoped for in revenue from
sale/display of a relic, and that anyway Medieval science was unaware of
(dust from Jerusalem ground into the fabric; pollen and plant images).
These last have been identified by skeptical, non-Christian observers,
so are not dismissable as wishful thinking;
You figure out how anybody from 13th century did all that and I'll still
say it's a miracle. Though of human ingenuity. You see, the current
C14 date already proves it to be a miracle. So you cannot dismiss the
miraculous from any explanation. Miracles are already part of the
equation.
--
Trenton G. Twining
Personal:
E-mail t...@usa.net
FAX 561-619-7942
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the
people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some
rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of."
- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
"Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found
out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon
them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words
or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance
of those whom they oppress."
- Frederick Douglass
Chris Cunningham
"Trenton G. Twining" wrote:
> >
> Once you enter into this debate, you've agreed to a discussion in which
> one set of theories is based upon a miracle. I don't think you can cry
> foul when that is part of the whole matter. So far, none of the
> artistry theories holds any water. I'll grant that when one says "A
> miracle occurs here", that it begs for a little more detail.
the·o·ry:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or
phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely
accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
mir·a·cle:
An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held
to be supernatural in origin or an act of God
Mutually exclusive, Trenton. Miracles cannot, by definition,
be theories in a scientific term. By entering this debate, I agreed to
a discussion of the scientific merits of the Shroud, knowing that there
would be those who adhered to miraculous explanations but relegating
them
to the same pile I do Creationists, young earth "theorists", and Great
Flood believers. We had been doing pretty well here sticking with the
science, but recently the believers seem to have resorted to typical
pseudoscience tactics: repeat disproven ideas like mantras, claim
that they're "obvious" to anyone with an open mind, ignore damning
evidence that can't be explained, and accuse those that show how
they're wrong to be engaging in pseudoscience themselves.
>
> But my contention has always been that the complete inability of modern
> science to explain the image on the Shroud is incontrovertible evidence
> of a miracle. Whether of Divine grace on human ingenuity. Maybe I'm
> easy, okay, I am. I consider the pyramids to be miracles. That bronze
> age, bottom land farmers could pile 45 stories of large stone blocks
> into shapes stable enough to last for 4,500 years is miraculous.
> Explain to me how they did it; it's still miraculous THAT they did it.
> Explain to me how:
>
> a medieval artist, who had never seen a contemporary realistic
> painting (so far as we know) paints a photo-realistic picture, that
> looks more photographic than Boris Vallejo's paintings from photographs
>
What do you mean by "contemporary realistic painting?" We've
gotten two possible mechanisms for the artistic production of the image,
both of which create just what you see. No special painting skills
required beyond knowledge of bas-relief rubbing or camera obscura.
> does so while painting largely in negative and so cannot see most
> details of his work, thus having no real motivation to practice it,
> since the results look poorer than conventional art to the naked eye;
>
But it looks wonderful strange, and obviously "not made by
human hands." Much easier to fool people, especially those who want
to be fooled into seeing an image of their saviour, as this newsgroup
attests to still.
> does so without disturbing bloodstains on the canvas (eliminates the
> rubbing approach insofar as I can see);
Really kind of irrelevant since the "bloodstains" were put on after
the rubbing. The lack of yellowing under the fibers in this case would
be because they were protected from the elements by the thicker paint.
>
> includes forensic evidence that would have been far more expensive to
> acquire in Medieval times than could be hoped for in revenue from
> sale/display of a relic, and that anyway Medieval science was unaware of
> (dust from Jerusalem ground into the fabric; pollen and plant images).
> These last have been identified by skeptical, non-Christian observers,
> so are not dismissable as wishful thinking;
The dust is travertine aragonite...every geologist I've talked to
so far says that it is one of the most common minerals in existance.
Sounds
to me like it's another case of wishful data interpretation. The pollen
identification has been discredited on several occasions, most recently
in
the journal Biblical Archeology Review. And the plant images have been
readily dismissed by most serious people as seeing what you expect to
find
in random spots on an old cloth.
>
> You figure out how anybody from 13th century did all that and I'll still
> say it's a miracle. Though of human ingenuity. You see, the current
> C14 date already proves it to be a miracle. So you cannot dismiss the
> miraculous from any explanation. Miracles are already part of the
> equation.
The current date does what now?
Trenton G. Twining
>
> the·o·ry:
>
<SNIP>
>
> mir·a·cle:
>
<SNIP>
>
> Mutually exclusive, Trenton. Miracles cannot, by definition,
> be theories in a scientific term.
>
tempted to say most, perhaps all) are founded upon a miracle. A point
beyond which they say: we know/think it happens this way, but have know
idea how/why. For example: the prime tenet of mainstream, modern:
cosmology; biology; at least two branches of physics. If your statement
above were correct, it would mean that we would have to invent a new
term to encompass many of the unproven/unexploded working descriptions
for how things work. But such concepts are called "theory". You should
have done a representation of those two definitions using symbolic logic
and seen that there is no contradiction between the two.
> By entering this debate, I agreed to
> a discussion of the scientific merits of the Shroud, knowing that there
> would be those who adhered to miraculous explanations but relegating
> them
> to the same pile I do Creationists, young earth "theorists", and Great
> Flood believers. We had been doing pretty well here sticking with the
> science, but recently the believers seem to have resorted to typical
> pseudoscience tactics: repeat disproven ideas like mantras, claim
> that they're "obvious" to anyone with an open mind, ignore damning
> evidence that can't be explained, and accuse those that show how
> they're wrong to be engaging in pseudoscience themselves.
>
What disproven ideas are being clung to? There are some that have been
called into question, but I don't know anyone in the undecided camp or
the authentic camp who's clinging to them. The fakery camp seems very
loath to give up on some of the exploded fakery theories. Nor are the
undecided or authentic camps ignoring damning evidence. The only two
items that could be so characterized, are the clearly questionable C14
date and the projection question. Since those items have been the
central topics of debate here for weeks, they are not being ignored.
Commencing an investigation, with the outcome predetermined regardless
of facts is not science. It can still be legitimate research. But the
nature of the predetermined outcome is immaterial. So those who have
decided that there can be no record of the Resurrection, therefore the
Shroud is fake, are as unscientific as those who make the mirror image
error of believing the Shroud to be genuine because of their knowledge
of the Resurrection.
> What do you mean by "contemporary realistic painting?" We've
> gotten two possible mechanisms for the artistic production of the image,
> both of which create just what you see. No special painting skills
> required beyond knowledge of bas-relief rubbing or camera obscura.
>
European paintings contemporary to the C14 date are very poor quality.
That will begin to change with Botacceli 3/4 of a cent. later. But I
had forgotten that your prime theories were the rubbing and photography
approaches. For reasons stated, and the fact that no media are to be
found in the fibers of the cloth, and the image does not result from the
transfer of gross material to the fibers, but to a chemical change on
the fiber surfaces - I regard the rubbing theory as untenable (except as
previously stated, by means of ironing the image on w/bas relief). The
photography theory, while still sustainable, is definitely in the field
of the miraculous.
> > does so while painting largely in negative and so cannot see most
> > details of his work, thus having no real motivation to practice it,
> > since the results look poorer than conventional art to the naked eye;
> >
>
> But it looks wonderful strange, and obviously "not made by
> human hands." Much easier to fool people, especially those who want
> to be fooled into seeing an image of their saviour, as this newsgroup
> attests to still.
>
This is a null argument, because it is just as easy to fool people into
not seeing what they are adamantly opposed to seeing. There's plenty of
mental stimulus to be provided by sticking to the scientific merits of
the various theories. It seems likely to be years before we get a good
C14 date. And even that may not end the debate. If a well conducted
C14 dating placed the Shroud mftr in the 1st century, are you going to
concede that it is Christ's gravecloth?
> Really kind of irrelevant since the "bloodstains" were put on after
> the rubbing. The lack of yellowing under the fibers in this case would
> be because they were protected from the elements by the thicker paint.
>
This is contradictory isn't it? Or does the rubbing theory have a
developing element to it? It is clear how this could be done with the
photographic technique; the lack of exposure to ammonia would prevent
development of the image. But it is blood. McCrone's visual
identification is not going to sway me from a blood-type analysis done
by the University of Texas DNA lab. Done by technicians unaware of the
source of the sample.
> >
> > includes forensic evidence that would have been far more expensive to
> > acquire in Medieval times than could be hoped for in revenue from
> > sale/display of a relic, and that anyway Medieval science was unaware of
> > (dust from Jerusalem ground into the fabric; pollen and plant images).
> > These last have been identified by skeptical, non-Christian observers,
> > so are not dismissable as wishful thinking;
>
> The dust is travertine aragonite...every geologist I've talked to
> so far says that it is one of the most common minerals in existance.
>
Well and good. But remember, that being "one of the most common
minerals in existence" does not make it that likely a choice of dust for
a European artist to use for dirt. Being perhaps the 8th - 10th most
common mineral in Europe would mean it had something less than 5% chance
of being chosen randomly. For one thing, it's not by any means the most
common form of limestone. For another, there are no significant
deposits of it in France; although Spain and Italy both have large
deposits. Normal calcite, (same compound, different crystalline
struct.) such as I live surrounded by, is far more common in Europe than
aragonite. Further, not every, or even most, nor perhaps even one other
aragonite deposit contains the same fractions of admixtures common to
one kind of dust in the Shroud, and to the stone foundation of
Jerusalem. In at least three other minerals often found in the
aragonite dust from the Shroud matches in fractional presence the stone
of Jerusalem. It's admittedly not as good as a finger print. But you
dismiss it far too cavalierly. To be fair, it must be considered that
the environs of Jerusalem is the most likely known source for that
particular dust. That's why I said "dust from Jerusalem".
<SNIP>
> The pollen
> identification has been discredited on several occasions, most recently
> in
> the journal Biblical Archeology Review.
>
This is a bit of hyperbole. Dr. Frei's analysis of pollen has been
called into serious question. Since he's dead and cannot defend his
work I do not rely on it. But the less precise identifications still
find pollen consistent with the Mandylion provenance for the Shroud.
Another long set of coincidence gates for a fake to pass. If it's a
13th cent. fake, it has spent its existence on a short trip between
southern France and northern Italy. Some of the pollens found on the
Shroud would be unusual to an item with such a sheltered existence.
> And the plant images have been
> readily dismissed by most serious people as seeing what you expect to
> find
> in random spots on an old cloth.
>
This characterization goes beyond hyperbole. Have you looked at the
high contrast pictures? An Jewish botanist, with good credentials, has
identified plant specimens from these pictures based on taxonomic
characteristics a little too precise to be imagination and random
spots. The majority even of serious people, when uneducated on a
topic, form an opinion that is often wrong.
The weakness of the latent images is the algorithm. I've seen some of
these images. They are plenty clear enough. Where they are vulnerable
is in the manner in which the image is enhanced. Find out if they are
applying a consistent set of contrast enhancements, or just cycle the
image through every variation possible until something emerges. In the
former case, they have valid evidence, reproducible by others. In the
latter, they're manipulating the data 'til they get the result they
want.
Chris Cunningham
"Trenton G. Twining" wrote:
>
> Absolutely not so. Many, many well established scientific theories (I'm
> tempted to say most, perhaps all) are founded upon a miracle. A point
> beyond which they say: we know/think it happens this way, but have know
> idea how/why. For example: the prime tenet of mainstream, modern:
> cosmology; biology; at least two branches of physics. If your statement
> above were correct, it would mean that we would have to invent a new
> term to encompass many of the unproven/unexploded working descriptions
> for how things work. But such concepts are called "theory". You should
> have done a representation of those two definitions using symbolic logic
> and seen that there is no contradiction between the two.
>
There is a vast difference between "unproven working descriptions"
and "violations of basic natural laws proven repeatedly to be accurate."
The latter is what every effort to provide a method of image formation
by
those who believe the Shroud authentic entails. Those are not theories,
at least not without a vast amount of experimental data to back them up.
The fact that the people who propose these theories don't try to find
funding to test them (as they mean major revisions in accepted science
if
proven correct) tells me that they either don't understand the
implications
themselves, or they realize they're full of it and just hope nobody else
notices.
>
> What disproven ideas are being clung to? There are some that have been
> called into question, but I don't know anyone in the undecided camp or
> the authentic camp who's clinging to them.
Let's see. Pollen data that can't be used to locate the Shroud
as having been anywhere more accurate than the Mediterranian region.
Numerous forensic scientists that used very specific blood tests which
never detected a trace of blood. Impossible blood flows, including
blood
that "miraculously" appeared on top of the hair without matting.
Remarkable convolutions of the body as well as noteworthy "deformities"
in the limbs and face. Oh, and dare I forget, contemporary reports of
the fake nature of the Shroud, and owners who refused to explain where
it came from. I'm sure there are some I'm forgetting. Ken, Frank,
what else is there?
>
> European paintings contemporary to the C14 date are very poor quality.
> That will begin to change with Botacceli 3/4 of a cent. later. But I
> had forgotten that your prime theories were the rubbing and photography
> approaches. For reasons stated, and the fact that no media are to be
> found in the fibers of the cloth, and the image does not result from the
> transfer of gross material to the fibers, but to a chemical change on
> the fiber surfaces - I regard the rubbing theory as untenable (except as
> previously stated, by means of ironing the image on w/bas relief). The
> photography theory, while still sustainable, is definitely in the field
> of the miraculous.
For the rubbing technique, Nickell showed that, not only is it
possible to do it without getting pigment deep in the fibers, but that
the chemical change could easily have been caused by oxidation of the
fibers induced by the pigments themselves, which, of course, mostly came
off after being subjected to washings, fires, and multitudinal viewings.
And there's nothing miraculous about the photography...Allen showed
quite
clearly that the knowledge and materials existed in the time.
>
> This is a null argument, because it is just as easy to fool people into
> not seeing what they are adamantly opposed to seeing. There's plenty of
> mental stimulus to be provided by sticking to the scientific merits of
> the various theories. It seems likely to be years before we get a good
> C14 date. And even that may not end the debate. If a well conducted
> C14 dating placed the Shroud mftr in the 1st century, are you going to
> concede that it is Christ's gravecloth?
Well, first of all, I consider this hypothetical in the extreme.
I am in no way concerned that a new C14 test, performed under standards
that even STURP couldn't argue with, is going to date the linen to the
1st century. But if it did, I'd concede that it was a remarkable thing,
and perhaps even the actual beginning of the Resurrection myths centered
around a person called Jesus. Of course, there's no evidence whatsoever
that he exists, but Bob and I have been through this one recently, and
this isn't the newsgroup for that tired old debate. We've got our own
tired old debate to deal with! :)
>
> This is contradictory isn't it? Or does the rubbing theory have a
> developing element to it? It is clear how this could be done with the
> photographic technique; the lack of exposure to ammonia would prevent
> development of the image. But it is blood. McCrone's visual
> identification is not going to sway me from a blood-type analysis done
> by the University of Texas DNA lab. Done by technicians unaware of the
> source of the sample.
>
Which tests were these again? Were these same technicians aware
of the reported presence of red ochre and vermillion, and of the
possible
related presence of albumin-based artist's media? Or did they perform
the same tests as Heller and Adler, who failed to mention the reported
presence of contaminants that would give false positives?
>
> Well and good. But remember, that being "one of the most common
> minerals in existence" does not make it that likely a choice of dust for
> a European artist to use for dirt. Being perhaps the 8th - 10th most
> common mineral in Europe would mean it had something less than 5% chance
> of being chosen randomly. For one thing, it's not by any means the most
> common form of limestone. For another, there are no significant
> deposits of it in France; although Spain and Italy both have large
> deposits. Normal calcite, (same compound, different crystalline
> struct.) such as I live surrounded by, is far more common in Europe than
> aragonite. Further, not every, or even most, nor perhaps even one other
> aragonite deposit contains the same fractions of admixtures common to
> one kind of dust in the Shroud, and to the stone foundation of
> Jerusalem. In at least three other minerals often found in the
> aragonite dust from the Shroud matches in fractional presence the stone
> of Jerusalem. It's admittedly not as good as a finger print. But you
> dismiss it far too cavalierly. To be fair, it must be considered that
> the environs of Jerusalem is the most likely known source for that
> particular dust. That's why I said "dust from Jerusalem".
Kohlbeck and Nitowski state quite clearly that their results
cannot be used to say that the dust came from Jerusalem. A note in the
article states:
"Scientists continue to compare the chemical composition
of shroud limestone and Jerusalem limestone. Their hope
is that they will detect rare trace elements on both
samples that will clearly distinguish them from aragonite
samples elsewhere in the world. To date - no such 'marker'
has been found." (BAR July/August 1986, p. 24)
Not only do they clearly state that there's no "smoking gun" as it were,
they also indicate that they still can't find one, despite SPECIFICALLY
LOOKING for it. Now, I understand this is a bit old, and if you can
point me to a newer study where they found this rare element, I'd love
to see it.
>
>
> This is a bit of hyperbole. Dr. Frei's analysis of pollen has been
> called into serious question. Since he's dead and cannot defend his
> work I do not rely on it. But the less precise identifications still
> find pollen consistent with the Mandylion provenance for the Shroud.
> Another long set of coincidence gates for a fake to pass. If it's a
> 13th cent. fake, it has spent its existence on a short trip between
> southern France and northern Italy. Some of the pollens found on the
> Shroud would be unusual to an item with such a sheltered existence.
>
Bryant was rather clear in his article that, in his experience
as a botanist who has done forensic work, there is no way he could have
justified making the gradiose claims for the Shroud's location. He goes
into great detail explaining why basic light microscopy couldn't have
been used to get the information Frei claimed to have obtained. Gee,
light microscopy isn't good enough...does that sound familiar?
> >
> This characterization goes beyond hyperbole. Have you looked at the
> high contrast pictures? An Jewish botanist, with good credentials, has
> identified plant specimens from these pictures based on taxonomic
> characteristics a little too precise to be imagination and random
> spots. The majority even of serious people, when uneducated on a
> topic, form an opinion that is often wrong.
>
> The weakness of the latent images is the algorithm. I've seen some of
> these images. They are plenty clear enough. Where they are vulnerable
> is in the manner in which the image is enhanced. Find out if they are
> applying a consistent set of contrast enhancements, or just cycle the
> image through every variation possible until something emerges. In the
> former case, they have valid evidence, reproducible by others. In the
> latter, they're manipulating the data 'til they get the result they
> want.
>
I've seen the image of the Man in the Moon, and the Virgin Mary
on walls and freezer doors, and they're "plenty clear enough" too. I
also know that humans are hard-wired to recognize patterns and to
connect the dots as it were, even when there aren't any dots to connect.
Just because you alter the contrast doesn't mean what you found was any
more accurate. It may mean, in fact, that you've added more spots for
your eyes to connect. A more informed imagination can make more
detailed
imaginings, but that doesn't make it any more accurate.
Frank Weaver
In article <CE872743C0702631.194E017A...@lp.airnews.net>,
Chris Cunningham <ly...@pdq.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Oh, dear, Bob. You accuse me of adhering to pseudoscience, and you
>apparently don't even understand science itself. What use is publishing your
>data if everyone takes your word for it? You ignored the infamous example
>I gave you, cold fusion. Everyone simply took the scientist's word for
>it.
Just for the record, I believe it ran into a storm of controversy in
part because it ran afoul of theory.
[snip]
>How do we know all of this peer-reviewed
>stuff was reported properly? The submitters don't provide all of their notes
>for review...it's not a graded homework assignment. The reviewers give the
>submitters benefit of the doubt, and assume they used fair, unbiased methods
>of recording data, and that they didn't leave out anything important (like,
>oh, the reported presence of pigments that give false positives for forensic
>blood tests that were submitted for review.)
There's another element to it. In their public PR, STURP presented
themselves as arch-positivists: "we only collect the data; we don't
decide what it means." That, of course, is not a bit how they've
actually acted.
If you look at their peer-reviewed papers, however, it's that
just-the-facts-ma'am face that they showed. "Spectral Analysis,"
"Quantitative Photography," "Mapping Test Points," etc., just about
all their peer-reviewed papers, are pure data with minimal to no
interpretation. That's the stuff that counts for around 30% on a
student lab report.
When they *did* try to draw conclusion from their data, they ran into
trouble. When Heller and Adler, for instance, tried to conclude that
their assortment of chemical analyses provided evidence of blood,
someone with a great deal more experience in forensics (John F.
Fischer) promptly repeated every one of their tests on collagen
tempura and showed that he got the same results.
If STURP hadn't mostly kept the sorts of statements they've spread
through the popular press out of their 'scientific' papers, I doubt
very many of them would have been found fit to publish. I wonder to
what extent they did things that way deliberately so that they could
use their interpretation-free scientific papers to lend an air of
credibility to the highly subjective interpretations they make in
interviews and general articles.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOzvgV6yjdWYzk1A5AQHx4Qf+PtbqrjEDgrzzwXqJAShIy5jLIvL7hjXa
WlpJiLj+PF8pK2FrfY0/Ph3lzD0rdh/qZAi2hepPWE/u9IZrjIo/4HlqKIac2itS
O3LU9vgQXClIempPlDwECBG4ik5yFKzLQsv+A8F49D6Ld314XA54tF1Mb4CgFzi4
YWdbsTptJ+jQEMTC1cU0R4xoRcvrrUh0kuuBch2/0bWEBGytFo++08WL1etgJwIv
uBDiGbolMQ8cZmv3YtcLhjFjFcJz8njCOtcvaGQUh1PQi3i1PBa+XKKktVoZO1nA
VI1P11SztXJPy49Pze+caNdbQdHqcWz5Oxghw6Ehnt3gyBy6M1x7mg==
=WLA/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Trenton G. Twining
>
> "Trenton G. Twining" wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> For the rubbing technique, Nickell showed that, not only is it
> possible to do it without getting pigment deep in the fibers
>
deep into the fibers? How would such a person restrict the pigment to
little more than a single molecule layer when they have no means of
discerning this, nor motivation to do so? I find it EXTREMELY hard to
believe that the barest trace of covering would be a prime goal of a
forger.
<SNIP>
> Allen showed
> quite
> clearly that the knowledge and materials existed in the time.
>
Again, a bit beyond hyperbole. Allen proved the materials were
available. But there's no evidence for the knowledge having been
available. None. No photographs from Medieval times survive nor do
accounts of the technique dating from this period. If it was an early
photographer, he restricted his discovery to a very select Subject and
sought no publicity. A serious business error, since he could have
earned far more by using his technique widely than trusting to any
income from a forged Shroud.
<SNIP>
> > But it is blood. McCrone's visual
> > identification is not going to sway me from a blood-type analysis done
> > by the University of Texas DNA lab. Done by technicians unaware of the
> > source of the sample.
> >
> Which tests were these again? Were these same technicians aware
> of the reported presence of red ochre and vermillion, and of the
> possible
> related presence of albumin-based artist's media?
>
That would be the tests conducted by Dr. Victor Tyron, the director of
the University of Texas (at San Antonio) Center for Advanced DNA
Technologies. The degree to which these tests would have to err to get
a false positive is beyond belief, since the blood diffracted to extract
DNA from chromosomes. The chromosomes included XY pairs, indicating the
blood of a male. And sufficient genes sites were mapped to identify it
as human blood. Among the tests used was the polymerase-chain reaction;
not known for finding human DNA in chicken eggs.
<SNIP>
> Kohlbeck and Nitowski state quite clearly that their results
> cannot be used to say that the dust came from Jerusalem. A note in the
> article states:
>
> "Scientists continue to compare the chemical composition
> of shroud limestone and Jerusalem limestone. Their hope
> is that they will detect rare trace elements on both
> samples that will clearly distinguish them from aragonite
> samples elsewhere in the world. To date - no such 'marker'
> has been found." (BAR July/August 1986, p. 24)
>
> Not only do they clearly state that there's no "smoking gun" as it were,
> they also indicate that they still can't find one, despite SPECIFICALLY
> LOOKING for it. Now, I understand this is a bit old, and if you can
> point me to a newer study where they found this rare element, I'd love
> to see it.
>
It's admittedly not as good as a finger print. But you dismiss it far
too cavalierly. To be fair, it must be considered that the environs of
Jerusalem is the most likely known source for that particular dust.
That's why I said "dust from Jerusalem". The odds of a forger using
aragonite dust to dirty the Shroud, are long. Aragonite that has not
already been proved as inconsistent with Jerusalem samples are awfully
long. Then aragonite that has no lead, but has strontium. We're
already 'way beyond 100:1 odds of this by chance. What Kohlbeck and
Levi-Setti are looking for is fingerprint grade proof - billions:1.
That may not be there. Although admixtures of aragonite vary from
deposit to deposit, they have a certain sheaf of contaminants commonly
found in them. A degree of similarity is bound to result. And there
probably aren't billions of exposed aragonite deposits. It is possible
though that they will eliminate French aragonite formations, as I
understand these to be smaller than those in Spain and Italy; and thus
(I expect) likely to contain higher proportions of contaminants.
> >
> > This is a bit of hyperbole. Dr. Frei's analysis of pollen has been
> > called into serious question. Since he's dead and cannot defend his
> > work I do not rely on it.
<SNIP>
>
> Bryant was rather clear in his article that, in his experience
> as a botanist who has done forensic work, there is no way he could have
> justified making the gradiose claims for the Shroud's location. He goes
> into great detail explaining why basic light microscopy couldn't have
> been used to get the information Frei claimed to have obtained. Gee,
> light microscopy isn't good enough...does that sound familiar?
>
Dr. Frei's analysis of pollen has been called into serious question.
Since he's dead and cannot defend his work I do not rely on it.
Although I note, not as to source or genus identification. Only insofar
as his critics believe he was being too specific in identification of
plant species. My reference was to the less precise but more reliable
work of Dr. Aharon Horowitz. As well as others. The fact that these
pollens do not indicated a history exclusively in southern France and
northern Italy, but is consistent with a sojourn through the eastern
Mediterranean seaboard is supportive, though not conclusive, of a
Jerusalem origin. But again, HOW does a Medieval forger avoid a pitfall
he cannot see? How does he manage to get pollens from genii not common
in southern France and northern Italy, but very common in Anatolia, the
Levant and Israel, when the idea that people could identify plants by
invisibly small grains of dust ought have been the farthest thing from
his short-sighted, but mercenary mind?
>
> I've seen the image of the Man in the Moon, and the Virgin Mary
> on walls and freezer doors, and they're "plenty clear enough" too. I
> also know that humans are hard-wired to recognize patterns and to
> connect the dots as it were, even when there aren't any dots to connect.
> Just because you alter the contrast doesn't mean what you found was any
> more accurate. It may mean, in fact, that you've added more spots for
> your eyes to connect. A more informed imagination can make more
> detailed
> imaginings, but that doesn't make it any more accurate.
>
The examples you cite fall a little short. If the Man in the Moon could
be biometrically identified as being modelled on Hoagy Carmichael to
twelve points of similarity, you'd have a comparable degree of
comparison. But I'm not confident enough in the Whangers to defend them
extensively. And on rereading some of their papers, I do believe see
some Man-in-the-Moon grade visualizing. However it's possible I'm just
seeing what I expect.
Frank Weaver
In article <20010622150459...@ng-mg1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Chris, I didn't realize the Byzantine's were such a daft lot! The thing is,
>somebody back then had to be either smart enough to mint a tiny coin that
>matched detail for detail
Enough hyperbole. I've seen literally dozens of these copies that
are allegecly 'detail for detail' perfect. It is perfectly obvious
that they are, at best, only broadly similar to one another. They
all show long hair, but can't seem to agree on its length. Short
beard, long beard, shaggy, well-trimmed? Depends. The eyes point
every which way. The face is round in some, long in others. The
particular coin you're talking about is pictured by Wilson, "The
Blood and the Shroud," plate 38a. Similar to the shroud face? Yes.
But detail for detail? Only if you're blind.
>It is, instead, a real gravecloth
There is absolutely no evidence it was ever used as a gravecloth.
>bearing the substanceless image of a real man-
NOW the image is apparently substanceless. But the creation of an
image by applying a substance since mostly worn off but leaving
behind damage to the material is a definite possibility that fits the
chemical evidence.
>one who appears to
>have been crucifed in the manner of the Romans
This would appear to be quite false. Among the most telling pieces
of evidence is one cited often by shroud apologists. They claim to
see signs of chafing from carrying the cross. The problem is, the
chafe marks are on both the clavicle and the shoulder blade, as if
Jesus dragged the *entire* cross on his shoulders. That is the
conventional view still found in many Stations of the Cross
depictions. It was only a few decades ago that evidence emerged
that the condemned in Roman crucifixion was made to carry only the
crossbeam, not the entire cross. The shroud depicts injuries from
carrying the cross as a medieval artist would have assumed, based on
a false conception of the manner of Roman crucifixion.
>and buried in the manner of the
>1st centruy Jews.
This is distinctly not the case. The evidence that any body placed
in the shroud could not have been washed, as required by Jewish law,
requires a lot of dancing around by shroud apologists. All the
evidence we have points to first century Jews dressing their dead in
white robes and wrapping them in multiple short strips of cloth,
somewhat mummy-style. The single double-length burial cloth is a
medieval invention.
>To simply ingore the overwhelming evidence and brush aside coincidence after
>coincidence (such as the similarities between the Shroud and the Edessa cloth)
No one is brushing aside those similarities. In fact, they point
to one of the influences the shroud artist would have been likely to
use.
[snip]
>The argument that the word "mandylion" means that the Edessa cloth was too
>small to be the Shroud is untenable also. Go to Barrie's website and follow the
>argument that unfolds under "Doubts Concerning the Coins over the Eyes."
>(British newsletter #45) It would seem that Mark Guscin gets the last word with
>Antonio Lambatti when he points out that the word "mandil" came about as a
>translation of the Greek word "ekmageion."
Guscin's etymology deserves a big rasberry. The two words are not
merely not equivalent. They have very little connection at all.
The Latin word mandil/mandele/mantele means a towel, and comes from
the same root as manus, "hand". That's perfectly appropriate for a
small cloth that Jesus supposedly used to dry his face after washing
(Cassell's Latin-English Dictionary).
'Ekmageion derives from the word 'ekmasso ('ekmatto), "to mold"
from the roots 'ek-, "out of" and masso (matto) "to work with the
hands." The Latin equivalent would be exprimere (Liddel's and
Scott's Greek Lexicon). The Latin equivalent to 'ekmageion might be
impressio or imago expressa (Cassell's).
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOzwQuqyjdWYzk1A5AQHSsgf+LJ66Ursd8PdoLQLSiu13hjTaKfig7UM2
V8c/CIxrvv83EtrcHblCFbuDHC1n7xlpr7pda1yCEShbt91i4wXSicyoRGM77EZa
vxKpudHDe1J5JhHrUThnpyJfMkiHZ03TP5rI9S4cudDe0hJ+xYUcX+vwzZHXjlxI
UbnAGDyhj2wYsm+EPPr7LbxXWNfYJTjJ2o/GltTy6t6d4hbfA7+kIf7SW2tDZ1NJ
T4WEur1yQNbUTpVlKncVKkQj9v7yKpwczs8tT4Nd/lwiUwN3VKbj4sf6qlcZ8ere
2f/RtOWPaI+1mUjimcLQEAhzBDds71ZYmwhy6xvhMgtr9cxt4o7DRA==
=62o0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
33 of Alan Whanger's book The Shroud of Turin- an Adventure in Discovery.
Although the one you're talking about looks for all the world like the face on
the Shroud too. (Are you sure you don't need to get your eyes checked Frank?)
For example, notice that under the man's beard on the coin are two parallel
lines. These two unmistakable lines can be seen on the Shroud in exactly the
same place. The beard is a forked beard in both cases- same exact shape and
length with one fork slightly longer, again in both cases. We see the same
mustache, the same parted long hair hanging down as far as where the chin is.
We see the same arched eye brows in the same place on each. Same long nose,
same swollen cheek, same triangle over the nose. And even the same exact facial
proportions. (This is the coin you mentioned). The one I'm talking about is
even more exacting in appearance.
There is no evidence the Shroud is a grave cloth? It bares the image of a dead
man, complete with his anatomically perfect bloody wounds- and the blood is
real blood even if Joe Nickell disagrees. It has traces of limestone that
closely match limestone taken from tombs on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Sounds
like a grave cloth to me.
The statement is made that the image on the Shroud must have come from a
"substance since mostly worn off but leaving behind damage to the material."
Funny how it seemed only to have happened in the case of the Shroud. Also that
this "damage" just happens to present itself in the form of a high-resolution
photo-negative image of a man that is not only encoded three-dimensionally, but
is so anatomically accurate that the man can be autopsied by the most
experienced pathologists in the world.
As for the chafe marks, I don't see any chaffing in any areas that would
correspond to an upright beam- in fact all I see below the man's hair is
numerous well-defined scorge marks. And as for the Jewish burial, I believe
that there is evidence that Jesus WAS washed. Go to www.shroud.com and look up
a paper entitled The Man of the Shroud was Washed by Chief Medical Examiner of
Rockland Co. New York, Fred Zugibe. And as for the Jews not wrapping Jesus in
strips of cloth mummy style, my understanding from what's said in the Bible is
that there was very little time. Not only that, but according to Micha Halprin,
a Jewish scholar specializing in first century Jewish customs, Jesus WAS in
fact buried in the manner of the Jews. (from In Pursuit of the Shroud- video
from The Learning Channel.)
Finally, the word "ekmageion." I believe Guscin points out, as you did, that
the Latin (and if I said Greek, it was my mistake not Guscin's) is equivelent
to impressio or impression.
Bob
Chris Cunningham
"Trenton G. Twining" wrote:
>
>
> Why? Why would a Medieval forger be so cautious as to not get pigment
> deep into the fibers? How would such a person restrict the pigment to
> little more than a single molecule layer when they have no means of
> discerning this, nor motivation to do so? I find it EXTREMELY hard to
> believe that the barest trace of covering would be a prime goal of a
> forger.
Perhaps because he figured the lighter the image, the less obvious
it would be that it was painted? Seems pretty apparent to me. Use as
little stuff as possible, so that when a skeptical bishop runs his
finger
over it, there's not enough pigment to stain his finger and thereby give
the forger away.
>
> Again, a bit beyond hyperbole. Allen proved the materials were
> available. But there's no evidence for the knowledge having been
> available. None. No photographs from Medieval times survive nor do
> accounts of the technique dating from this period. If it was an early
> photographer, he restricted his discovery to a very select Subject and
> sought no publicity. A serious business error, since he could have
> earned far more by using his technique widely than trusting to any
> income from a forged Shroud.
>
Whose engaging in hyperbole here? It's a historical
fact that the knowledge was written down in the 13th century, and the
camera obscura method was described even by Aristotle. Sorry, Trenton,
but here you're flat wrong. There's plenty of evidence (real evidence,
not fanciful Shroud = Mandylion "evidence") that someone fairly well
educated for that day would know how to build a camera obscura and
take photographs with it. Judging by the time period, I would suggest
that he found it unwise to bruit about with his mechanism, as it may
be a bit too much like magic for the everyday peasant and clergy to
swallow. People were executed for less. Besides, the method requires
several days in the sun. It's not exactly well-suited for portraiture
in those days.
>
> That would be the tests conducted by Dr. Victor Tyron, the director of
> the University of Texas (at San Antonio) Center for Advanced DNA
> Technologies. The degree to which these tests would have to err to get
> a false positive is beyond belief, since the blood diffracted to extract
> DNA from chromosomes. The chromosomes included XY pairs, indicating the
> blood of a male. And sufficient genes sites were mapped to identify it
> as human blood. Among the tests used was the polymerase-chain reaction;
> not known for finding human DNA in chicken eggs.
Ah, the DNA tests, not the blood tests. Yes, he found DNA, but
there's plenty of places that could have come from. Did he first do
tests to find blood, then extracted it? Or did he run his samples on
something that looked like it might be blood, and pulled DNA off of
"something" in there?
>
> It's admittedly not as good as a finger print. But you dismiss it far
> too cavalierly. To be fair, it must be considered that the environs of
> Jerusalem is the most likely known source for that particular dust.
> That's why I said "dust from Jerusalem". The odds of a forger using
> aragonite dust to dirty the Shroud, are long. Aragonite that has not
> already been proved as inconsistent with Jerusalem samples are awfully
> long. Then aragonite that has no lead, but has strontium. We're
> already 'way beyond 100:1 odds of this by chance. What Kohlbeck and
> Levi-Setti are looking for is fingerprint grade proof - billions:1.
> That may not be there. Although admixtures of aragonite vary from
> deposit to deposit, they have a certain sheaf of contaminants commonly
> found in them. A degree of similarity is bound to result. And there
> probably aren't billions of exposed aragonite deposits. It is possible
> though that they will eliminate French aragonite formations, as I
> understand these to be smaller than those in Spain and Italy; and thus
> (I expect) likely to contain higher proportions of contaminants.
>
I dismiss it because it is not remarkable. If it were "fingerprint
grade" then it would be worth more, certainly. But what of the things
that were found in the dust? No lead, but strontium...is strontium
present in other places on the shroud, such as, oh, the "blood"? IIRC,
this dust was sampled from around the feet...where the highest
concentration
of "blood" was. Metals are a common contaminant in pigments...I didn't
notice that being addressed by Kohlbeck and Nitowski. Not only that,
your
statement about the lead is a bit premature. There is a little endnote
to
the article that states that "lead was detected by the STURP team on the
shroud fibers and by Joseph Kohlbeck in Jerusalem limestone samples."
Kohlbeck states that "aragonite with these traces can no doubt be found
elsewhere in the world as well as in Jerusalem." Your 'way beyond 100:1
odds' is highly exagerrated.
>
> Dr. Frei's analysis of pollen has been called into serious question.
> Since he's dead and cannot defend his work I do not rely on it.
> Although I note, not as to source or genus identification. Only insofar
> as his critics believe he was being too specific in identification of
> plant species. My reference was to the less precise but more reliable
> work of Dr. Aharon Horowitz. As well as others. The fact that these
> pollens do not indicated a history exclusively in southern France and
> northern Italy, but is consistent with a sojourn through the eastern
> Mediterranean seaboard is supportive, though not conclusive, of a
> Jerusalem origin. But again, HOW does a Medieval forger avoid a pitfall
> he cannot see? How does he manage to get pollens from genii not common
> in southern France and northern Italy, but very common in Anatolia, the
> Levant and Israel, when the idea that people could identify plants by
> invisibly small grains of dust ought have been the farthest thing from
> his short-sighted, but mercenary mind?
>
I don't have Horowitz's study in front of me at the moment.
Assuming that his study was accurate and places the pollens on it as
non-windborn plants that could only be from the area of Israel, that
does help your case. Assuming that his estimations of the images
were reasonable given the condition of the samples. Assuming there's
no reason to believe flowers were placed on the Shroud by pilgrims from
the Holy Land. Assuming that the linen itself wasn't a Middle-Eastern
import purchased in France by a forger...
[snip]
Trenton G. Twining
>
> "Trenton G. Twining" wrote:
>
> fact that the knowledge was written down in the 13th century, and the
> camera obscura method was described even by Aristotle. Sorry, Trenton,
> but here you're flat wrong.
>
the meaning of camera obscura. Camera obscura does not refer to a
device for taking photographs; it's rather a means of projecting an
image into a darkened room (that being the meaning of the term:
darkened room). But if you can provide a cite for a Medieval or
previous description of a camera obscura being used to make photographs,
I'll raise the value at which I hold the early photography theory up a
notch (but it won't reduce the miraclulousness of it). That has long
been my favorite artifice theory. I have a sufficient collection of
Aristotle to be able to resolve any references there. I'll be searching
them. The Arabic mentions of camera obscura will take longer.
<SNIP>
> >
> > That would be the tests conducted by Dr. Victor Tyron, the director of
> > the University of Texas (at San Antonio) Center for Advanced DNA
> > Technologies. The degree to which these tests would have to err to get
> > a false positive is beyond belief, since the blood diffracted to extract
> > DNA from chromosomes. The chromosomes included XY pairs, indicating the
> > blood of a male. And sufficient genes sites were mapped to identify it
> > as human blood. Among the tests used was the polymerase-chain reaction;
> > not known for finding human DNA in chicken eggs.
>
> Ah, the DNA tests, not the blood tests. Yes, he found DNA, but
> there's plenty of places that could have come from. Did he first do
> tests to find blood, then extracted it? Or did he run his samples on
> something that looked like it might be blood, and pulled DNA off of
> "something" in there?
>
Yes, they first identified it as blood. The DNA tests that came later,
including visual inspections would have made it abundantly clear that
the sample was blood. Desiccated corpuscles, platelets and other blood
factors under the magnification necessary to observe X and Y
chromosomes; it would be hard to make a mistake.
<SNIP>
> I dismiss it because it is not remarkable. If it were "fingerprint
> grade" then it would be worth more, certainly. But what of the things
> that were found in the dust? No lead, but strontium...is strontium
> present in other places on the shroud, such as, oh, the "blood"? IIRC,
> this dust was sampled from around the feet...where the highest
> concentration
> of "blood" was. Metals are a common contaminant in pigments...I didn't
> notice that being addressed by Kohlbeck and Nitowski. Not only that,
> your
> statement about the lead is a bit premature. There is a little endnote
> to
> the article that states that "lead was detected by the STURP team on the
> shroud fibers and by Joseph Kohlbeck in Jerusalem limestone samples."
> Kohlbeck states that "aragonite with these traces can no doubt be found
> elsewhere in the world as well as in Jerusalem." Your 'way beyond 100:1
> odds' is highly exagerrated.
>
You haven't done the math. I was being extremely conservative.
Aragonite falls low among the more common minerals. Just the use of
aragonite as the source of dust in a random European location falls in
the 5% range (or less, I'm still being conservative). Then it must also
be travertine. While most travertine is aragonite (some is calcite),
there are about ten primary forms of aragonite. Travertine is only one
such. Then the dust must also match other spectral characteristics of
Jerusalem travertine aragonite. The odds of all of this being random
are very long; 'way past 100:1. The problem is not whether similar
aragonite is available elsewhere than Jerusalem. You're again asking
this blind artist (blind in that all of these traps are invisible to
him) to choose, at random, a form of dust compatible with what would
come from a tomb in Jerusalem.
The text I read may have gotten the presence of lead reversed; I may
have misremembered. But Kohlbeck's graphs show that, organic molecules
aside, the dust from the Shroud and from Jerusalem are a match.
Strontium is a characteristic impurity in aragonite. As are lead and
zinc. No, it's not fingerprint grade (billions:1) but it's easily
hundreds:1 against a randomly chosen dust from Europe to be such a match
to Jerusalem.
Now, you might say that this artist took the Shroud to Jerusalem. And
that makes for a good explanation of how appropriate dusts, organic and
mineral, come to be on the Shroud. Ground into the fibers. Confirm
that explanation and it still says the Shroud was not a forgery, but
rather an idol/icon. Taking it to the authentic sites, would not have
been done under any reasonable Medieval attempt to fool people. At
least not for money. It might be done to create a relic of real
meaning, with authentic attachments to the Holy sites. The cost of
manufacturing the Shroud would have been enormous. My sense of it's
potential value may be way off; but it looks a very unlikely business
venture to me. Just possible as an item of genuine veneration.
That's one reason why all of the fakery theories taste a bit stale to
me. Not enough in it to be worth the candle for the con man. Just
maybe for the iconographer; but then one would expect him to loudly
claim his work. And to have done others along similar lines.
<SNIP>
Bobbycindi
stupidity! Intellectually dishonest! Just blatantly false! Categorically false!
Fairy tale backstory!
I guess using terms like these are one way of trying to win an argument, but
borrowing from archeologist William Meacham, "I leave it to the reader to
decide whether this type of rhetoric is usually associated with a carefuly
reasoned argument, not to mention a 'powerful case.' "
The fact is, (again) anyone with eyes and a brain can see that the similarities
between the face on the Shroud of Turin and the sixth and seventh century
Pantocrator icons and Byzantine coins depicting Jesus go far beyond any
possibility of coincidence. My suggestion is to first, ignore Weaver's heated
rhetoric (for the reason that he would apparently do all the thinking for us),
pick up a book on the Shroud of Turin such as the new book by Barrie Schwortz
and Ian Wilson, and take a look. Whereas Weaver maintains that one can see
these matching details "only if you're blind," it would seem to me that one
would have to be blind NOT to see them!
Since I already mentioned the similarities between a Byzantine coin and the
face on the Shroud, let's now look at an icon of Jesus found deep in the Sinai
desert in a Greek Orthodox monastery- an icon painted in the sixth century.
First of all, by far the best way to see the comparison is to buy the video In
Pursuit of the Shroud from The Learning Channel. (You can get it from
www.tlc.com or call 1-800-475-6636 - no I don't get a kick-back from this!) and
watch closely as the image of the Pantocrator is faded in and out against an
image of the face on the Shroud. (This is Alan Whanger's "polarized overlay
technique" he wrote up in Applied Optics.) One can see that virtually
everything matches perfectly- even the shape of the man's nostrils match. In
fact the only thing really different between the images is that the Pantocrator
shows the man with his eyes wide open with a kind of staring appearance. As is
now known, (since the advent of photography) that the man on the Shroud's eyes
are actually shut, which is largely responsible for his majestic and peaceful
appearance as viewed in the negative.
The next thing to consider, after it becomes absolutely clear that either the
Shroud was a direct copy of the Pantocrator, or the Pantocrator was a direct
copy of the Shroud, is to ask yourself how likely it is that someone "painted"
a substanceless image on raw linen using the Pantocrator as the model- and did
it in photo-negative creating an image that scientists even today cannot begin
to explain or duplicate. An image so anatomically perfect, that the most
experienced pathologists in the world are convinced is of a real man- that it
is NOT just the representation of one. An image that artists and image
specialists alike are convinced is real.
If one is tempted for a split second to believe that the Shroud has been either
explained or duplicated (as Weaver heatedly maintains) all he has to do is look
at how little agreement there is among the skeptics as to how the image was
formed. For one thing, they can't even decide if the image is a painting or a
centuries-old photograph! Even more revealing, notice that the skeptics have
nothing to point to that even remotely begins to duplicate the Shroud. (By far
the best is professor Allen's "photograph" shroud, but it still falls far, far
short of the real thing for a number of reasons.) In fact the best the skeptics
can come up with is so inferior by comparison, that their efforts actually only
serve only to show just how impossible duplicating the Shroud really is.
As for Weaver's "history" of the Edessa cloth and the Mandylion, again, all he
can do is to try to divert attention by blowing smoke and using heated
rhetoric. I'll get into that history next post.
Bob Haroldsen
Chris Cunningham
"Trenton G. Twining" wrote:
>
> Not hyperbole; possibly error. However, you may have a mistaken idea of
> the meaning of camera obscura. Camera obscura does not refer to a
> device for taking photographs; it's rather a means of projecting an
> image into a darkened room (that being the meaning of the term:
> darkened room). But if you can provide a cite for a Medieval or
> previous description of a camera obscura being used to make photographs,
> I'll raise the value at which I hold the early photography theory up a
> notch (but it won't reduce the miraclulousness of it). That has long
> been my favorite artifice theory. I have a sufficient collection of
> Aristotle to be able to resolve any references there. I'll be searching
> them. The Arabic mentions of camera obscura will take longer.
>
The reason Dr. Allen seems to be so interested in this is that the
Shroud would be the first solid example of early photography. I'll tell
you what, though, Trenton...you show me an example of a person's body
imprinted through a collimated radiation burst (or whatever image
formation
method you prefer), and I'll find you an example of the use of a camera
obscura.
>
> Yes, they first identified it as blood. The DNA tests that came later,
> including visual inspections would have made it abundantly clear that
> the sample was blood. Desiccated corpuscles, platelets and other blood
> factors under the magnification necessary to observe X and Y
> chromosomes; it would be hard to make a mistake.
>
What paper was this in? I wasn't aware that they had first
detected blood. I'd like to read that one. I do hope it's not that
damned Canadian Journal of Forensics. I'm going to have to find a web
site for them and see if I can order back issues or something.
>
> You haven't done the math. I was being extremely conservative.
> Aragonite falls low among the more common minerals. Just the use of
> aragonite as the source of dust in a random European location falls in
> the 5% range (or less, I'm still being conservative). Then it must also
> be travertine. While most travertine is aragonite (some is calcite),
> there are about ten primary forms of aragonite. Travertine is only one
> such. Then the dust must also match other spectral characteristics of
> Jerusalem travertine aragonite. The odds of all of this being random
> are very long; 'way past 100:1. The problem is not whether similar
> aragonite is available elsewhere than Jerusalem. You're again asking
> this blind artist (blind in that all of these traps are invisible to
> him) to choose, at random, a form of dust compatible with what would
> come from a tomb in Jerusalem.
You right, I'm afraid my knowledge of the prevelance of
certain minerals is limited to what the 30 or so geologists at my
company can tell me. Admittedly, I haven't asked all of them yet, but
then it's not exactly billable work...
[snip]
>
> Now, you might say that this artist took the Shroud to Jerusalem. And
> that makes for a good explanation of how appropriate dusts, organic and
> mineral, come to be on the Shroud. Ground into the fibers. Confirm
> that explanation and it still says the Shroud was not a forgery, but
> rather an idol/icon. Taking it to the authentic sites, would not have
> been done under any reasonable Medieval attempt to fool people. At
> least not for money. It might be done to create a relic of real
> meaning, with authentic attachments to the Holy sites. The cost of
> manufacturing the Shroud would have been enormous. My sense of it's
> potential value may be way off; but it looks a very unlikely business
> venture to me. Just possible as an item of genuine veneration.
>
> That's one reason why all of the fakery theories taste a bit stale to
> me. Not enough in it to be worth the candle for the con man. Just
> maybe for the iconographer; but then one would expect him to loudly
> claim his work. And to have done others along similar lines.
>
I think you're making a mistake in presuming that it was the
forger that put this stuff on there, or even took the shroud to
Jerusalem.
The forger certainly didn't see it as an icon, but it's plainly obvious
that many who came after it did. It would have been natural for them to
take the Shroud "back to where it came from." These things people are
finding and saying they prove authenticity could easily have been put
there during pilgrimages because people _thought_ it was authentic.
J. Swica
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010626064643...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> In the mean time,
> I would only point out that anyone can buy a book on the Shroud such a
Alan
> Wangher's book called the Shroud of Turin: an Adventure in Discovery, and
see
> with their own eyes that a Byzantine coin minted in the seventh century
looks
> EXACTLY like the the face on the Shroud right down to tiny individual
markings.
Bob did you see these images on Whanger's site. Is this the one you're
talking about?
http://gilligan.mc.duke.edu/shroud/motiongifs/5.gif
I don't know....Alot of his other images don't register with me.
http://dmi-www.mc.duke.edu/shroud/motion.htm
Jerry
Bobbycindi
radioactive solution and in so doing produced an image that is more "Shroud
like" by far than anything anyone has previously come up with. Like the image
on the Shroud, it is high resolution, anatomically perfect, dimensionally
encoded, registered in the negative and even shows faint bone structure.
So there's one example of a person's body registering an imprint through a
collimated burst of radiation. Given that Jesus was known to have routinely
done things like raise people from the dead, I'd say he could have easily done
the same thing but without need of all the fancy technology. Of course that's
just my opinion. However, that's NOT to say that that isn't exactly what
happened. After all, the image on the Shroud virtually demands that whatever
caused it was just as unique and mysterious as the Shroud itself. Otherwise
we'd likely see more than one Shroud which we don't!
Bob
J. Swica
Wow this does look like a spear on the shroud....NOT.
http://dmi-www.mc.duke.edu/shroud/images/still3.jpg
Yep,that's a sponge alright.
http://dmi-www.mc.duke.edu/shroud/images/still1.jpg
Hmmm.. A nail...Okay. If you say so....
http://dmi-www.mc.duke.edu/shroud/images/still2.jpg
See other images here:
http://dmi-www.mc.duke.edu/shroud/stills.htm
I wonder what opinion the shroud investigators have expressed to Whanger
about these 'convincing' photos. Did any recommend he take a vacation? Just
about every square inch of the shroud has something on it to be discovered
from what I've seen.
Jerry
Chris Cunningham
I've never actually seen a picture of that image, though you've
mentioned
it several times. Where would I find it? Oh, and my condolences to Dr.
Accetta's
family. He died in the name of science. Such a shame he had to
dissolve his
molecules on an atomic level to reproduce the Shroud image in the way
the
believers claim it happened. Who submitted his report to whatever
journal
it was published in, a grad student?
Bobbycindi
has something on it to be discovered from what I've seen." But when I saw the
cloth last October, I studied it several hours through binoculars and made a
fascinating discovery. There was one roughly square foot area on the dorsal
side near the foot of the cloth that was pretty much empty. But below the
space, faintly visible and written in Greek, were the words; "Rento spaci
advertoticiomento nada tempest luna." I quickly checked my handy Greek to
modern English translater handbook and discovered that it read; "Place your ad
here free for one month."
Now I know what you're thinking- old Haroldsen must have cracked a cold one.
And you'd be right! (But truth be told, I tend to agree with you that some of
Whanger's finding's are a bit much.)
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <3B395976...@usa.net>,
"Trenton G. Twining" <t...@usa.net> wrote:
>Chris Cunningham wrote:
>Once you enter into this debate, you've agreed to a discussion in which
>one set of theories is based upon a miracle. I don't think you can cry
>foul when that is part of the whole matter.
I no more have to concede your miracle claims than I have to concede
that the low-life who uses a hidden radio receiver to pretend
to get a 'word of knowledge' from the Holy Spirit is performing a
miracle, or that those other frauds who pull chicken guts out of
false thumbs for a 'mraculous' healing are legit.
Now, I don't mean to lump shroud apologists with pond scum like that.
Nevertheless, they show why too facilely resorting to miraculous
claims is unwise and dangerous. That is why the burden is squarely
on you to show in the most rigorous possible terms that there are no
possible alternative explanation that can account for the facts in
evidence before resorting to miracles.
You do not satisfy that rigorous condition by resorting to cheap
miracle claims to bail you out every time your own wishful thinking
('but it just HAS to be a real burial cloth') or willful denial ('I
refuse to believe it could be only 600 years old') gets slapped down
by reality.
[snip]
>easy, okay, I am. I consider the pyramids to be miracles. That bronze
>age, bottom land farmers could pile 45 stories of large stone blocks
>into shapes stable enough to last for 4,500 years is miraculous.
>Explain to me how they did it; it's still miraculous THAT they did it.
You're playing semantic games. There's a difference between
awe-inspiring and unexplainable.
Your approach to miracles is just the opposite of awe-inspiring.
By invoking volume-discount miracles merely to bridge the gap between
your own fantasies and the real world, you cheapen the real miracles.
>Explain to me how:
OK, but in the next post.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOz/epKyjdWYzk1A5AQE8qAf8DiejAnd58elIDHODF3UHzY3NyxW6yh9J
faIGOGfMWv+HUto+h9YxV1QUaHEyMVH/GHCJZjRlJ7SxTIYoD0xHsRTjwlupZjep
kbhJgH59IYitVoe2DB+S9o5Q4oauDqO0puIQBta6mx/aHGZKHpjcxAo5cFyPQHkS
Bxj48aF2QzdNEyeOw4bD89HG2x6Wf9k3nqf5nA/kM3hPtgIPMtXw5lbPEKhT9Id6
c+3hxFUuAxfH70UWzzitgxpigACPFHQ4EuSJ9SYrm/BRkTs5/3+a605HZ8vKPHYm
ZJeX++9Msc8meeoTkKlpbHyhjeFAXB8qlxVhGWQP7M1GgSgDUEEkHA==
=dOXY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <3B395976...@usa.net>,
"Trenton G. Twining" <t...@usa.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Explain to me how:
>
> a medieval artist, who had never seen a contemporary realistic
>painting (so far as we know) paints a photo-realistic picture, that
>looks more photographic than Boris Vallejo's paintings from photographs
This belongs in the category of falsehoods passed off as fact.
The shroud obviously isn't very realistic in positive. It's not a
photographic negative, either. Among other reasons, the shroud in
negative has dark hair and beard. Since photographic negatives
reverse light and dark, if the shroud were one, the image would
have to have shock-white hair and beard.
Eric Jumper and John Jackson, developed a plot of the shroud's image
intensity versus distance using the VP-8 analyzer. What they got was
a rough (very rough, with lots of data scatter) correlation between
image intensity and the distance the cloth might have sat from a
reputed body inside. IOW, they demonstrated that the shroud image is
a rough topographic negative.
> does so while painting largely in negative and so cannot see most
>details of his work, thus having no real motivation to practice it,
>since the results look poorer than conventional art to the naked eye;
Several artistic techniques practiced in the Middle Ages would
generate a topographic negative *automatically*. Some, like block
printing, do not produce much variation in image intensity, as the
shroud has. Others, including Jow Nickell's dry-rubbing and
cake-rubbing methods and Emilie Craig's burnishing method,
automatically generate topographic negatives with subtle variations
in intensity (i. e., 3-D information) comparable to what's found on
the shroud.
> does so without disturbing bloodstains on the canvas (eliminates the
>rubbing approach insofar as I can see);
This is another in the false assertions category. The 'blood' stains
rest on top of the image, most prominently and unnaturally in the
area of the hair, on which they float in a wholly unrealistic
way. It is trivial to paint on 'blood' stains as expected to
illustrate the Passion of Christ after the base image is formed.
> includes forensic evidence that would have been far more expensive to
>acquire in Medieval times than could be hoped for in revenue from
>sale/display of a relic, and that anyway Medieval science was unaware of
>(dust from Jerusalem ground into the fabric; pollen and plant images).
>These last have been identified by skeptical, non-Christian observers,
>so are not dismissable as wishful thinking;
Each of these claim can be dismissed for a different reason.
DUST FROM JERUSALEM
The first, the claim of dust from Jerusalem, is dismissable as an
assumption or belief passed off as fact.
Ray Rogers and Joseph Kohlbeck claim to have found traces of
limestone unique to Jerusalem on the shroud.
Chemically. limestone is the mineral form of calcium carbonate.
Rogers and Kohlbeck base the entirety of their claim on the
crystalline structure of the calcium carbonate, which is not the most
common one -- if the calcium carbonate was indeed limestone.
The assumption that it HAS to be limestone is unwarranted. With that
assumption removed, so is the restriction to only a few places on
earth. If we assess the evidence without starting by ssuming the
very thing we set out to prove, it actually supports an artistic
theory.
Calcium carbonate, aka whiting, is mixed with ferrous sulfate (aka
copperas or green vitriol) in a common recipe for making the pigment
red ocher, aka Venetian Red. Walter McCrone conducted blind tests to
show that the particles of iron oxides on sticky tapes taken from
image areas of the shroud were distinguishable from random oxides
found throughout the cloth. The microscopic and spectral properties
of the iron oxides on the image conformed most closely to his file
records of either jeweller's rouge or Venetian Red.
That leaves a plausible scenario for the traces of calcium carbonate
Rogers found. It was left over reactant contaminating the Venetian
Red used by the shroud artist.
The immediate predictive consequence of this hypothesis is that
traces of calcium carbonate could appear anywhere on the image.
Unfortunately, absence of evidence in this case cannot be taken as
evidence of absence. It is quite possible that the only traces of
the contaminant remaining are in the one location found.
A second test would be to examine the crystal structure of whiting as
it was commonly made in medieval times to see if it is resembles the
aragonite form Rogers and Kohlbeck found.
POLLEN
The second, pollen, is dismissable as planted and quite possibly
fabricated evidence.
Only Max Frei claims to have found pollen on his sticky tapes.
STURP sticky tapes show no trace. That alone requires an explanation
of why they should get different results.
However, a reanalysis of Frei's tapes (from both 1973 and 1978) after
he died FAILED TO SHOW POLLEN on them, either. Precisely one of his
tapes had more than traces of pollen, and that was entirely on the
"lead," the part used for handling that never came in contact with
the shroud. There, it was mixed with traces of cotton (as from a
researcher's cotton glove).
The case for deliberate planting is a bit more circumstantial. It
was frei who gathered all of the comparison samples. He did not do
so objectively, but gathered them only in regions that another
apologist's pseudohistory dictated the shroud 'shoud' have been.
He made many claims about the specificity of his identifications
that professional palynologists dispute could EVER be made with the
limited samples he did take. Finally, Frei has a past history of
fabricating evidence.
Apart from the case for fraud is the high implausibility that the
pollen evidence is real in the first place. Some two thirds (42 out
of 57) of the species Frei claimed to have identified are insect
pollinated. That leaves them no plausible way to get on the shroud
to begin with. We're left with believing either that insects wiped
their arses en masse on the shroud or that masses of people rubbed
pollinating plants on it. The last includes believing that the people
rubbed pollen on parts of the shroud that they had no idea even
existed, if we arte also to accept the pseudohistory Frei's pollen is
supposed to confirm.
PLANT IMAGES
The third claim, of plant images, need not be taken even this
seriously. It is based solely on the claims of Alan Whanger, a
retired psychiatrist who, despite having no background whatsoever in
image analysis, declared himself an expert for porposes of
authenticating the shroud. The technique he devised consists of
laying third- and fourth-generation Polaroids of prints of
photographs taken of the shroud on top of each other and 'seeing'
images in beteen the overlayed Polaroids.
Whanger has never presented a series of blind tests to prove that this
so-called PIOT technique can reveal hidden images under controlled
(i.e., non-shroud) conditions. Until he does so, there is no reason for
anyone to believe that any of the plant images exist outside his febrile
imagination and those of a few cohorts. On it's face, the whole
routine of the clueless newbie who proclaims himself an 'expert' and
invents 'revolutionary' new methods outside the ken of established
professionals with which he makes equally remarkable discoveries
that just happen to satisfy his fervent beliefs is one that simply
screams 'crackpot!'
When crackpots become an important source of your 'unanswerable'
evidence, your case is in pretty bad shape.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOz/hmayjdWYzk1A5AQH2GQf9GiHqXKWMdcpuEKvQaHpqH1DdW5P0FXFB
2gkBKDZ3ZTJ6wGNd0midIqwc7WJrR8BLPOjYCtkfd0MQivvCZOMY83Nr7SA05HB9
nyisRVwrrUaSkDFWyTVD4FqgMae5PxSfTcl6gGqz49f6T/rTU7DIZ1jiMO5+71NF
inUNvwP2Dr4mXmKFgZWj8X3DfKCnt2GZdrVDVJlmzVuLNV+Z5Pcemhhlj+6X3MEV
oM7l22OKslOCY1HJnGjkLeB2bvgXm1IIuqJQGNjjjGnW+pRifWeXRoABzBCcIbOb
eG62GfDMKoivAYo2ZwVWeKCcVn8ChrjJtAzxXIvMeeUrhcL5rZ35rA==
=6RyZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <EDFC874D97D9D82E.9B9CC977...@lp.airnews.net>,
Chris Cunningham <ly...@pdq.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Trenton G. Twining" wrote:
[snip]
>> What disproven ideas are being clung to? There are some that have been
>> called into question, but I don't know anyone in the undecided camp or
>> the authentic camp who's clinging to them.
>
> Let's see. Pollen data that can't be used to locate the Shroud
>as having been anywhere more accurate than the Mediterranian region.
>Numerous forensic scientists that used very specific blood tests which
>never detected a trace of blood. Impossible blood flows, including
>blood
>that "miraculously" appeared on top of the hair without matting.
>Remarkable convolutions of the body as well as noteworthy "deformities"
>in the limbs and face. Oh, and dare I forget, contemporary reports of
>the fake nature of the Shroud, and owners who refused to explain where
>it came from. I'm sure there are some I'm forgetting. Ken, Frank,
>what else is there?
The whole temporal-reversal iconography bit. The signs of injuries
(e.g., on the knees, from three separate falls) that weren't conceived
of until the 13th century. The bogus DNA claims (see below).
[snip]
> For the rubbing technique, Nickell showed that, not only is it
>possible to do it without getting pigment deep in the fibers, but that
>the chemical change could easily have been caused by oxidation of the
>fibers induced by the pigments themselves, which, of course, mostly came
>off after being subjected to washings, fires, and multitudinal viewings.
One other thing. Under ~50X magnification, the image shows a
checkerboard pattern and a tendency not to dip into the phyically
lower fibers (can't recall whether they are warp or weft) in the
weave. There is no radiation that could behave this way. Nickell
however, duplicated this effect by light rubbing.
[snip]
>> C14 date. And even that may not end the debate. If a well conducted
>> C14 dating placed the Shroud mftr in the 1st century, are you going to
>> concede that it is Christ's gravecloth?
>
> Well, first of all, I consider this hypothetical in the extreme.
>I am in no way concerned that a new C14 test, performed under standards
>that even STURP couldn't argue with, is going to date the linen to the
>1st century. But if it did, I'd concede that it was a remarkable thing,
>and perhaps even the actual beginning of the Resurrection myths centered
>around a person called Jesus.
I don't consider that too relevant. Even if *properly conducted* C14
tests did yield a 1st century date, they'd still have to explain why
the 1988 results were 14th century. Assuming they did so, I have
difficulty with the idea of a 1st century cloth. My worldview does
not depend on the belief that 1st century Jews were all nudists or
anything.
[snip]
>> development of the image. But it is blood. McCrone's visual
>> identification is not going to sway me from a blood-type analysis done
>> by the University of Texas DNA lab. Done by technicians unaware of the
>> source of the sample.
>>
> Which tests were these again? Were these same technicians aware
>of the reported presence of red ochre and vermillion, and of the
>possible
>related presence of albumin-based artist's media? Or did they perform
>the same tests as Heller and Adler, who failed to mention the reported
>presence of contaminants that would give false positives?
These were the ones who were told "Here's a piece of the shroud. run
it through the works." (Some blind testing, eh?). They had no
advance warning, did no cleaning, or even the minimal tests to
eliminate the possibility that they were actually analzing the DNA
from one of those hundreds of people that supporters figure
contaminated the shroud so badly that the C14 tests were unreliable.
They're also the same technicians -- or was it their boss -- whose
analysis was so top-notch they identified social constructs in
the DNA that have no biological basis (we do know that ethnicity is
a solely a social/political invention, don't we?). And that alone is
reason enough to consider their results bogus.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOz/pm6yjdWYzk1A5AQFFxQf+JqDXHbPfL0Qy88RPA4SGhmukA5p/1ztU
BOVAm7+6LklWLhovGAFKF+l5guEyRuGq1o4EWh6EN/CGW8Zn+ZY17ImFwU7ScOtw
mCOfLdGab7SNMpm6K3rCuxv8KYC3WUBfDrBTKag6z3U/wB0XlVnXoAO26jUKmRPH
IZFYL6ljXAIi2J7gj2i9mITM5ayo3GoObWeK6wTffSOJVh1Klc0zSIljp2PXWWNi
SyBjHHKxOJ9iEHkXt2jDvhTrehTacXRBqQ3INxCiyZQYAZAEGgueg9off5mUdMYg
Q3sRwx98A/OoWQlJ7lhP0JhxJM7Dbx/T2rroPZltELDd1WhKMVKTFQ==
=F7FA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
convince here- you or us?
Bob Haroldsen
Frank Weaver
In article <20010630161550...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
[snip]
>The fact is, (again) anyone with eyes and a brain can see that the similarities
>between the face on the Shroud of Turin and the sixth and seventh century
>Pantocrator icons and Byzantine coins depicting Jesus go far beyond any
>possibility of coincidence.
Of course they aren't a coincidence, silly! They show that the shroud
artist, along with every other artist since, followed an already
established convention on what Jesus looked like.
But point-for-point identical? It is to laugh!
[snip]
>Since I already mentioned the similarities between a Byzantine coin and the
>face on the Shroud, let's now look at an icon of Jesus found deep in the Sinai
>desert in a Greek Orthodox monastery- an icon painted in the sixth century.
Oh! Good example. This is the one in the Monastery of St.
Catherine (Wilson 1998, plate 38b)? Let's see how they match.
Longish face -- check.
Long hair -- check.
Moustache -- check.
Full beard -- check.
Aquiline nose -- check.
Split beard -- hey, waitaminit! The Pantocrator's beard doesn't
split!
Vignon mark open square over the nose -- missing!
Vignon mark line across forehead -- missing!
And so forth.
Now let's do the same for the solidus from Justinian II (Wilson,
plate 38a) Wilson states it has "a particularly close affinity to
the Shroud face."
Longish face -- sort of. It appears much rounder than either the
shroud or the Pantocrators, though (influence of Gothic style?)
Long hair -- no. The solidus hass less than shoulder-length hair.
Moustache -- check.
Full beard -- check.
Aquiline nose -- check. Much broader than on the Pantocrator, though.
Split beard -- check.
Vignon mark open square over the nose -- missing!
Vignon mark line across forehead -- missing!
And check out the high arch of the eyebrows, much higher than on the
shroud.
Now how about another of Wilson's plates, a Pantocrator from the
Ponziano catacomb which is contemporaneous with the solidus.
Face is round, not long. Beard is not split. Eyebrows more like
the Sinai Pantocrator than the solidus. Moustache in three parts (not
two, as on the shroud, or one, as one the solidus and Sinai
Pantocrator).
Why should this be so unusual? Artists always put their individual
marks on their work, even when they depict the same person. How many
different caricatures of, say, Richard Nixon, have you seen? Each
cartoonist depicts the same traditional features, e.g. the five
o'clock shadow and the ski-slope nose, but each does so in his own
unique style. It's obvious that the shroud artist did the same
thing.
>First of all, by far the best way to see the comparison is to buy the video In
>Pursuit of the Shroud from The Learning Channel. (You can get it from
>www.tlc.com or call 1-800-475-6636 - no I don't get a kick-back from this!) and
>watch closely as the image of the Pantocrator is faded in and out against an
>image of the face on the Shroud.
Morphing technology has come a long way, hasn't it? I don't need
to use morphing gimmickry to disguise differences between the images
that are readily visible to the naked eye.
[snip]
>now known, (since the advent of photography) that the man on the Shroud's eyes
>are actually shut, which is largely responsible for his majestic and peaceful
>appearance as viewed in the negative.
Hmm, if I were painting a dead body, I'd probably choose to paint it
with eyes closed, too. You'll note that every copy we have of the
Mandylion shows the eyes wide open. That too is just what one would
expect of an image whose legend is that it was a washcloth on which a
living Christ dried his face.
[usual stale ranting deleted]
>If one is tempted for a split second to believe that the Shroud has been either
>explained or duplicated (as Weaver heatedly maintains) all he has to do is look
>at how little agreement there is among the skeptics as to how the image was
>formed. For one thing, they can't even decide if the image is a painting or a
>centuries-old photograph!
Here is where you display your ignorance of scientific method, Bob.
There are several viable hypotheses of how the artist made the shroud
precisely BECAUSE it is so less than extraordinary. Each hypothesis
accounts for the known features of the shroud by quite natural
artistic processes. Eventually, some evidence will turn up that one
hypothesis can explain but another cannot. That is called
'discriminating evidence.'
Here are some more examples of 'discriminating evidence.'
(1) The complete lack of wraparound distortion is consistent with
every one of the artistic hypotheses 9even the less viable ones, such
the grisaille (sp?) painting hypothesis. But it is impossible to
explain by the 'authenticity model' without resorting to low-rent
miracles that imply deliberate deception on God's part.
(2) The carbon dating is consistent with every one of the medieval
hypotheses but require all sorts of conniving excuses for the
authenticity hypothesis. Yet none of those excuses even come close to
establishing a legitimate date consistent with the hypothesis without
invoking yet more miraculous deception.
(3) The historical evidence supports every one of the medieval
artistic hypotheses but again refutes the authenticity hypothesis,
unless shroud apologists totally ignore the actual history and devise
their own make-believe one.
(4) The wholly unnatural way the blood floats on top of the image
without smearing, smudging or capillary action is consistent with
being painted on. The same applies in spades to the 'blood' floating
on top of the hair. It cannot be rationally accounted for by shroud
apologists.
There's a pattern here. Any real scientific hypothesis facing
repeated refutal by discriminating evidence on point after point is
quietly buried. Pseudoscientists, however, never give up their
precious beliefs. They may try to wear the facade of science, but
when the evidence goes against them, they either ignore it or dream
up all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations and excuses, 'new brands of
physics' and whatever other mental flatulence is necessary to keep
up appearances at all costs.
That sure sounds like the charade of shroud 'science' to me. Now do
you see why the burden is on you to show why the shroud 'can't be
duplicated?' There's so much discriminating evidence which artistry
theories (ANY artistry theory) account for easily but which authenticity
claims cannot rationally handle that the very idea that the shroud is
NOT the work of a human artist deserves a snort of disbelief from
anyone of any sense.
>As for Weaver's "history" of the Edessa cloth and the Mandylion, again, all he
>can do is to try to divert attention by blowing smoke and using heated
>rhetoric. I'll get into that history next post.
History, no. It's a legend, like Excaibur or the Rheingold or the
Palantir of Westernesse. The legend of the Mandylion was written
c. 10th century. It was even printed in one of Wilson's earlier
books, if you'd care to read it.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO0jcH6yjdWYzk1A5AQGbLAf/Vh/q5N+qcqCr4Qc7gwqnUaeu6H08hFSO
CkNFIK97H6wG2L6NpRNBhsEe1446HbPMIAtKu9OGvwB5D3vsbtscAjXQmggwT8GV
g3C6E1E91+SUPv4VOzbUzAxyRgqcnCLVU+O+NxuniHQIW++QkzCjq+580ZsNYg9F
L/DYrs5LqlpJHBEf2YwNtuxAAkbZJiQGhVASM27Br4bUJuj/DC7N8MlrQwPGWhPX
i3kC9VoPZ7noCDsmEqAvOIU36VC0b4lfx/Q818ovXXee+QGKLdzvoP/E8zDduZMi
HNNXDAazTOHDTnkghIArJg0KbFKf0m9OvHVztwHsU51W3/2pZxMVEQ==
=ryKW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20010629044352...@ng-cp1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Wrong again Mr. Weaver. The coin I was referring to is the solidus seen on page
>33 of Alan Whanger's book The Shroud of Turin- an Adventure in Discovery.
There's two coins. Whoop-de-doo.
>Although the one you're talking about looks for all the world like the face on
>the Shroud too. (Are you sure you don't need to get your eyes checked Frank?)
>For example, notice that under the man's beard on the coin are two parallel
>lines. These two unmistakable lines can be seen on the Shroud in exactly the
>same place.
Try something, Bob. Frown into a mirror. Notice the crease lines
that form under your chin? Now try knitting your eyebrows together.
Oooh! See the little crease above your nose? How about the raised
skin just at the top of your nose below the brow line.
Now let's talk about those two lines under the chin. And the open
square between the eyebrows. And the triangle over the nose. And
matbe some of the other oh-so-mysterious Vignon markings.
So, how do artists paint emotion? What sorts of graphical symbolism
would they use to show sternness, nobility, severity, suffering,
agony? Facial expressions, for one. Certain things like skin
creases and bulges in the right places or the tilt of the mouth
indicate emotion on faces. Stylized representations of those facial
expressions indicate emotions in artworks.
So shroud apologists engage in data mining to find other images of
Jesus that display attitudes similar to the one on the shroud, then
ooh and ahh over the 'mysterious' markings. Part of that is the
pretense (really, more of a lie) that the markings are utterly
identical from image to image. They aren't. Look, for instance, at
how Wilson (1998, plate 39d) rationalises away the sweeping 'U' of the
creased brow in an c. 1100 Pantocrator. It's a 'stylized' version of
the topless square, he says. It's not a bit square, and actually
combines the creased brow with the forehead wrinkle (another Vignon
mark). But the markings themselves lose much of their mystery if you
give them a little thought. They are themselves stylized graphical
symbols for facial expressions.
Of course, all the other images of Jesus, as Christ the Judge or
Christ the King, etc., that DON'T have portray the same facial
expressions (and therefore don't have the right markings) get
brushed under the carpet.
[snip]
>There is no evidence the Shroud is a grave cloth? It bares the image of a dead
>man,
*sigh* So does the Pieta, Bob. So do all the crucifixion, death and
burial scenes ever created, which is a lot.
Use some sense, for Chrissake. Evidence that something really was a
grave cloth would be if it were actually found in a grave, wrapped
around a dead body, or both. A stencil reading "J. Ghoul & Sons,
Undertakers" might be adequate circumstantial evidence, though.
>complete with his anatomically perfect bloody wounds- and the blood is
>real blood even if Joe Nickell disagrees.
And also Frache, Rizzati, Mari, Brandone, McCrone, Filogamo and
Fischer, all of whom conducted tests that thoroughly refute this
claim.
This, and your remaining claims, I have rebutted at great length in
prior posts. You have not addressed any of those rebuttals.
It's disingenuous of you to continue to bring up long discredited
claims without even attempting to deal with any of the evidence
refuting them. I can't completely rule out intentional deceit on
your part, but I prefer to make the charitable assumption that you
are so blinded by your own prejudices that you can't get your mind
around the evidence of how false they are. It's a well-known
psychological phenomenon called cognitive dissonance.
>As for the chafe marks, I don't see any chaffing in any areas that would
>correspond to an upright beam-
I drew directly from claims made by Wilson (1998) and Antonacci.
>in fact all I see below the man's hair is
>numerous well-defined scorge marks. And as for the Jewish burial, I believe
>that there is evidence that Jesus WAS washed.
The image totally lacks the wraparound distortion that is expected and
*required* to have by the laws of geometry if it were wrapped around a
three dimensional object (body OR statue). I won't waste my time
rebutting rantings about how a body that could not have been there
was handled.
[snip]
>Finally, the word "ekmageion." I believe Guscin points out, as you did, that
>the Latin (and if I said Greek, it was my mistake not Guscin's) is equivelent
>to impressio or impression.
Your specific assertion was that Guscin claimed it is somehow related
to the Latin word 'mandil' (towel). That's a load of nonsense.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO0h6xqyjdWYzk1A5AQGEAgf/Su5fB4MGH2MbE2EefK1It/7lJOpPs749
X8MgtlDvJGaEWrtgq3olEEeCsLXfZqEyzszygcquDlSmPUk5VL92R1PizFoW6VYf
P1n2KkJOVv3CLdYIjLUBLCziY3XLr12PDXeDyjUdptwwa9nCzmXR6RdDQW6vRq00
VYtAqW8GJU3yFYPkJ9qU881elI0ddDNX6E2eHzv2Oi/tHnZGL7MlxyQBwqmzvVsI
HCIblYPCOfuGzr6VR5IBjnpcOabhGQCHb1ZvR3H332qFWWpumGhxDaJivsVPeXqg
cMWnJH0tDErsAWjmn6qZsF7S/dE+K6XAYR3hhgMQ6F7xi06MZD4UQQ==
=f5GC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20010702022156...@ng-mm1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Weaver- are you ok? I worry about you buddy! Who, may I ask, are you trying to
>convince here- you or us?
I take this to mean that you can't defend the temporally reversed
iconogrphic theory, or the claim that ehtnic/religious associations
were detected in DNA (what next, political party?), or the apparent
spuriousness of the pollen evidence.
As for what might change my mind on the carbon dating, I stand by
what I posted. It's possible to do that, just very, very unlikely.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO0jfdqyjdWYzk1A5AQH7xwf8D5Pl/NuyToJHymkGpJkIwQ1MPyBVrGbj
Zk9ZD2B+z7sFl0EAPPNEqCuOI+h2SfIXE3Rzc85LcA+NEaAuI06/vvhm2ibmNd99
UrBV2h0DNzWNY0JWiiomvUZoQ3i99vp4RnsOsojJWvTnBWhHY/+TbB7SDAFf9LkV
yvc8je+aOk3gSY86Kwbj887+PrGolvvi1LKROoVg/zNsJlnVLj2gSSuVNO0h4OGl
kBSy7q+zXVOKrvDPgHGZ8l+31FZ96+FHMfhvD4utV7cJGPC83K07E9ReunfVYBwB
pQ9ZcT9v3WwuCFaxwRu4DgwEaEllneLMa/yCODURSSoVz8/FtR/tVw==
=a8Oz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <312D59CCADD582D9.75775CED...@lp.airnews.net>,
Chris Cunningham <ly...@pdq.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Perhaps because he figured the lighter the image, the less obvious
>it would be that it was painted? Seems pretty apparent to me. Use as
>little stuff as possible, so that when a skeptical bishop runs his
>finger
>over it, there's not enough pigment to stain his finger and thereby give
>the forger away.
Another good reason is because a 'miraculous' acheiropoietos image is
SUPPOSED to be extremely faint and made from a substance that looks
like an exudation of natural body fluids.
[snip]
> I don't have Horowitz's study in front of me at the moment.
>Assuming that his study was accurate and places the pollens on it as
>non-windborn plants that could only be from the area of Israel, that
>does help your case.
I think it does the opposite. Actually, I think it hurts Trenton's
case either way.
The problem with non-windborn pollens is how do you get them on the
shroud? This requires poeple to gather lots of flowers -- always
pollinating ones, to boot -- then then rub, rub, rub, to get that
pollen out. Not a likely thing for them to be doing, especially
during the lengthy periods of time (c. 1200 years) when the shroud
was allegedly either hidden in walls or folded up so they couldn't
rub the pollen without unfolding it.
Windblown pollen is also a problem because of its specificity.
Strange that the winds blow ONLY from the Levant, Anatolia and the
Black Sea, all locations that adherents want to place the shroud.
Don't winds also blow from, say, Eastern Europe, the Carpathians,
North Africa? Where are those pollens?
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO0jiU6yjdWYzk1A5AQEDXAf+Nzmc4zRfqx/Nbv51DcvcP7hmrxM7okLE
9cvsi6rXbubVRY/93oTwpqo+ILgp6FvCBu5/Fu71HZ+Lh87qXoTIfM0tgb3t88vI
N1So5nSDNylVFXOHwYklC4FetHd9AlOGcyGWj5wuZ6FqLo2diAhLZSOyuKmk9r/l
wAWiyalnR6hflvDQ67fr/F9a2fNyXS14l4kzHZWf/uBO3lVuRBzU+dzRA0yqUNyV
YURxtbDFuJwSjiOe8VaaKjx1JfHZgcRI0/WQqcyV4hz00gvmt+jaiHYkwVnrXXyL
ftwuExZiwuM2amgrbo0W+03EZYS9SbVEnHNlH4XBLkfLS4nKF8YwxA==
=TOKG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
likely was- a Semitic male. Although type AB blood is comparatively rare among
Eruopeans and is found in only 3.2 percent of the world's population as a
whole, it' incidence is 18 percent among Jewish populations of the present day
Near East.
(See The Turin Shroud by Ian Wilson and Barrie Schwortz page 76.)
As for defending the "temporally reversed iconograghic theory" I'm not actually
sure what you mean by that Mr. Weaver. I do know that coinciding with the
rediscovery of the Edessa cloth, Jesus was suddenly depicted in exactly the
manner seen on the Shroud right down to tiny individual markings. (See The
Shroud of Turin; An Adventure in Discovery by Alan Whanger. Also, The Blood and
the Shroud by Ian Wilson. Also, The Turin Shroud by Ian Wilson and Barrie
Schwortz.)
As for the pollen data, there is nothing spurious about it at all once one
understands that bunches of flowers were placed on and around the man of the
Shroud before the top part of his grave cloth was folded over him. These
flowers served not only to contaminate the cloth with their own pollen spores,
but also many other plant types which were indigenous to the Middle East and
produced wind-borne pollen. Why? Because they had effectively acted as 'pollen
traps'. Some of the pollen grains present on the Shroud match the corresponding
flower type images seen on the cloth, which in turn match in position the
images of flowers some of the die makers included on the coins depicting Jesus.
(See Flora of the Shroud of Turin by Alan Whanger, Avinoam Danin and Uri
Baruch. Missouri Botanical Garden Press. Also, The Shroud of Turin; An
Adventure in Discovery by Alan Whanger.)
Bob Haroldsen
Bobbycindi
up on the Shroud is the book I referred to earlier; Flora of the Shroud of
Turin by Danin, Whanger and Baruch- Missouri Botanical Garden Press (which is a
peer-reviewed journal) Since I covered the subject in the post just before this
one, I won't go over it again. Just keep in mind, that whereas Danin and Baruch
were originally skeptical of Whanger's findings, these two guys are among the
leading scientists in the world in their respective fields of botany and
palynology, and both are now convinced that Whanger knows what he's talking
about.
Bob
Bobbycindi
extraordinary amount of time getting worked up about it?
Bob
Bobbycindi
the mirror because this identical pair of hoizontal lines has nothing to do
with anatomy, but rather creases in the cloth. First, turn to page 18 in
Whanger's book. Look at the top picture of the face and notice the lines I'm
talking about which cut across the man's neck. Now, turn to page 34 and notice
these exact lines on the coin in the upper right. It seems to me that calling
THAT a coincidence is what's silly!
Again, rather than sitting here wasting time arguing over each and every mark
and detail, I would urge the reader to pick up any of the books I've mentioned
and carefully look for himself. Or better still, get the video In Pursuit of
the Shroud by The Learning Channel (www.tlc.com) where one can see the
comparison using Whanger's polarized overlay technique as one image is faded
into another. The question then becomes (after it becomes obvious that either
the Shroud was a direct copy a Byzantine coin/ Pantocrator, or the coins and
icons were made while looking at the Shroud) why should one consider the Shroud
as a man-made work of art when the professional arts say otherwise, as does
virtually all the science which has been done on the cloth? Because Frank
Weaver says so? Not hardly! Again, least there be any doubt no one, using any
technology, has ever duplicated the Shroud. And given that this hauntingly
beautiful photo-negative image exists only on the millions of microscopic
fibrals of the linen and consists of a chemical change in the cellulose, it
wold indeed appear to be impossible. For sure, neither Frank Weaver nor Joe
Nickell has done it!
As for your comment that the Shroud must not be a grave cloth because it wasn't
found in a grave, I guess using that logic I could rightfully assume that all
the sheets in my closest aren't bed sheets because they're not on my bed!
As for Frache, Rizzati, Mari, Brandone, McCrone, Filogamo and Fischer, I once
named a number of scientists (70 to be exact) who had studied the Shroud
extensively and concluded it was authentic. But I included references to the
published papers they'd written so that this information carried some meaning.
Bob Haroldsen
Bobbycindi
Frank Weaver's assertion that the burden is on us (the believers in the
Shroud's authenticity) to show why the Shroud can't be duplicated. Mr. Weaver
might just as well have asserted that the burden is on us to prove that people
can't walk on water! Let's tackle that one first. Thinking real hard it comes
to us; people can't walk on water because (1) it would seem impossible, and (2)
we never see it happen. Now let's do the Shroud. It can't be duplicated because
(1) it would seem impossible, and (2) we see but one Shroud, and sure enough,
we can't duplicate it. In fact we wouldn't know how to begin. (We're aware of
the fact that, among other things, STURP established that the image exists only
on the millions of fibrals on the linen threads and consists of a chemical
change in the cellulose.)
But somehow we get the feeling the skeptics might not be satisfied with our
efforts. That being the case, it will likely occur to him that really, the
burden of proof is on HIM! So what does he do? First, he denies that the image
is substanceless because that makes it too hard. (This requires, of course,
that he reject the scientific findings of STURP) and second, he maintains that
the various hopelessly inferior efforts that pop up occasionally are proof that
the Shroud CAN be duplicated!
This is true science all right! Nevermind what the professional arts have to
say, or the scientists from across the board who troubled to have their work
peer-reviewed. They're wrong! Why? Because they HAVE to be. The Shroud CAN be
duplicated! Simply shut off the brain, squint your eyes real hard and try not
to laugh at the 'proof.' Now, repeat this mantra in the name of Occam's razor-
the Shroud cannot be what it looks like, the Shroud cannot be what it looks
like, the Shroud cannot be what it looks like...
Bob
J. Swica
> named a number of scientists (70 to be exact) who had studied the Shroud
Frank Weaver
In article <20010709204510...@ng-ma1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Okay Frank, let's talk about those two lines under the chin. But don't look in
>the mirror because this identical pair of hoizontal lines has nothing to do
>with anatomy, but rather creases in the cloth. First, turn to page 18 in
>Whanger's book. Look at the top picture of the face and notice the lines I'm
>talking about which cut across the man's neck. Now, turn to page 34 and notice
>these exact lines on the coin in the upper right. It seems to me that calling
>THAT a coincidence is what's silly!
You know what, Bob? While taking a break from this shroud stuff, I
was looking through another of my volumes of iconography, I found
exactly the same two lines across the neck on a depiction of Mithras
Kosmokrator, and again on a statue of Mithras with lion head and
serpent. There's even an almost identical one (only one line!) of
the the Hellenistic god Aion (time) Anyone can see the same thing in
David Ulansey's book, "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries," pp.
122-124.
Why, this is proof that the shroud image is so powerful and
impressive that even pagans copied its image to depict their own pagan
gods. But the shroud is also so totlaaly miraculous that it was
inspiring these pagan artists sometimes centuries before Jesus was
even born!
Obviously, these lines can't be anything as simple as the collarbone.
That would be too logical and unmysterious. The one thing we have to
do with the shroud is manufacture mysteries out of the most trivial
of marks to prove how miraculous it is.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO1BhJayjdWYzk1A5AQFDzQf8C31gi073oxVhU/SPfwCz/24RV90EdXaT
/HWyRIMS3ztXhc4SWt/t6LxrzxBWh6nDCNpy64J6Ad4FMMTsnwRgPYTcBQ1srMwB
7KDGuvIhY8HzU/hvDTWQUbIcuaVtO14nCevW2ySfyXwNneAfyCHnSHkk3LTbcnwZ
P+Xj/xLLmkntnlt6z92wq9qn0pbDpZx4TGARabNJGdkrUPwxavIPvJGJPmh8e4u5
8rNr3WIkqkUlxe81nCOwdrH74lQX5KmNPkSmnD0BJQksGRXr+Rq36NgqdF8Sw4o/
d13lLen4t7FGa9HxuphhrohO+U6vtN+zeBU5nbXTD0cGmebgFpsJ+Q==
=ZNha
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20010709201217...@ng-ma1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Frank, if the Shroud is "so less than extraordinary," why do you spend such an
>extraordinary amount of time getting worked up about it?
Oh, my! You are the disingenuous coward, aren't you?
Have you no response to the mountain of discriminating evidence I
presented that establishes that the shroud is, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, a medieval artifact? Or that it is, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, an artistic creation? There was even one piece of evidence
that establishes that it is both.
But, to answer your question, I do enjoy exposing those people whose
case is so decrepit, so irrational, that they retreat to shameless
evasions like this one whenever they're confronted by the evidence of
the absurdity of their positions. Have you no answer to the evidence?
What better proof of intellectual dishonesty do I need?
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO1BaLqyjdWYzk1A5AQGBGwf+PV/Kec8besXAq+Yy5rqNpHW/FXSZgbOd
sv9qUftfCSxay+00pSevOaiPThG1Og0bI5E7C9zgvq+0w7zb5piLBSvC6/uVZyK1
V7gWdyk+aHI67Z4BXu/mbNCbrxHiifireZ5PqrvuzNzc5v8+SpQraVzk9GQ48NtE
0IkRroauup4oN4jdjCP63UTK0Si2rGgH7xsLBYcQrH4zAkbz9sN9PXVLDjAWHB0q
Jo9azLbB9yMSEUnU4Vbi2sZAuLVguZyRn3Bjq6C4yrvKa4tHS9e9iqckI2BRKpUn
vg5ot9f94WRRGUc51zhC8Ep8aL2yZXFcv1+QXIr19TW2iouwH9IzcA==
=i7AC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
far as I can see, you have yet to produce a shred of evidence that the Shroud
is a medieval work of art. Are you talking about the bishop who claimed the
Shroud was a painting? If that's your evidence, I would point out that it means
virtually nothing. Anyone can say anything they want but unless they can
produce evidence they have nothing. The bishop (D'arcis was his name?) had a
'problem' with the Shroud alright, but the Pope told him to shut up about it.
He never saw the Shroud or named the artist that supposedly admitted to
painting it. It was a classic case of hearsay.
What I think it comes down to is what Barrie pointed out. And that is that the
image on the Shroud has yet to be explained or duplicated using any technology.
I noticed Barrie challenged you to name a mechanism that could explain it's
unique features. I, for one, am curious to see how you'll answer him. Also, why
are you so insistent that the Shroud is a work of art when you can't name a
single artist to back you up?
Frank Weaver
In article <tkpb2k9...@corp.supernews.com>,
"J. Swica" <jer...@hvi.net> wrote:
>
>"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote in message > As for Frache, =
>Rizzati, Mari, Brandone, McCrone, Filogamo and Fischer, I once
>> named a number of scientists (70 to be exact) who had studied the =
>Shroud
>> extensively and concluded it was authentic. > Bob Haroldsen
>
>Everyone knows McCrone and possibly Fischer from Frank's post.The other =
>scientists noted were all from the earlier investigations of the shroud =
>from what I am to understand was larger threads, and not just fibrils as =
>was done in 1978. Do any of you gentlemen(Bob/Frank) know of where =
>they're work was published?
Professors Frache, Brandone and Filogamo were the forensic experts on
the Turin Commission. Frache and Filogamo are specifically experts
in the forensic identification of bloodstains. Rizzati and Mari are
colleagues of Frache's who assisted him in the analysis. The work of
all five appears, as far as i know, only in the "Report of the Turin
Commission," issued in 1976. If you find out where to get a copy,
let me know.
>I"m only getting references from =
>McCrone(second hand in his book) and as footnotes from another article . =
> I don't think Barries site has much on them, but I could be wrong. Most =
>of what they wrote was unfavorable at that time, and possibly be best =
>forgotten by many proponents of the shroud.
Yes, it appears to part of a fairly systematic effort to avoid/evade
as much evidence as possible that bursts their bubble. Even Ian
Wilson, once styled "the most open-minded of the shroud apologists"
by a reviewer, has become one of the yellow journalists. he can't
be accused of 'forgetting' the Turin Commission. His 1978 book treats
it at great length, even if just to direct ad hominems at members
about which he has nothing else to say.. In his 1998 "The Blood and
the Shroud," he mentions the Commission only once, in his
chronological appendix, which says little more than that they took
some photographs. He doesn't mention any of the Commission members
by name, except the photographer, Gilbert Raes (for cutting samples),
and Frei. Unlike in 1978, he discusses absolutely none of their
analyses or findings, except Frei's (of course).
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO1IvpqyjdWYzk1A5AQG5Jwf/R6jY00vzuVt0+m9SdEYtOut+3cEDg6Lz
gFtSaFLc5F76qxB8OGuXJbdpNbhHSk5+1oNveLPtzkr7FDIMJKd5+D+l53G072uz
3+kp2qQZrDPbbwnd3v0CuV751fxTVSDaibSbfqa+b7yaaTNXzBuWDuXD7nmrr6ge
l6PbwdMR5lUOzEF95AV2xgaD8osXC8KQgBhvYDH+LDqQCrpQHnSRxVvZuQT5Vcao
sU0eikypsEBmXpnBGDa1igezkrQSuMI2IDdhKXZUD1FPRj2usEuiODFD/kafPHXZ
h9vWB2kw8B2WL2Y0e5/Xc1njUfGX1KslVMV6DaxSOriqFVfVb6IU5w==
=DBx0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20010709183610...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>The type AB male blood found on the Shroud is not inconsistent with what Jesus
>likely was- a Semitic male. Although type AB blood is comparatively rare among
>Eruopeans and is found in only 3.2 percent of the world's population as a
>whole, it' incidence is 18 percent among Jewish populations of the present day
>Near East.
Such an abuse of probability would get you fired from any forensics
job in the land. Even under very generous assumptions of the
proportion of Semites in the first-century population (5%), there's
somewhat less than one chance in a hundred that any type AB blood
could have come from a Semite.
But when we *also* consider that the 'blood' came from "the worst
possible place for a sample" (per Adler), a location contaminated by
literally centuries of handling by literally hundreds of people
almost NONE of whom were Semitic and ANY of whom could have left
traces of their blood during handling, the odds that the blood could
be identified as Semitic vanish to the point of unbelievabiltiy.
Quite aside from that, you seem unable to realize that no amount of
antigen reaction can detect whether the blood is 'male' or 'female.'
As usual in shroud 'science,' this is a case of starting with the
desired answer and manufacturing the evidence to fit.
Small wonder why no legitimate journal would publish Baime-Bollone's
paper. It doesn't remotely meet any of the standards of scientific
research. It ended up in a shroud fanzine published out of Dorothy
Crispino's basement.
[snip]
>As for defending the "temporally reversed iconograghic theory" I'm not actually
>sure what you mean by that Mr. Weaver. I do know that coinciding with the
>rediscovery of the Edessa cloth, Jesus was suddenly depicted in exactly the
>manner seen on the Shroud right down to tiny individual markings.
And what does this have to do with a fake icon that first appeared
centuries later?
As long as we're on the subject, why is it only with shroud nuts that
I actually have topoint out that artists are not usually merely human
Xerox machines?
[snip]
>As for the pollen data, there is nothing spurious about it at all once one
>understands that bunches of flowers were placed on and around the man of the
>Shroud before the top part of his grave cloth was folded over him. These
There are several items of duplicity and/or incompetence in this fairy
story.
(1) To start with, the account itself is either incompetent or
dishonest. Sure, you can gull some of the people some of the time
by projecting 20th century Western burial customs backward and relying
on their cultural ignorance to keep from getting caught. Nevertheless,
there is no record, either in the hundreds of Biblical-era Judean burial
sites or in the Midrashic literature specifying the proper method of
burial, of flowers being placed in the grave at all, much less wrapped up
against the body.
(2) The second issue concerns the pollens of a dozen or so Anatolian
species allegedly found on the shroud. Those pollens are also from
insect-pollinated species, and therefore require direct contact
between flower and cloth, plus human or insect intervention, to get
into the fibrils. These pollens were allegedly found distributed in
various spots on both body images.
This requires some deliberately selective amnesia about the
pseudohistory advanced by shroud supporters themselves. According to
that pseudohistory, the cloth was kept tightly folded up and framed,
and, most importantly, was never unfolded (because it was always
believed to be only a facial image during this time). According to
that story, there is no possible way that the Anatolian pollens could
have gotten into the places they were allegedly found.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO1I9PayjdWYzk1A5AQGIyAf+M25VD27PM45Yu65QgD8T1zNHzbizI7uz
/9YI1rkRaHUZ4EN08ET2Wj3XFD8Cd6D7d/z7EeqBW036HMuCCAX0gzAnZJbK29tp
MKuBObdUj2pXMvEA+mG08wnfsveT2KMsW9KVtYsTa/8NtlmxnUFD78ka3LO/t96K
UliQydR/L20CtEAjNf9lNem33fEMzsrYMrDdonvsWNNWgNoEHt644FEsRBT/5xRc
dwmqtcdlf+nbaxANbT5blL5AEBDLmOvWLTjFlvq33d7juoMgChdfvn/r3cwGOOdK
2r1IZ05O5uzaGlrzgnnbpuz8Ub3PLZObcHPnhnzkiERBzZMRPzapoA==
=9Q9s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
J. Swica
"Frank Weaver" <wea...@world.std.com> wrote in message > Professors Frache,
Brandone and Filogamo were the forensic experts on
> the Turin Commission. Frache and Filogamo are specifically experts
> in the forensic identification of bloodstains. Rizzati and Mari are
> colleagues of Frache's who assisted him in the analysis. The work of
> all five appears, as far as i know, only in the "Report of the Turin
> Commission," issued in 1976. If you find out where to get a copy,
> let me know.
Thanks for the update. I'll let you know if I find anything on these
scientists. The web itself is a bit barren on their contribution to
shroudum.
On a side note, I did contact the International Association for
Identification on John Fischer's paper of 1983. The prompt reply from them
indicated no papers were available,but to contact Mr. Fischer directly at
his home address for possible copies of his findings. No Email address was
available.
From McCrone's book I get the indication that the Italian's only were
allowed samples from 'blood', and not from the fainter, less obvious
'image'. Since McCrone makes no distinction except in quantity of
particles/binder, he can claim there is no difference between these
areas.It's all the same substance!!! I only wonder if any of these
scientists kept any of their samples for others to examine(or some of these
men are deceased?).
Jerry
Bobbycindi
are actually a crease in the fabric. So apparently, by the time the 'artist'
who created the Shroud decided to do this 'collarbone', he'd run out of paint
and so grabbed his wife's iron (or maybe it was the wife who made it), made a
little fold in the cloth across the neck and ironed it in! But it had to be
done! Afterall, it was on that statue with the lion head!
Frank Weaver
In article <tl6k8kq...@corp.supernews.com>,
"J. Swica" <jer...@hvi.net> wrote:
[snip]
>On a side note, I did contact the International Association for
>Identification on John Fischer's paper of 1983. The prompt reply from them
>indicated no papers were available,but to contact Mr. Fischer directly at
>his home address for possible copies of his findings. No Email address was
>available.
The appendix of Nickell's book. "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin"
appears to be Fischer's own summary of this paper. It lacks the
formal abstract/methods/discussion/conclusion format of a more formal
paper, but deals with all the salient tests.
>From McCrone's book I get the indication that the Italian's only were
>allowed samples from 'blood', and not from the fainter, less obvious
>'image'. Since McCrone makes no distinction except in quantity of
>particles/binder, he can claim there is no difference between these
>areas.It's all the same substance!!!
I recall differently. McCrone claimed that red ochre was found
on both image and blood tapes, but more so on the image tapes. He
also claimed other red pigments, including vermilion and rose madder,
exclusively on tapes from the blood.
>I only wonder if any of these
>scientists kept any of their samples for others to examine(or some of these
>men are deceased?).
If I know scientists, some grad student will find their samples
buried in the back of some drawer or other about 60 years from now.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO1zZFayjdWYzk1A5AQHHiAf9FkWVCUXBhn8zLbLnEAQwxFSdDEW00Gow
rOiwvkOZ9d4dSdZbEPmwwl6ZWEAZCwiLD612s5VLnb0iMikriENPCRkKmxJ6UanI
5aox61G8WMQxPQ+Lcq3KXOvqsva+CXiStqgWuEHrAyYzMMFl2xcTfyYeh+de1i3i
DmeQ88TYsyOrNHgHfSJrLyB95Z/TIpOrmlRWAZ0dm2gRpPGu9ZkMWeW+IKy2HHUV
q+9Msjhd9jOgTSm9d8SV8ODWHxzD/5mXoSkqgyQlvfStLwkjY7jImVmIEp9p6wg5
2htalHDA9SsvFD3YCUcnDwwUcbFg1Y2LlE5Dre6Q7TBt77NHWxGMQA==
=/Po1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20010719214252...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>The only thing is Frank, in the case of the Shroud, the two lines in question
>are actually a crease in the fabric.
No surprise there, considering that there are no shoulders in the
dorsal view.
But since I doubt very much that many of the coins and frescoes were
creased, the idea that artists went to some lengths to duplicate
incidental damage that you can't show even existed when they
supposedly copied it beggars credulity.
This isn't even the worst of the red herrings of this sort that
shroud enthusiasts strew around. There is, for instance, the
Deposition and Lamentation scene in a 12th century Hungarian
manuscript that supposedly copies the pattern of pitch-stained burn
holes in the shroud. Those 'poker' holes were not attested to until
1516, but were likely burned in by torch drippings during the Lirey
exhibitions in the 1350s and 1390s. It requires quite a suspension
of disbelief (not to mention common sense) to accept that a Hungarian
artist decided to copy those marks at least a century and a half
*before* they were made.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO10tSayjdWYzk1A5AQH5bAf+K5m87E3QVhUHS9e7PKIpBGYLNoyt1VHs
mrd1uTaJbsAmYbRNHx7k28mVrHNwrdcuVkOtvtfSyFMUW+RNtY7nlrAjWV0bC6OS
a62PrTEa8iKf5Ee6d/Gv4ebuYC3WhXMaiVAFjhUCs3D1J7VJxna/uT/5hvUEmhW0
CcdJUAtB2dKWL4Pw26/Xpx3iWZP3IrRWcJLWN+eZHOGn3uziarCUG8q1ndyPrRg5
UMUnoorKg0pcgba4T4MB4LHyFilmqr8LYSwTHf+eDM1+r8yTITMOaxg6aPGnsacK
/R/RSVxnRgS9xH3vpDJSRs2aUNE6lo5OX/vk9Ug9q4qkFePeyqZwCg==
=FK2I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mistletoe Hills
duplicate incidental damage that you can't show even existed when they
things. If this is your idea of "logical consistency," I can see why you have
trouble with the Shroud in general. I would too if I made a habit of ignoring
evidence on the grounds that it seems to "beggar credulity."
Bob Haroldsen
J. Swica
> > >From McCrone's book I get the indication that the Italian's only were
> >allowed samples from 'blood', and not from the fainter, less obvious
> >'image'. Since McCrone makes no distinction except in quantity of
> >particles/binder, he can claim there is no difference between these
> >areas.It's all the same substance!!!
>
> I recall differently. McCrone claimed that red ochre was found
> on both image and blood tapes, but more so on the image tapes. He
> also claimed other red pigments, including vermilion and rose madder,
> exclusively on tapes from the blood.
>
preferred
The photos shown in his book that show the most pigment are almost
exclusively from blood. The few image are less obvious at the magnifications
he is showing. Perhaps at 200X-400X the smaller particles will be seen. This
would make sense if the paint was dilute. Fewer brush strokes, less
accumulation. STURP's own low power macroscope photos show only discolored
linen threads. But then again, I've only seen a few of them myself.
Rose madder? He only casually mentions this substance. No microphotos shown
of what this substance may look like. Perhaps this was incidental contact?
Jerry
Frank Weaver
In article <20010724153609...@ng-fv1.news.cs.com>,
mistlet...@cs.com (Mistletoe Hills) wrote:
>Frank, your statement that "the idea that artists went to some lengths to
>duplicate incidental damage that you can't show even existed when they
>supposedly copied it beggars credulity" is a most interesting way of looking at
>things.
I can see that the syntax is a little tortured, so let's try again.
There are very simple and obvious explanations (like collarbones and
robe collars) that can explain the details of Byzantine Christ images
without insulting the imaginations or artistic sensibilities of the
artists who made them. Replacing these simple, common sense
explanations with the idea that the artists were so bereft of
imagination and skill and so slavishly devoted to copying the shroud
that they copied details that would not even exist until hundreds of
years later (examples provided) requires jaw-dropping idiocy.
Unfortunately, it is also one of the pillars of sindonology.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO2eRPayjdWYzk1A5AQG0PAf9G7Yw2PmxLyAALjzc61TxhS+Trd09b1Fd
SNIYPVnbNN3vR3AfLbZGLbvt6LoYkLBQ4uHw7Osi4hbz3yNinVRIabL0Xw3i2Jlp
3zWW4i0ugrCrCCIVjHcxI9Bfs+mKIQAd4gws3cHzad0VHJGN/5+SMVfeNQl5NXjz
9EWC7u7YFhXQf3l2hjSSipF77kFeBn1C/3mmMlsZyuh7H4p5FZ9dMntfdnNmKPXM
Go9OI0ysHpOf/6u2RJieCs6DkEi7+3gYDP77FMQjcnjT4XQTEgGcpTxr2aiWOHsC
M7cLcYCP3amKSqgxiPFh6ukWKboUb9P2I63IZkkbDf7HJu/bcjEBiQ==
=KZ20
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <tlrmjfa...@corp.supernews.com>,
"J. Swica" <jer...@hvi.net> wrote:
[snip]
>The photos shown in his book that show the most pigment are almost
>exclusively from blood. The few image are less obvious at the magnifications
>he is showing. Perhaps at 200X-400X the smaller particles will be seen. This
>would make sense if the paint was dilute. Fewer brush strokes, less
>accumulation. STURP's own low power macroscope photos show only discolored
>linen threads. But then again, I've only seen a few of them myself.
McCrone emphasizes that 600-1000X is necessary to see the red ocher
in the image areas ("Red Ochre and Vermilion on Shroud Tapes?"
Approfondimento Sindone 1998, Vol I; get it at
http://www.humanist.net/appro-sindone/). He specifically criticizes
Heller and Adler for using only low-power (20-50X) magnification when
they failed to find the pigment particles he did.
>Rose madder? He only casually mentions this substance. No microphotos shown
>of what this substance may look like. Perhaps this was incidental contact?
Nickell quotes him as writing (way back in 1980):
"I have recently observed more and more madder rose (a dye from the
roots of a Eurasian herb), another red pigment, on the Shroud, althou
this seems to have been applied not as a mixture with the other two
pigments but separately. I find then that there are three different
red pigments used, with iron oxide predominant but significant
amounts of vermilion and traces, at least, of madder rose."
Nickell also writes, "This observation is most interesting in light of
the fact that red lake colors (for example, rose madder) were
specifically used by medieval artists to overpaint vermilion in
depicting "blood.""
Finally, Fischer notes in the appendix of Nickell's book (which
seems to be a summary of that illusive International Society of
Investigation paper) that the porphyrin fluorescence that Heller and
Adler claim to have produced could well be taken as confirming the
presence of madder rose, as porphyrins are found in plant dyes.
On a different note, I finally found that citation you asked me about
concerning many of the Los Alamos STURP members leaving. It was made
by Marvin Mueller, in "The Shroud of Turin: A Critical Appraisal"
Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1982, p. 23. But it was actually more
restrictive than what I said. What Mueller wrote was, "By now, and
much to their credit, many of the STURP scientists (including all of the
Los Alamos branch) have changed their minds concerning the
implications of the "3-D effect."" Sorry it took so long.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO2eOv6yjdWYzk1A5AQGMrwf8DHK9/JQ5aNtNseTLUd0u4UM2rE5OWtwb
HJeuXfpTUj3JMPUBGseZHMMy1J1EYqmuzhEg1YNTeBM/P+56dKeOy5ZlpMG1V7SS
IwxFlywXl9Eep3daSouUhQgbsH8FuE/AgDFLkpE64vL3iSEiB5IK0SO+N6LxsZqY
6ArKrA8SbjmqbgTQmnESj9AYlXapFrOJJdoMLkxO1lEGKm5flFURd9Xp7WTHXUv5
TxyNvgU43pPtborwdeSm2Nd6Sc1NqYhSYqyL7qqLlm/BCOm2K/D8TmB7fAffr8Dr
hq71CEGa3G6NmREylK2fuxNvVnBdNmuQ5esTLk/la8w/mzvm3nuzVg==
=9oFa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
J. Swica
> > Finally, Fischer notes in the appendix of Nickell's book (which
> seems to be a summary of that illusive International Society of
> Investigation paper) that the porphyrin fluorescence that Heller and
> Adler claim to have produced could well be taken as confirming the
> presence of madder rose, as porphyrins are found in plant dyes.
I tried to find this madder rose on the web with limited results. The
sample found is of a more modern mixture.
http://www.sewanee.edu/chem/Chem&Art/Detail_Pages/Pigments/alizarin
An interesting article on blood detection with references to a respected
scientist,Thomas Loy. There is mentions of false/positive problems.
I noticed his opinion on a couple Shroud matters(blood color, bacteria
coating) are noted. Even one skeptic believes he is more than qualified to
comment on ancient blood(Caldararo).
http://www.students.rhodes.edu/~willis/research/blood.html
Jerry
Frank Weaver
In article <tmm44v2...@corp.supernews.com>,
"J. Swica" <jer...@hvi.net> wrote:
[snip]
>An interesting article on blood detection with references to a respected
>scientist,Thomas Loy. There is mentions of false/positive problems.
>
>I noticed his opinion on a couple Shroud matters(blood color, bacteria
>coating) are noted. Even one skeptic believes he is more than qualified to
>comment on ancient blood(Caldararo).
>
>http://www.students.rhodes.edu/~willis/research/blood.html
Thanks, Jerry. The blood article was especially interesting. I
noted that it particularly mentioned DNA polymerase chain reaction (
(ala Tryon) as experimental, at best.
As for Loy, I'm not entirely convinced they're the same individual.
The Dr. Thomas H. Loy who was at the Royal British Columbia Museum
was basically an anthropologist/archeologist, working in their First
Nations (Native Americans to Yanks) section. The Dr. Loy of the
University of Queensland whom Wilson mentions favorably is more of
a paleontologist, with special interests in dino DNA and, most
recently, particular ancient microbes.
Ahhh, it doesn't really matter, anyway. The method Loy developed,
isoelectric focusing, has been available for many years. By now, a
great many people should be competent to use it. Like Caldararo and
other skeptics, I would welcome the results whether they're positive
or not. No one to my knowledge has done so. The authenticity crowd
always does seem to have an aversion to any test that might be too
direct and remove their wiggle room.
I also dug up some information on blood staining methods:
http://members.hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/crmmtw1/HISTOL.htm
Congo Red (benzidine), Neutral Red, Eosin and combined stains like
Wright's and Giemsa are the ones commonly used. I'd wish I had a more
complete list of the chemical tests (besides benzidine) that Frache,
Ferragamo, Curto, and McCrone ran.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO25Nq6yjdWYzk1A5AQGS7Af+O10b0YxQhwsaq0K926jI/9lkGq0Y3zci
WythI/GVQGiCWMsvLuzQIIk84Y4rXs1h/y1Us24t8//U6Pr2ntdKeqakSbo388an
gBcxa0/jTr4ihy5jGkoPMx5sxcom1PdvF9+s5qt82AaFwxj8X7wZj991HjmM4UuL
RoAV9Pb6Dx7FwISMQunFAYeduVcUnnuzPY3qtAiL7F1InRbMf4GEekSlZVRMRwTO
68059zQbd+WD//gEAPs0YP/Jo13m986LJfN5jHne3EshwCK9NYPwH+xHLuRVWzDa
vmLZJG/6o6cVZXU8Q2Ta2hfRaGhTQE3cNvQH6gO1mk3RugtNlBAxTg==
=Ionb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
K.M. Towe
Wilson, THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD. I note that there is no
mention whatsoever (or at least I haven't found it yet) of
the the negative blood test results by Rizatti and Mari, and
barely even any mention at all of any of these 1976
Commission reports, apart from the findings of Max Frei.
This seems to be a remarkable omission in a book with this
title!
--
Dr. K.M. Towe
230 West Adams Street
Tennille, GA 31089-1403
Voice: [478] 552-7500
Fax: [503] 210-1558
E-mail: to...@accucomm.net
Frank Weaver
In article <3B6EA232...@accucomm.net>,
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
>Frank writes: "<b>I'd wish I had a more complete list of the chemical tests
>(besides benzidine) that Frache...ran.</b>"
><p>A partial listing of tests for "blood" run by Frache, Rizzati, and Mari
>(1976 Commission Report) appears in McCrone's book on pages 9-12. I assume
>that you have seen this, Frank?
Unfortunately, no. I'm limited to what I can scrounge up on the Web
or at my friendly neighborhood research library. I suppose I could
buy McCrone's book, but that would mean dipping into the beer fund.
I have to keep my priorities straight.
>Conclusions: "<b>negative results in every
>test for blood</b>". Shroud authenticists are usually quick to point out
>that the tests run by STURP et al. were much more sensitive than those
>used by Rizatti. This, of course, hoists them precariously on their own
>petard because any "blood" that would be visible to the naked eye should
>not require nano- or micromole sensitivity for its detection.
The best analysis of this is still Fischer's ("A Summary Critique of
Analyses of 'Blood' on the Turin 'Shroud'") in Nickell's book.
Their tests can be as sensitive as apologists like, but as long as
they don't identify blood *specifically* or give positive results for
substances *unique* to blood, the tests are still worthless. That is
the status of every test that apologists cite.
><p>I would love to be able to see the report involving transmission electron
>microscopy done by Filogamo and Zina for the 1976 Commission report.
Oh, we've got a little contract society for locating the Turin
Commission report. Who else is in?
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO3IbOKyjdWYzk1A5AQHkTQf/RoWFZbJwIdAAW9+purG8ma4jy6zUsvLH
Fc+50Wx40NI2Z3yXB2R9v+YFDnK1Xh7NrqJYt3sS6thhYxsaQiVTQZVcLlCFdxNA
+IcX3cW/LIeOcqhnSkad8LJjf0rsjKG9OrASPHDSy+KGVW6oXy4Oj5bRgnu1d4xW
bT5uNCKaPKa3Sx6ZYsNqwcX+ApMR0NON5BSDWVN4HnJp/6flFos6kEl/oEKJg31A
5sf8C1kTaYqqxUSZvaK5f1u1MpCvhDSjBu92bAzILz8Xg/BtgHLw5EoLyD3rIE7W
JsKC4Ist1cUBaG+4GdGyIdi6fQpYb9ae10NvINM+M6O5u02PN8VVmg==
=8nlk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <3B702B69...@accucomm.net>,
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
>I am in the process of wading through the book by Ian
>Wilson, THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD. I note that there is no
>mention whatsoever (or at least I haven't found it yet) of
>the the negative blood test results by Rizatti and Mari, and
>barely even any mention at all of any of these 1976
>Commission reports, apart from the findings of Max Frei.
>This seems to be a remarkable omission in a book with this
>title!
Wilson doesn't mention any of the Commission results except Frei's.
This is in stark contrast to his 1978 book, in which he spends
several pages trying to talk his way out of the negative blood tests.
He also gratuitously insulted Prof. Gabrielli, apparaently because
she had the temerity to apply her expertise in art history and as a
curator of medieval art to the shroud, among similar strategems.
I think what we're seeing in Wilson's books is the effects of a
closed belief-system. Over time in closed societies, doctrine
becomes ossified. The views of outsiders receive less and less
attention as internal sources (e.g., Heller and Adler) arise to
provide the justifications for established dogmas. In effect, the
the Turin Commission evidence become less and less thinkable as the
official pro-shroud position gets drummed in.
You see this in the way that, e.g., Holocaust deniers reference a
network of 'historians' that no one else has ever heard of, or the
way Creationists have their own bodies of so-called research
'disproving' evolution by internally-validated 'scientists' who are
non-entities outside of the closed realms of creation 'science'
societies and journals.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO3IgRayjdWYzk1A5AQEtRQf+NXFGiRzGHRGJ4rwjrdVB6dyNDjT6v5Gi
L2B9vaAXWQURh77wAgCXvy15WO17ZPt0/TEioFhJqmJES6F8GdHkwVlksJkv3Di2
3FlEv1CEeL7NrQNytMLuVLNcGayMyprM8koDGwzHIHVGAZWu2EP4pVhMUqU5ZqG8
/Y84Z7LUt/bQZlB8gnBFQvErOsGB5lc9uZSCXinpruGqkC44AnWy2rIcNcDLlBDD
hy8fAyWB/TpE8QJY1uE6Cqdj4DonFkVJqFtjy2aL1hEtUvIQZPKQuL/cWcy9a3Fm
VY9J2RXsfwF/nA9E7lIddHtD1spCP/7vWwBFmjCRsVt4Us9hovh/bQ==
=hya8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
J. Swica
>
> In article <3B6EA232...@accucomm.net>,
> "K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
> >Frank writes: "<b>I'd wish I had a more complete list of the chemical tests
> >(besides benzidine) that Frache...ran.</b>"
> ><p>A partial listing of tests for "blood" run by Frache, Rizzati, and Mari
> >(1976 Commission Report) appears in McCrone's book on pages 9-12. I assume
> >that you have seen this, Frank?
>
> Unfortunately, no. I'm limited to what I can scrounge up on the Web
> or at my friendly neighborhood research library. I suppose I could
> buy McCrone's book, but that would mean dipping into the beer fund.
> I have to keep my priorities straight.
Frank Weaver
In article <tn60mds...@corp.supernews.com>,
"J. Swica" <jer...@hvi.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Mr. Ford has done quite a bit of research himself into the shroud. =
>Although he obviously thinks it authentic. One article from his earlier =
>posts dealt with the Italian Commission and McCrone on their tests for =
>blood.=20
>Let's try this link from Google...1973 Commission's and McCrone's =
>Testing
I see Ken has already beaten me to a critique of this little
gem. I find it an amazing act of chutzpah for Heller, a
physicist who probably hadn't seen a pipette since his freshman year
in college, to have the gall to attack the competence of three
professional forensic serologists.
He shows his ignorance, as well. Solvents are chosen specifically
for their ability to dissolve similar chemical compounds. If the
'blood' sherds would not solubilize in solvents typically used for
blood, that is a prima facie argument that they are not blood. For
all Heller's presumptive declaration that the 'blood' must have been
denatured, the burden is on him to show that it is. This is
especially so in light of a battery of non-chemical tests (e.g., X-ray
fluorescence, microspectrophotometry [which, contrary to Heller's
assertion, Rizzati and Mari did do], X-ray diffraction, and neutron
activation analysis) that also gave negative results.
Finally, this seems like a good place to mention the isoelectric
focusing technique devised by Loy. It can detect very minute
quantities of very old (10,000+ years), denatured blood. It did not
yet exist in the 70's when Frache, Rizzati and Mari did their work.
It was too new even when Adler and Heller did theirs (not that they
as rank amateurs in the field, would have been aware of it). I'm not
the only skeptic who would welcome the results of such a test
performed by anyone with prior competence in the method and a modicum
of objectivity.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO3iYTqyjdWYzk1A5AQF9Fwf+LdwoAESQacvDZsfU2W6WWl6ouEeZC7BK
Y4z9LLuRGaaRyifb5iNdP/oDVDLuWdTZCzWCq6KdpjJvFCK24hwbOXXTRhd05AiL
MmURHSFX1UYfiwm3C7wZmyyRjWxYfh2/TkZTttfWb56wTUoHYpvRiDfSp2kQxyPS
UI67Oz0eC6ZJhXZROtr7gsghPJ9ulZgmL352PVgKvkgtliajmgJ80u1plAiNBwc+
iA6nObULUqsxDYsMYaVSF51j8pgv5Wcpt6Vm8LDmcaESwIs2uqhoIxApginmrUse
4fV48oALtUALv9uE0hOrpXHTUNKZQi9sL/m9UkCZT1rTn+4r7uzaXQ==
=QFTD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <3B73EC91...@accucomm.net>,
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
[snip]
><p>Frank replies: "<b>Oh, we've got a little contract society for locating
>the Turin</b>
><br><b>Commission report. Who else is in?</b>"
><p>Seriously, Frank (or anyone else): How does one go about getting to
>see these little-cited, but clearly important reports? Were they published
>somewhere, or was this just a memorandum to the Vatican?
The reference I've got is from another of Mr. Ford's posts:
"Report of the Turin Commission on the Holy Shroud" (London:
Screenpro Films, 1976).
Where to find an obscure work on a trivial subject (except, of course, to
'shroudies,' who have no use for even mildly skeptical material) like
this? My friendly neighborhood research library hasn't come through
on this one. I'd say we haunt the rare and arcane booksellers. Or
live with McCrone's summaries.
>For Ian Wilson
>to omit (ignore?) them, especially in his otherwise excruciatingly detailed
>chronology, is an interesting "oversight".
Historical revisionism in action.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO3ibCayjdWYzk1A5AQHoIgf/Tj77Ln2AaL0jS5zFF/Zv49MwkZHF7W9M
hkXAoG6TSjU7D7ZuWeXyQ4OZhgExvVKlpjQnPyDwAYfJQIN7ZXGsd3cpv3glzNh/
OG6twQDKk4lVedmmz1xwuuaQEdfW9zf9nZVNz9Ff7EkfJC+TgnkR4aUS5TqKxTzF
rulXtlazmWAB2/FlHZUUvLQ4D7v9OpL3qZMwnMrbNtg/eTuGo7vrJ+ssSowNKU20
TU7a5NFU7/MvMBqsw4XulQ3SilCFS197b9uK//gM9tWONDmzvCQ93L6xuslEAWLx
BqZ+j+JddgjqEg9h9KSIJSJ5igrJlwd80dCSNhqNKQdyB35eL8V7Cw==
=v6w+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----