Turin Shroud: Proof of Jesus' Resurrection?
Andrew Mulcahy
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 22:57:33 -0700, Robert
<supe...@nospamix.netcom.com> wrote:
>david ford wrote:
>>
>> Summary: Nickell said the Shroud is, and said the Shroud isn't, a
>> painting.
>
>Good grief, Mr. Ford, you troll. Would you please stop cross-posting
>from all those newsgroups listed in your header and direct your
>communication to this newsgroup directly?
Well, in a way it's rather nice to see him expose
his 'faith' so publicly. Tells us a lot about how faith is
maintained in this age of reason.
Ever since Galileo and Darwin opened our eyes to the
universe about us, worshippers have been forced to backtrack
-- rationalizing every step of the way-- before the ever
increasing onslaught of new scientific discoveries.
To cling to ones' faith under such circumstances can
not be easy. Only by the constant reassertion of their
beliefs-- continuously repeating their credos, over and over
again, could they manage to block out the disturbing
revelations that bombard them daily.
No wonder they generate such a proliferation
of newsletters, radio shows, pamphlets, and TV shows. They
have to take every effort to reinforce their belief system
and every effort must be made to jam out data that does not
fit into that belief system - - note how David heaps
praise and credibility on those tomes that agree with him
and casts aspersions on those that do not.
And notice the title of this thread- -they simply
cannot get their heads around the idea that to show that a
resurrection had occurred, it will be necessary to show the
biological process by which such a transformation can take
place.
To them, waving a rag they have tried to mystify
offers 'proof' of an unnatural act. Shades of the covert
secrecy that they surrounded the Dead Sea Scrolls in for so
long. Faith is, indeed, an interesting psychological puzzle.
Cheers,
Andy
Life is but a momentary glimpse at the wonder of
this astonishing Universe and it is sad to see
so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasies
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
On Fri, 3 Jul 1998 06:16:00 -0400, "Brant" <bra...@erols.com> wrote:
}Mr. Foot Grenade wrote in message <359B8B4B...@proaxis.com>...
}>Thanks for the post, Brant. Typical of one who is wrong.
}
} So you did the same crap again. You just popped off a comment and did nothing
}to support it.
}
} I went into some detail to support my view and you did not respond to any of
}the points made. Now this is the second time you have responded in such a
}manner. I suppose we should take that as an admission that you cannot defend
}your viewpoint or rationally refute ours.
}
} Go ahead, tell us why the hands extend about ten inches farther than they
}should. Show me how I'm wrong here.
}
} Tell us why the left hand is so deformed and no historical or biblical
}reference is made of it. Show me how I'm wrong here.
}
} Tell us why the legs are together. Again, show me how I'm wrong here.
}
} Tell us why they glued his hair to his shoulders. Show me how I'm wrong here.
}
} Then there are about ten other objections, any one of which would cast serious
}doubt on the authenticity of the shroud, but taken collectively, utterly debunk
}this age-old forgery. (Your devoid of content, unsupported quips
}notwithstanding.)
}
} Brant
}
Here are some real facts on the shroud of Turin:
1. The image on the shroud is similar to a photographic negative, not
a picture or a painting. Question: If it is a fraud created in the
thirteenth century, how did the forger know about photographic
negatives. Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
ocher).
1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
2. The shroud project carbon dated the shroud to roughly 1200 AD--The
exact time when the church at Turin was burned. The shroud was saved,
but scorched. Reputable scientists agree that the carbon dating is
flawed for that reason.
3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
perspective. A plaster cast made from a computer analysis of the
shroud's 3-D image is available for viewing at the chapel of the Air
Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It very clearly shows a
human being with normal arms and legs that has been brutally beaten.
The nose is broken, the cheekbones crushed, etc. The thorn holes in
the forehead are clearly indentations. It is very hard to argue that
the image is faked in any way.
4. Examination of the shroud under magnifying lenses reveals it is
embedded with the pollen of plants found only on the Holy Land.
The shroud is clearly a mysterious article for which there is
currently no adequate scientific explanation.
Regards,
Dave W.
Shane D. Killian
David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
>
> Here are some real facts on the shroud of Turin:
> 1. The image on the shroud is similar to a photographic negative, not
> a picture or a painting. Question: If it is a fraud created in the
> thirteenth century, how did the forger know about photographic
> negatives.
>
other than photography, you know.
> Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
> as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
> ocher).
>
Then a) why is the blood on the shroud red and b) why did it show up
under microscopic examination as ocher paint?
> 1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
> explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
> There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
> produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
>
BS. DaVinci did it all the time with corpses (they're called
"rubbings")--and yes, they were in negative!!!
> 2. The shroud project carbon dated the shroud to roughly 1200 AD--The
> exact time when the church at Turin was burned. The shroud was saved,
> but scorched. Reputable scientists agree that the carbon dating is
> flawed for that reason.
>
Please identify these "reputable" scientists. No one has yet been able
to sufficiently demonstrate that there is enough contamination on the
shroud fibers to theow off the dating by 12-1300 years. And despite
years of promises from many claimants that their C-14 dating will prove
a 30CE date, these promises remain to this day unfulfilled.
> 3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
> perspective.
>
No, it is quite clearly a 2D image. If it were 3D, you would see the
ears from the sides, for example.
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
Capella
Shane D. Killian wrote:
> David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
> >
> > Here are some real facts on the shroud of Turin:
> > 1. The image on the shroud is similar to a photographic negative, not
> > a picture or a painting. Question: If it is a fraud created in the
> > thirteenth century, how did the forger know about photographic
> > negatives.
> >
> Negatives have been used for thousands of years. they have a purpose
> other than photography, you know.
>
Yes, Leonardo Da Vichi was aware of a primitive photographic process asthe
pin hole effect. He lived around the time that the Turin Shroud seems
to have first appeared so knowledge at that time of the photographic process
while not practical for snapshots, was sufficient to make a negative with
certain
common chemicals available at that time and with extremely long exposures
lasting days.
> > Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
> > as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
> > ocher).
> >
> Then a) why is the blood on the shroud red and b) why did it show up
> under microscopic examination as ocher paint?
>
> > 1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
> > explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
> > There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
> > produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
> >
> BS. DaVinci did it all the time with corpses (they're called
> "rubbings")--and yes, they were in negative!!!
>
> > 2. The shroud project carbon dated the shroud to roughly 1200 AD--The
> > exact time when the church at Turin was burned. The shroud was saved,
> > but scorched. Reputable scientists agree that the carbon dating is
> > flawed for that reason.
> >
> Please identify these "reputable" scientists. No one has yet been able
> to sufficiently demonstrate that there is enough contamination on the
> shroud fibers to theow off the dating by 12-1300 years. And despite
> years of promises from many claimants that their C-14 dating will prove
> a 30CE date, these promises remain to this day unfulfilled.
>
I saw an interview with one of the scientists who dated the Shroud(who was a
disappointed Christian BTW). He said that no amount of
burning would affect the Carbon -14 tests because burning doesn't
produce the radio active carbon that is actually measured, it produces
a different kind of carbon.
To the other group of rationalists who insist bacterial growth on the
shroud skewed the tests, he said that they screened the samples
thoroughly before testing for such growths.
> > 3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
> > perspective.
> >
> No, it is quite clearly a 2D image. If it were 3D, you would see the
> ears from the sides, for example.
>
It is also hopelessly out of proportion. Anyone that doubts this, trylaying
on the ground covering your genitals as in the Shroud image.
You can't do it without using your muscles. Dead people obviously
can't use their muscles.
In other words, the arms are too long on the Shroud picture as well
as a host of other inaccuracies such as the hair not falling downward
towards the back of the head, but hanging down towards the shoulders
violating the law of gravity, etc...
The Shroud also comes during a time when "holy relics" were big
business and there were multiple versions floating around Europe
of many of the same ones, such as clothing of Mary's, splinters
from the cross, John the Baptist's teeth, and of course many
burial Shrouds of Jesus, some of which even had head pictures.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
150 bible errors, contradictions, failed prophecies, etc... at:
http://web2.airmail.net/capella
Capella
Shane D. Killian wrote:
> Sherilyn wrote:
> >
> > In article <35A01228...@vnet.net>, Shane D. Killian
> > <sha...@vnet.net> writes
> > ...
> > > DaVinci did it all the time with corpses
> > ...
> > Well, you learn something new every day.
> >
> He actually did quite a bit with corpses...he would even cut them open
> and draw pictures of the organs.
>
True. Da Vinchi worked with cadavers to learn about the humanbody's
organs, muscular, and skeletal system aspects to aid his
painting and other art work's realism.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
150 bible errors, contradictions, atrocities, failed prophecies, etc...
at:
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
simon...@bull.co.uk
Hi,
just food for thought....
when making a painting, you apply the colours (the image), from the top ONTO
the surface.
The idea is that the image of jesus was placed as he passed through the cloth
from the underside, so the image is laid down in the opposite manner
Could this not have been the thought process that ceated the 'negative'
situation.
Just because it acts like a negative, does not mean that the idea only stems
from photography & since there was no photography, the principle did not
exist!
is it not also fair to say, that you get a similar effect from brass-rubbings?
simon.
In article <35a0d101...@news.erinet.com>,
> Here are some real facts on the shroud of Turin:
> 1. The image on the shroud is similar to a photographic negative, not
> a picture or a painting. Question: If it is a fraud created in the
> thirteenth century, how did the forger know about photographic
> negatives. Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
> as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
> ocher).
> 1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
> explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
> There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
> produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
> 2. The shroud project carbon dated the shroud to roughly 1200 AD--The
> exact time when the church at Turin was burned. The shroud was saved,
> but scorched. Reputable scientists agree that the carbon dating is
> flawed for that reason.
> 3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
> perspective. A plaster cast made from a computer analysis of the
> shroud's 3-D image is available for viewing at the chapel of the Air
> Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It very clearly shows a
> human being with normal arms and legs that has been brutally beaten.
> The nose is broken, the cheekbones crushed, etc. The thorn holes in
> the forehead are clearly indentations. It is very hard to argue that
> the image is faked in any way.
> 4. Examination of the shroud under magnifying lenses reveals it is
> embedded with the pollen of plants found only on the Holy Land.
>
> The shroud is clearly a mysterious article for which there is
> currently no adequate scientific explanation.
>
> Regards,
> Dave W.
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Sherilyn
In article <35A01228...@vnet.net>, Shane D. Killian
<sha...@vnet.net> writes
...
> DaVinci did it all the time with corpses
...
Well, you learn something new every day.
>(they're called
>"rubbings")
"Yes, officer, I was just taking a rubbing from this corpse when my
trousers fell down."
<smirk>
--
Sherilyn |alt.paranormal.moderated - flame-free discussion of the
|paranormal. http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/3581/
Shane D. Killian
Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <35A01228...@vnet.net>, Shane D. Killian
> <sha...@vnet.net> writes
> ...
> > DaVinci did it all the time with corpses
> ...
> Well, you learn something new every day.
>
and draw pictures of the organs.
--
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
On Sun, 5 Jul 1998 03:35:02 -0400, "Brant" <bra...@erols.com> wrote:
}David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote in message <35a0d101...@news.erinet.com>...
} As such, there is no explanation at this time which supports *either*
}viewpoint, as far as the "photonegativity" is concerned.
}
} You didn't respond to any of my points either.
}
}Question: If it is a fraud created in the
}>thirteenth century, how did the forger know about photographic
}>negatives. Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
}>as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
}>ocher).
}>1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
}>explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
}>There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
}>produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
}>2. The shroud project carbon dated the shroud to roughly 1200 AD--The
}>exact time when the church at Turin was burned. The shroud was saved,
}>but scorched. Reputable scientists agree that the carbon dating is
}>flawed for that reason.
}
} My understanding is that the carbon was washed off, along with any other
}contaminates which could be removed, and the *linen* itself was dated. The only
}scientific analysis I have heard indicates that the contamination could not
}possibly effect the dating by anything *like* 1200 years. What reputable
}scientists are you referring to? You've made the claim. Now a name, please?
}
I'll do better than that. Go to http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm and do
some extensive reading.
}>3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
}>perspective.
}
} It is most definitely *not* a 3-D image. It is about as orthographic as it
}can get. There is virtually *no* indication of spreading at the edges, which
}*would* be expected if the shroud was draped. If it was wrapped, we would see
}extreme distortion at the edges and much greater definition at the contact
}points, (assuming the "scorching" energy went only straight up *and* straight
}down), or we would see the features from more of a side angle if the energy was
}radiant.
}
}>A plaster cast made from a computer analysis of the
}>shroud's 3-D image is available for viewing at the chapel of the Air
}>Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
}
} Yeah, a 3-D projection was also created. Perfectly flat artistic renderings
}can be processed that way, based on the shading. Anyway, I never heard about
}this plaster cast. What, pray tell, did they pour the plaster into? Oh, you
}mean somebody who believes in the shroud simply made a sculpture based on the
}appearance of the image...one which *can* be viewed as a three dimensional
}object and which the sculptor *created* the image to look more real.
}
You are incredible. The Labs at the U.S. Air Force academy were part
of the STURP Team. It was at their labs that the image was analyzed
and reconstructed. Please go to http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm and do
some serious reading.
} I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold water. Plaster castings are only useful when
}you already have a negative form for a mold and you want to see a positive shape
}which resembles the object which made the depression.
}
Exactly.
}
}> It very clearly shows a
}>human being with normal arms and legs that has been brutally beaten.
}
} Then it is a forgery too, because no image or casting made from the dimensions
}of the shroud could show proper dimensions unless the creator deliberately
}altered them to look more correct. There is no way you can have an arm of
}anything close to normal length which touches the far thigh while being bent at
}that angle. Assuming the third dimension not apparent in the shroud, i.e. the
}fact that the upper arm would be lying on the surface and then have to come *up*
}on top of the hips from the elbow, this makes the length of the arm even
}*greater* than if you examined the image in only two dimensions.
}
Go to the Web Site.
}
} Being "brutally beaten" doesn't make your arms 20% longer. Nor does it make
}your hair defy gravity. Nor does it make your legs stay together when lying on
}your back at rest.
}
Who said he was laying on his back at rest. His knees were bent due
to rigor mortis. Go to the Web Site.
}
}>The nose is broken, the cheekbones crushed, etc. The thorn holes in
}>the forehead are clearly indentations. It is very hard to argue that
}>the image is faked in any way.
}
} Only for those who are convinced it is Jesus. I see a face which is almost
}perfectly symmetrical. I see amorphous blobs in a very old piece of fabric
}which could be anything. You have absolutely *no way* to support your argument
}that "indentations" are visible.
}
Go to the WEB Site.
}
} But even if these things *were* clear, it is perfectly reasonable to assume
}that if it was forged, the artist tried to make it look as authentic as he
}could, considering what was believed about Jesus' torment. I saw a great big
}beautiful painting of Jesus with holes in his hands. Is this proof that the
}artist was looking at Jesus when he painted it?
}
That's just the point. Prior images of Jesus (before the shroud
surfaced in 1200 AD) were totally unlike the image on the shroud. You
really need to do some reading and I recommend the WEB Site. It has
both positive and negative responses to the shroud, this is not a
attempt to change your mind; I simply want you to get your facts
straight.
}
} Hoagland sees a face on Mars. People looking at proven meteors see alien
}ships. People see Jesus in a taco and Mother Theresa in a bagel. John
}Boatwright sees all *sorts* of things in HST images: Peter, Jesus as a man,
}Jesus as a baby, Mary, fish, a net, the eye of God, Israel, manger animals. You
}see what you want to see because it supports your beliefs. You ignore the large
}amount of evidence which completely discredits the authenticity of the shroud.
}
}>4. Examination of the shroud under magnifying lenses reveals it is
}>embedded with the pollen of plants found only on the Holy Land.
}
} I'm going to predict that either this is just another legend or a
}misrepresentation. Can you be specific? Who made this observation and how were
}the organisms identified as being exclusively indigenous to the Holy Land?
}
See the WEB Site.
}
<snip of some inappropriate verbiage>
}
}>The shroud is clearly a mysterious article for which there is
}>currently no adequate scientific explanation.
}
} It is true that the actual origin of the shroud is not completely known. All
}we know is that an artist confessed to the forgery. A bishop accepted his
}admission.
}
Totally false. Go to the Web Site.
}
} Carbon dating of the *cleaned* linen puts the age of the material at
}about 800 years.
}
That's the point. One of the crucial steps in Carbon Dating(complete
removal of all foreign matter prior to testing)was not done for some
inexplicable reason. There is also reason to believe the Shroud was
covered by a thin bio plastic layer that was not removed prior to the
carbon dating. Scientists are now acknowledging these errors and are
asking the Vatican for another test. So far permission has not been
given.
}
} The legs would not be together. The hair would not hang
}horizontally. The arms are way too long, (probably because drawing exposed
}genitals in the 13th century was frowned upon). Some of the supposed "blood"
}has been identified as red ochre. Any radiant process would not make an
}orthographic image. Relative value intensity can change with time, causing an
}apparently negative looking image. Religious forgeries have abounded through
}history. And some others.
}
All these points are discussed in detail at the WEB Site I gave above.
It is clear from the discussion there what you are pushing is false or
at best controversial. I suggest you do some reading.
}
<Snip of irrelevant non sequiturs>
}
} There are hundreds of other examples of things for which there are very good
}scientific explanations, but since those explanations contradict what fundies
}want to believe, they are ignored or misrepresented.
}
} Brant
}
That's just the problem. None of the "explanations" so far given for
the Shroud are adequate. Every proposed scientific explanation has
failed to account for all the data or even a significant minority of
it.
Regards, Dave W.
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 23:53:40 GMT, "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
wrote:
}David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
}>
}> Here are some real facts on the shroud of Turin:
}> 1. The image on the shroud is similar to a photographic negative, not
}> a picture or a painting. Question: If it is a fraud created in the
}> thirteenth century, how did the forger know about photographic
}> negatives.
}>
}Negatives have been used for thousands of years. they have a purpose
}other than photography, you know.
}
Not so you can put the image on linen with no trace of chemicals.
}
}> Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
}> as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
}> ocher).
}>
}Then a) why is the blood on the shroud red and b) why did it show up
}under microscopic examination as ocher paint?
}
There are blood stains on the shroud, but they are not part of the
image imprinted on the shroud. The consensus of the forensic MDs and
scientists is that the blood stains on the shroud are just that. See
the Web Site, http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm, for details.
}
}> 1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
}> explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
}> There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
}> produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
}>
}BS. DaVinci did it all the time with corpses (they're called
}"rubbings")--and yes, they were in negative!!!
}
You should not make claims that you cannot substantiate. Go to the
web site I gave above.
}
}> 2. The shroud project carbon dated the shroud to roughly 1200 AD--The
}> exact time when the church at Turin was burned. The shroud was saved,
}> but scorched. Reputable scientists agree that the carbon dating is
}> flawed for that reason.
}>
}Please identify these "reputable" scientists. No one has yet been able
}to sufficiently demonstrate that there is enough contamination on the
}shroud fibers to theow off the dating by 12-1300 years. And despite
}years of promises from many claimants that their C-14 dating will prove
}a 30CE date, these promises remain to this day unfulfilled.
}
See the WEB Site above.
}
}> 3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
}> perspective.
}>
}No, it is quite clearly a 2D image. If it were 3D, you would see the
}ears from the sides, for example.
}
This is an assumption based on draping a cloth over a form so that all
sides touch the form. That is not what I meant by a 3-D image.
Regards,
Dave W.
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 21:01:21 -0500, Capella <cap...@airmail.net>
wrote:
}
}
}Shane D. Killian wrote:
}
}> David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
}> >
}> > Here are some real facts on the shroud of Turin:
}> > 1. The image on the shroud is similar to a photographic negative, not
}> > a picture or a painting. Question: If it is a fraud created in the
}> > thirteenth century, how did the forger know about photographic
}> > negatives.
}> >
}> Negatives have been used for thousands of years. they have a purpose
}> other than photography, you know.
}>
}
}Yes, Leonardo Da Vichi was aware of a primitive photographic process asthe
}pin hole effect. He lived around the time that the Turin Shroud seems
}to have first appeared so knowledge at that time of the photographic process
}
It is called a Camera Obscura.
}while not practical for snapshots, was sufficient to make a negative with
}certain
}common chemicals available at that time and with extremely long exposures
}lasting days.
}
That's why the above explanation is inadequate. The Camera Obscura
process takes too long and cannot produce the sharp image that appears
on the shroud.
}
}> > Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
}> > as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
}> > ocher).
}> >
}> Then a) why is the blood on the shroud red and b) why did it show up
}> under microscopic examination as ocher paint?
}>
}> > 1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
}> > explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
}> > There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
}> > produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
}> >
}> BS. DaVinci did it all the time with corpses (they're called
}> "rubbings")--and yes, they were in negative!!!
}>
}> > 2. The shroud project carbon dated the shroud to roughly 1200 AD--The
}> > exact time when the church at Turin was burned. The shroud was saved,
}> > but scorched. Reputable scientists agree that the carbon dating is
}> > flawed for that reason.
}> >
}> Please identify these "reputable" scientists. No one has yet been able
}> to sufficiently demonstrate that there is enough contamination on the
}> shroud fibers to theow off the dating by 12-1300 years. And despite
}> years of promises from many claimants that their C-14 dating will prove
}> a 30CE date, these promises remain to this day unfulfilled.
}>
}
}I saw an interview with one of the scientists who dated the Shroud(who was a
}disappointed Christian BTW). He said that no amount of
}burning would affect the Carbon -14 tests because burning doesn't
}produce the radio active carbon that is actually measured, it produces
}a different kind of carbon.
}
The church was on fire. Some of the smoke from the church (built
during that period) may have entered the shroud. It is not fire that
makes carbon 14. The Carbon 14 was in the wood of the church
sanctuary when it burned. If you don't believe smoke permeates
everything in a closed building--then you don't why stores have fire
sales.
}
}To the other group of rationalists who insist bacterial growth on the
}shroud skewed the tests, he said that they screened the samples
}thoroughly before testing for such growths.
}
But they didn't "wash" the samples as required by strict Carbon dating
tests. This is acknowledged by the STURP scientists and they have no
explanation why crucial steps were not carried out. There has been a
request from the STURP group to do a re-dating, but so far the Vatican
has declined.
}
}> > 3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
}> > perspective.
}> >
}> No, it is quite clearly a 2D image. If it were 3D, you would see the
}> ears from the sides, for example.
}>
}
}It is also hopelessly out of proportion. Anyone that doubts this, trylaying
}on the ground covering your genitals as in the Shroud image.
}
}You can't do it without using your muscles. Dead people obviously
}can't use their muscles.
}
}In other words, the arms are too long on the Shroud picture as well
} as a host of other inaccuracies such as the hair not falling downward
}towards the back of the head, but hanging down towards the shoulders
}violating the law of gravity, etc...
}
All of this is discussed in great detail at the Web Site (see above).
As I stated in my previous post, all of this is highly controversial
and no one has come up with an adequate "naturalistic" explanation for
the data generated by the STURP group. Not even a significant
minority of it.
}
}The Shroud also comes during a time when "holy relics" were big
}business and there were multiple versions floating around Europe
}of many of the same ones, such as clothing of Mary's, splinters
}from the cross, John the Baptist's teeth, and of course many
}burial Shrouds of Jesus, some of which even had head pictures.
}
The veneration of relics predates Christ. Its part of the reason that
the assertion that the Shroud came to Turin from Constantinople via
the Knights Templar is even seriously considered.
Regards, Dave W.
WinBear
Organization: x-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <01bda8b2$f21d6660$9ee3ffcc@default>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
David E. Weldon, Ph. D. <dwe...@erinet.com> wrote in article through
> All these points are discussed in detail at the WEB Site I gave above.
> It is clear from the discussion there what you are pushing is false or
> at best controversial. I suggest you do some reading.
I was just wondering...have you, personally, ever read Joe Nickell's book
"Verdict on the Shroud"? Most of your points are well covered. A rigidly
scientific examination of the Shroud was needed...and instead, we got
STURP, which kicked the world's leading expert in microscopic particle
identification (McCrone) out for finding the "blood" was actually pigment.
I'm sorry to say that was just the top of the list. There was also a
"computer analysis" of the shroud's 3D information, which appears to have
come from the series of "correction factors" added to get the data to say
what they wanted. For "correction factors" read "fudging" or even "fraud".
Now the same old gang is trying to say the radiocarbon dating is invalid
because the shroud had been in a church that burned. Of course, there
wouldn't be a shroud left if the fire has affected it that much, and the
tested samples were carefully cleaned of debris, anyway. Now they are
saying that the Shroud is testing wrong because there are bacteria on the
cloth! Of course, the Shroud would have to be 3/4ths modern bacteria to
throw the dating off the amount needed to justify the Shroud as the burial
cloth of Christ. And they can't point to any other artifact that has ever
been tested whose dating was thrown off by the germs on it.
It will *never* be possible to verify the shroud as legit. There is no way
to prove that, even if were old enough, it ever contained the body of
Jesus. But let's face it, the historical record of the Shroud begins with a
report that the shroud was a hoax whose hoaxer had confessed. All the
fumbling, juggling of data, and blatant fraud that the STURP types can do
will not alter the fact that it is simply a leftover hoax, not half old
enough to be the real thing.
I hope you read the Joe Nickell book, not just the quoted-out-of-context
stuff you're going to hear from a Sindonologist. Or, for that matter, my
attempt to squeeze his book into the above post. I admit I haven't done him
justice. But as a former private investigator, Nickell has done an
excellent and thorough job investigating the Shroud. I can also recommend
any of the other books he's written, on any subject.
WinBear
Brant
Mr. Foot Grenade wrote in message <359FCA0D...@proaxis.com>...
>Brant, you keep saying that you make physiological critiques of the
>Shroud, but here you are dabbling in those very *artistic* critiques
>which you denied doing. How can you *avoid* the artistic approach
>without abandoning explanations entirely, i.e., if the physiology is
>askew, then this is the product of a paranormal process, an inept
>attempt at artistry, or the duplication in image of a nearly impossibly
>deformed person.
I guess you haven't read my other post yet, (or what I said went in one eye
and out the other.) You woulod *like* to base your arguments on the claim that
critics have nothing better to go on than biblical texts and artistic
evaluation.
For the sake of argument, let's assume the shroud image was really made while
draped over a body. Let's assume it was some unknown and never-observed energy
which caused it. The body which made the image, then, was not human and it
didn't happen on earth. Gravity was non-existent and the proportions are not
those of a human being. See? I didn't say a single thing about art, nor was
any artistic viewpoint even implied. I assumed for the sake of argument that it
happened one of the two other ways you suggest.
>You seem to favor The Shroud Is A Fake theory, thus,
>you have placed yourself in the arena of art criticism.
You would like that to be the case so you can argue that it is purely
subjective. I am not arguing about art, unless you are ready to concede that it
*was* a forgery. I am arguing about physical laws and human anatomical
proportions. This has nothing to do with art.
>If the Shroud
>is not an artifact of human artistic endeavor, then what else can it be?
And why should I accept that premise?
>If you invalidate or decline to use the artistic approach, then what
>explanatory factors are you left with?
Physics and human anatomy. Once those are examined, then the only rational
*conclusion* is that it is artwork.
Brant
Capella
David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 21:01:21 -0500, Capella <cap...@airmail.net>
> wrote:
>
> }
> }
> }Shane D. Killian wrote:
> }
> }> David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
> }> >
> }> > Here are some real facts on the shroud of Turin:
> }> > 1. The image on the shroud is similar to a photographic negative, not
> }> > a picture or a painting. Question: If it is a fraud created in the
> }> > thirteenth century, how did the forger know about photographic
> }> > negatives.
> }> >
> }> Negatives have been used for thousands of years. they have a purpose
> }> other than photography, you know.
> }>
> }
> }Yes, Leonardo Da Vichi was aware of a primitive photographic process asthe
> }pin hole effect. He lived around the time that the Turin Shroud seems
> }to have first appeared so knowledge at that time of the photographic process
> }
> It is called a Camera Obscura.
It's also called the "pin hole effect".
> }while not practical for snapshots, was sufficient to make a negative with
> }certain
> }common chemicals available at that time and with extremely long exposures
> }lasting days.
> }
> That's why the above explanation is inadequate. The Camera Obscura
> process takes too long and cannot produce the sharp image that appears
> on the shroud.
>
Anyone inspecting the image on the Shroud will notice that it isnot sharp at all.
Not only is the pin hole effect explanation feasible but similar images
have been reproduced in modern times using the pin hole effect and
common ordinary chemicals such as urine. The image was then
"fixed" by washing it and hanging it to dry.
You are arguing with the wrong person. The Christian expert ondating who dated
the Shroud is the one that says that such contamination
can't possibly affect a Carbon-14 test.
> }
> }To the other group of rationalists who insist bacterial growth on the
> }shroud skewed the tests, he said that they screened the samples
> }thoroughly before testing for such growths.
> }
> But they didn't "wash" the samples as required by strict Carbon dating
> tests. This is acknowledged by the STURP scientists and they have no
> explanation why crucial steps were not carried out. There has been a
> request from the STURP group to do a re-dating, but so far the Vatican
> has declined.
>
That's not what the scientist said. Somebody's lying. Tell me
something, did all three independent labs happen to be negligent
at the same time? I doubt it.
> }
> }> > 3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
> }> > perspective.
> }> >
> }> No, it is quite clearly a 2D image. If it were 3D, you would see the
> }> ears from the sides, for example.
> }>
> }
> }It is also hopelessly out of proportion. Anyone that doubts this, trylaying
> }on the ground covering your genitals as in the Shroud image.
> }
> }You can't do it without using your muscles. Dead people obviously
> }can't use their muscles.
> }
> }In other words, the arms are too long on the Shroud picture as well
> } as a host of other inaccuracies such as the hair not falling downward
> }towards the back of the head, but hanging down towards the shoulders
> }violating the law of gravity, etc...
> }
> All of this is discussed in great detail at the Web Site (see above).
> As I stated in my previous post, all of this is highly controversial
> and no one has come up with an adequate "naturalistic" explanation for
> the data generated by the STURP group. Not even a significant
> minority of it.
>
That doesn't explain why the arms on this Shroud are way too long.
> }
> }The Shroud also comes during a time when "holy relics" were big
> }business and there were multiple versions floating around Europe
> }of many of the same ones, such as clothing of Mary's, splinters
> }from the cross, John the Baptist's teeth, and of course many
> }burial Shrouds of Jesus, some of which even had head pictures.
> }
> The veneration of relics predates Christ. Its part of the reason that
> the assertion that the Shroud came to Turin from Constantinople via
> the Knights Templar is even seriously considered.
>
Of course that has nothing to do with my point that the Shroud wasdated by 3
independent labs to around 1300 CE, the time that
shroud making was big business and it was first mentioned.
There was over two dozen Shrouds circulating around Europe at that
time and of course Shroud's body is hopelessly out of proportion and
other aspects of it are impossible such as the gravity defying hair.
The weave of the cloth was European and not even used yet at
the time of Jesus, etc, etc, etc...
The Shroud of Turin is just another fake relic manufactured around
1300 C.E.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
150 bible errors, atrocities, contradictions, failed prophecies, etc... at:
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
Mr. Foot Grenade
No, Brant, you are still in the field of art criticism. You say that
the distortions of the Shroud image are approachable from the physical
laws and anatomical study. But that's only to say that you know only
what anyone can with some education and objective observation conclude:
the image is distorted. Beyond this you cannot venture. The image is
distorted. So what? You have not demonstrated the mechanism of image
production, or how this process resulted in distortion. If the image
was produced by paranormal means, then at least currently, there is no
hope of explanation. But if the image was produced by natural or
artificial means, then there is a possibility of explanation. Which is
it, Brant: does the image result from natural processes, or does it
result from human artistry? In either case, describe the process, and
why it resulted in distortion. If natural, then nature, at least in
this particular case, produced an image containing some distortion. But
if not natural, you are once again back in the field of art criticism,
since you now need to explain the distortions from artistic practices.
Behind your argument seems to be lurking one of Joe Nickell's grand
"Would's": nature Would not create a distorted image; or, an artist
Would (accidentally) create a distorted image; or, if the cloth were
draped over a human body living or dead, the image Would have
such-and-such features, etc. These grand "Would's" are based on the
overconfident assumption that, since the Shroudman's image proportions
are askew, we are now in a position to pronounce on its authenticity.
This position is untenable, unless we know the manner of image
production: then we could say with more confidence that nature does,
(not would) produce such distorted images; or that artistry does (not
would) produce such distorted images in test cases. Until that time,
Brant, you are not competent to judge the Shroud's authenticity. You
only have the observable distortions. You don't have the method of
image production. If you say the Shroud is inauthentic, you need to
finish that sentence: the Shroud is an inauthentic... what? Remember,
you have declined to enter the field of art criticism. You can't say
based on the distortions alone, that the image is a fake, since this is
equivalent to knowing that it is the result of art. This leaves you
with the natural-distortion alternative (or, distasteful to you no
doubt, the paranormal alternative). But in any of these three cases,
you cannot demonstrate that distortion would, would not, could, or
should not be present as a predictable result of these respective
processes.
Again, I ask you, Brant: if the Shroud is not art, then what is it?
"It's physiologically distorted" answers no questions at all, Brant.
The question is: "On what are these distortions based; from what do they
derive?" Your declination of art criticism has ironically painted (pun
intended) you into a corner where you can only accept the Shroud as
*genuine*: i.e., as a genuine, though distorted product of nature, or as
a genuine, though distorted product of the paranormal.
Blackguard
Capella wrote:
>
> Shane D. Killian wrote:
>
> > >
> > > In article <35A01228...@vnet.net>, Shane D. Killian
> > > <sha...@vnet.net> writes
> > > ...
> > > Well, you learn something new every day.
> > >
> > He actually did quite a bit with corpses...he would even cut them open
> > and draw pictures of the organs.
> >
>
> organs, muscular, and skeletal system aspects to aid his
> painting and other art work's realism.
But he had to do this in secret. I seem to remember hearing that the
church frowned upon this practice and punished those that
"transgressed".
# 3.14169 Most Holy Blackguard, High Priest of the Church of Iconoclasts
aa #869
Surveillance and Black Helicopter Division EAC
---
to e-mail just use the appropriate numbers or letters, but beware, my
spamblock is up and running.
why you won for ate ate won three <at> yorku.ca
Brant
David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote in message <35a1672a...@news.erinet.com>...
>On Sun, 5 Jul 1998 03:35:02 -0400, "Brant" <bra...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>}David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote in message
<35a0d101...@news.erinet.com>...
<snip>
>}>}
>}>Here are some real facts on the shroud of Turin:
>}>1. The image on the shroud is similar to a photographic negative, not
>}>a picture or a painting.
>}
>} As such, there is no explanation at this time which supports *either*
>}viewpoint, as far as the "photonegativity" is concerned.
>}
>} You didn't respond to any of my points either.
And after this second time around, you *still* did not respond to my
observations. Instead, you posted a URL for a pro-shroud web site and then made
seven other references to it, simply saying go read it. I think most people
consider that kind of response annoying, if not deliberately evasive.
So, doctor, what's your PhD in and where did you get it? It's perfectly
reasonable to expect you to give this information since you so prominently
identify yourself as a PhD.
BTW, this wouldn't be *your* web site by any chance, would it? If so, I think
you were being deliberately deceptive by not stating so.
>}Question: If it is a fraud created in the
>}>thirteenth century, how did the forger know about photographic
>}>negatives. Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
>}>as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
>}>ocher).
>}>1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
>}>explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
>}>There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
>}>produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
>}>2. The shroud project carbon dated the shroud to roughly 1200 AD--The
>}>exact time when the church at Turin was burned. The shroud was saved,
>}>but scorched. Reputable scientists agree that the carbon dating is
>}>flawed for that reason.
>}
>} My understanding is that the carbon was washed off, along with any other
>}contaminates which could be removed, and the *linen* itself was dated. The
only
>}scientific analysis I have heard indicates that the contamination could not
>}possibly effect the dating by anything *like* 1200 years. What reputable
>}scientists are you referring to? You've made the claim. Now a name, please?
>}
>I'll do better than that. Go to http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm and do
>some extensive reading.
Yes, there are a lot of references on that page. Now why don't you respond to
the question? The "Nature" article was included and I see nothing in it which
contradicts what I just said. You said "reputable scientists" agree that the
dating is flawed. Be specific. I know all the hoopla about the supposed
plasticised bacterial film. I have seen the comments of two "reputable"
scientists who say that it is impossible for such a film to cause an error that
would even come *close* to 1200 years.
Yet fundies will continue to make their specious arguments just as they do
with regard to evolution. Virtual mountains of evidence, all of which point to
the same conclusion, simply roll off fundies like water off a duck's back.
Or maybe you're referring to such reputably "scientific" work as the autopsy
on the shroud, performed by a (claimed) coroner who has been immersed in
shroudism for 45 years and presumes to give us a forensic analysis of the image.
I'm doing some independent research now in order to determine just how
"reputable" this examination is. Why? Because I found several terms and
comments which were inconsistent with what I would expect a pathologist to say.
More on that later.
>}>A plaster cast made from a computer analysis of the
>}>shroud's 3-D image is available for viewing at the chapel of the Air
>}>Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
>}
>} Yeah, a 3-D projection was also created. Perfectly flat artistic renderings
>}can be processed that way, based on the shading. Anyway, I never heard about
>}this plaster cast. What, pray tell, did they pour the plaster into? Oh, you
>}mean somebody who believes in the shroud simply made a sculpture based on the
>}appearance of the image...one which *can* be viewed as a three dimensional
>}object and which the sculptor *created* the image to look more real.
>}
>You are incredible.
Yeah, I know. So what? You made no comment whatsoever concerning my specific
remarks.
>The Labs at the U.S. Air Force academy were part
>of the STURP Team.
I don't know the details here, but I guess I'll find them out in my research.
Again, I'll say, before even completing my research, that *any* positive mold
which shows correct proportions, is a deliberate alteration of the actual data
which is obtainable from the shroud. An arm, shown in two dimensions, which is
*way* too long, will *never* show up shorter in a 3-D reconstruction. No amount
of reconstruction from true data can ever make those fingertips end up anywhere
*but* at the lateral portion of the far thigh.
One can make a 3-D model of any flat illustration ever made, as long as it
shows shading which represents the third dimension. The only feature which such
reconstructions can help us with is the dimension which perpendicular to the
plane of projection. The other two dimensions are well visible to the eye, as
in the length of the arm and the proportions of the eyes and head. Features
foreshortened by two-dimensional representation are always longer in reality.
>It was at their labs that the image was analyzed
>and reconstructed. Please go to http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm and do
>some serious reading.
Any reconstruction of the shroud image which ends up with proper proportions
is a deliberate hoax, created purely to deceive.
>} I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold water. Plaster castings are only useful
when
>}you already have a negative form for a mold and you want to see a positive
shape
>}which resembles the object which made the depression.
>}
>Exactly.
Exactly? The shroud is a flat surface, and the image shows no distortion due
to wrapping or draping. Just *what* is one supposed to pour the plaster into?
You just cite "plaster casting" as if it's some kind of validation of the
shroud's authenticity. There *is* no negative mold for the plaster to show a
positive of. The only way to do it is to *fabricate* a three dimensional
negative mold. It is this fabrication of an intermediate image carrier that you
have made no attempt to document.
>}
>}> It very clearly shows a
>}>human being with normal arms and legs that has been brutally beaten.
>}
>} Then it is a forgery too, because no image or casting made from the
dimensions
>}of the shroud could show proper dimensions unless the creator deliberately
>}altered them to look more correct. There is no way you can have an arm of
>}anything close to normal length which touches the far thigh while being bent
at
>}that angle. Assuming the third dimension not apparent in the shroud, i.e. the
>}fact that the upper arm would be lying on the surface and then have to come
*up*
>}on top of the hips from the elbow, this makes the length of the arm even
>}*greater* than if you examined the image in only two dimensions.
>Go to the Web Site.
Great answer. So I'll say again: if any casting shows proper anatomical
proportions, then it is a deliberate act of deception. I have shown why this is
the case. It *cannot* end up with the right hand fingertips any place but on
the lateral edge of the far thigh.
Note: in some previous posts, I believe I made a careless error in reversing
right and left. Even though the left arm is too long, the right arm is nothing
human at all. Web site or not.
>}
>} Being "brutally beaten" doesn't make your arms 20% longer. Nor does it make
>}your hair defy gravity. Nor does it make your legs stay together when lying
on
>}your back at rest.
>}
>Who said he was laying on his back at rest. His knees were bent due
>to rigor mortis. Go to the Web Site.
There is a devastating contradiction between what you are saying and what the
pathologist wrote. Perhaps *you* should do some reading. He says the rear
image of the legs show one leg straight and the other slightly bent, (with other
thinly veiled details which are intended to "prove" that he was nailed to a
cross.) In the shroud, *both* legs appear to be pretty nearly completely
straight, allowing for the fact that this *is* an example of how the third
dimension is difficult to determine from the view given.
But how could *either* leg be straight if rigor mortis set in while the body
was hanging from a cross? They would *both* be bent...considerably. Also, the
(claimed) coroner said one leg suggested rotation. This is as much a
fabrication as his mentioning of "blood," (never determined from observation of
the shroud image), "puncture wounds," (which we're supposed to believe he can
determine from an image which was presumably made by a completely unknown
method), and several other identifications of image components for which he
could not possibly know the cause. Yet he blithely states that the arms and
legs are properly proportioned.
>}>The nose is broken, the cheekbones crushed, etc. The thorn holes in
>}>the forehead are clearly indentations. It is very hard to argue that
>}>the image is faked in any way.
>}
>} Only for those who are convinced it is Jesus. I see a face which is almost
>}perfectly symmetrical. I see amorphous blobs in a very old piece of fabric
>}which could be anything. You have absolutely *no way* to support your
argument
>}that "indentations" are visible.
>}
>Go to the WEB Site.
See? This gets pretty annoying, doesn't it? Simply referring someone to a
web site nine times in one post does not support your view.
When I look more carefully, I have to confess that the face is not perfectly
symmetrical. The right cheek is larger. Now that that's done, I'd like to see
how you can identify puncture wounds and indentations on a piece of material
which has been around for hundreds of years and is full of defects.
>} But even if these things *were* clear, it is perfectly reasonable to assume
>}that if it was forged, the artist tried to make it look as authentic as he
>}could, considering what was believed about Jesus' torment. I saw a great big
>}beautiful painting of Jesus with holes in his hands. Is this proof that the
>}artist was looking at Jesus when he painted it?
>}
>That's just the point. Prior images of Jesus (before the shroud
>surfaced in 1200 AD) were totally unlike the image on the shroud. You
>really need to do some reading and I recommend the WEB Site. It has
>both positive and negative responses to the shroud, this is not a
>attempt to change your mind; I simply want you to get your facts
>straight.
First you'll have to tell me which of my "facts" are incorrect. Go ahead,
since you haven't dealt with any of my specific arguments. Pick one and tell me
why I need to get it straight.
It's good that you're not trying to change my mind because you have given not
one single reason for doing so.
You are clearly on a pro-shroud crusade. You argue (excuse me...refer people
to a web site) purely for the purpose of promoting a belief in the shroud as
Jesus' burial cloth. Implicit in this goal, is always the miraculous means by
which the image was created in the first place. To my knowledge, there has
never been such an image left on a burial cloth. Only Jesus' resurrection, a
miraculous event, would be responsible for that...right?
<snip>
>See the WEB Site.
>}
><snip of some inappropriate verbiage>
More and more I'm questioning the legitimacy of your "PhD" label. One is
supposed to be pretty well educated in order to get one. Here's exactly what I
wrote, and I would like you to tell me what is inappropriate verbage. Or was
this just a weak excuse for cutting out a very revealing experience?
I wrote:
"You know what a fundie said at a lunch table full of people a few years ago?
I remember it word for word and he said it in his usual cocksure, haughty
manner. He said 'The scientific community is universally agreed that evolution
never happened.' That's how accurately fundies represent science."
Now, tell me what's "innapropriate verbage" in that.
>}>The shroud is clearly a mysterious article for which there is
>}>currently no adequate scientific explanation.
>}
>} It is true that the actual origin of the shroud is not completely known.
All
>}we know is that an artist confessed to the forgery. A bishop accepted his
>}admission.
>}
>Totally false. Go to the Web Site.
Oooo, the web site again. No. *You* tell me why my comment was totally
false.
>}
>} Carbon dating of the *cleaned* linen puts the age of the material at
>}about 800 years.
>}
>That's the point. One of the crucial steps in Carbon Dating(complete
>removal of all foreign matter prior to testing)was not done for some
>inexplicable reason.
If you read the nature article, you'll probably be surprised that the linen
*itself* survived such a stringent cleaning process. And several cleaning
processes were used, just in case anyone argued that the cleaning threw off the
ressults. They were the same in all cases.
I think it's reasonable (although probably not forgivable) for me to say that
your faith is hanging by a thread. It is now based *solely* on the plasticized
bacteria claim, and sources, (which I'm sorry I can't remember right now),
which have examined the thread, say without any equivocation, that the amount of
build-up is not *nearly* enough to cause an error of 1200 years. In order for
this to occur, the bacteria would have to be a greater mass than the linen
itself.
No doubt, there are many pre-convinced believers who will say otherwise...not
because their arguments are based on any scientific process but because they
*want* to believe the shroud was used to bury Jesus. It's a cherished relic
which implies a miraculous resurrection and therefore supports their religious
faith.
>There is also reason to believe the Shroud was
>covered by a thin bio plastic layer that was not removed prior to the
>carbon dating. Scientists are now acknowledging these errors and are
>asking the Vatican for another test. So far permission has not been
>given.
And it probably won't be. I'm afraid the bioplastic layer will remain
"unsolved" for a long time. I put that in quotes because I believe it has been
adequately refuted as to having any significant effect on the dating, simply
because of the comparative masses, but it would be nice to see a test in which
this deposit is completely removed, if that is possible. I'd like to see more
analysis of the "blood" and the image areas as well.
>} The legs would not be together. The hair would not hang
>}horizontally. The arms are way too long, (probably because drawing exposed
>}genitals in the 13th century was frowned upon). Some of the supposed "blood"
>}has been identified as red ochre. Any radiant process would not make an
>}orthographic image. Relative value intensity can change with time, causing an
>}apparently negative looking image. Religious forgeries have abounded through
>}history. And some others.
>}
>All these points are discussed in detail at the WEB Site I gave above.
>It is clear from the discussion there what you are pushing is false or
>at best controversial. I suggest you do some reading.
Just like evolution is false and controversial, right?
><Snip of irrelevant non sequiturs>
>}
>} There are hundreds of other examples of things for which there are very good
>}scientific explanations, but since those explanations contradict what fundies
>}want to believe, they are ignored or misrepresented.
>}
>} Brant
>}
>That's just the problem. None of the "explanations" so far given for
>the Shroud are adequate. Every proposed scientific explanation has
>failed to account for all the data or even a significant minority of
>it.
Wrong. They are inadequate for verifying that the shroud was Jesus' burial
cloth. They will always be "inadequate" to believers in that respect because
the shroud *wasn't* Jesus' burial cloth. They have been quite adequate in
showing that.
Brant
Now what's your PhD in, again?
Shane D. Killian
Capella wrote:
>
> Shane D. Killian wrote:
>
> > other than photography, you know.
> >
>
> Yes, Leonardo Da Vichi was aware of a primitive photographic process
> asthe pin hole effect.
>
did it with sculpture all the time. The Aegeans used it in pottery. The
concept of "negativity" has been around almost as long as art. Just
because they didn't *call* it that, or know about photographs doesn't
mean they didn't do it.
> > Please identify these "reputable" scientists. No one has yet been able
> > to sufficiently demonstrate that there is enough contamination on the
> > shroud fibers to theow off the dating by 12-1300 years. And despite
> > years of promises from many claimants that their C-14 dating will prove
> > a 30CE date, these promises remain to this day unfulfilled.
> >
>
> I saw an interview with one of the scientists who dated the Shroud(who
> was a disappointed Christian BTW).
>
It is my understanding that most if not all of the original examiners
were Christians who were hoping the shroud would turn out to be genuine.
They were quite disappointed when it turned out not to be bona fide.
> He said that no amount of
> burning would affect the Carbon -14 tests because burning doesn't
> produce the radio active carbon that is actually measured, it produces
> a different kind of carbon.
>
Actually, it produces Carbon 12-the other isotope used in carbon dating,
which would have made the shroud YOUNGER than measured, not older!
> To the other group of rationalists who insist bacterial growth on the
> shroud skewed the tests, he said that they screened the samples
> thoroughly before testing for such growths.
>
Considering that the amount of bacterial buildup needed to throw the
dating off by 12-1300 years would weigh twice as much as the shroud
itself, and be quite visible to the unaided eye, this just seems ot be
wishful thinking.
> > No, it is quite clearly a 2D image. If it were 3D, you would see the
> > ears from the sides, for example.
>
> It is also hopelessly out of proportion.
>
Agreed, I measured the proportions quite thoroguly. The eyes are too
high up, the arms are too long, the nose is too long...things are off by
far too much to be attributed to just genetic uniqueness.
> Anyone that doubts this, trylaying
> on the ground covering your genitals as in the Shroud image.
>
You can do this, you just have to stick your arms WAAAAY out!
> You can't do it without using your muscles. Dead people obviously
> can't use their muscles.
>
They can't levitate their heair, either.
> The Shroud also comes during a time when "holy relics" were big
> business and there were multiple versions floating around Europe
> of many of the same ones, such as clothing of Mary's, splinters
> from the cross, John the Baptist's teeth, and of course many
> burial Shrouds of Jesus, some of which even had head pictures.
>
Someone (I forget who) once calculated that if you took all the pieces
of wood from the geniune, honest-to-goodness cross, you'd have enough
wood to rebuild St. Peter's Cathedral.
Shane D. Killian
David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
>
>
> }Negatives have been used for thousands of years. they have a purpose
> }other than photography, you know.
> }
>
> }> Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
> }> as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
> }> ocher).
> }>
> }Then a) why is the blood on the shroud red and b) why did it show up
> }under microscopic examination as ocher paint?
> }
> There are blood stains on the shroud, but they are not part of the
> image imprinted on the shroud. The consensus of the forensic MDs and
> scientists is that the blood stains on the shroud are just that. See
> the Web Site, http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm, for details.
>
I've seen it; I've also seen the actual data from the shroud examiners
where they found the same DNA traces elseqhere on the shroud where there
was no image, and concluded that it was the DNA left behind by the
numerous people who have handled the shroud over the centuries.
Maybe you ought to look at more than one source. Say, the people who
have actually *examined* the shroud, maybe?
> }> 1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
> }> explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
> }> There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
> }> produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
> }>
> }BS. DaVinci did it all the time with corpses (they're called
> }"rubbings")--and yes, they were in negative!!!
> }
> You should not make claims that you cannot substantiate. Go to the
> web site I gave above.
>
I've poured through that website several times. As for DaVinci, go check
any biography and you'll see that he performed numerous experiments with
corpses--including rubbings and even autopsies.
> }Please identify these "reputable" scientists. No one has yet been able
> }to sufficiently demonstrate that there is enough contamination on the
> }shroud fibers to theow off the dating by 12-1300 years. And despite
> }years of promises from many claimants that their C-14 dating will prove
> }a 30CE date, these promises remain to this day unfulfilled.
> }
> See the WEB Site above.
>
I *HAVE*. The only scientists I saw making that claimw ere a couple of
scientists at the University of Textas, and according to the Archbishop
of Turin, the samples they have are NOT from the shroud.
Interesting how they didn't mention that little fact on shroud.com?
> }> 3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
> }> perspective.
> }>
> }No, it is quite clearly a 2D image. If it were 3D, you would see the
> }ears from the sides, for example.
> }
> This is an assumption based on draping a cloth over a form so that all
> sides touch the form. That is not what I meant by a 3-D image.
>
Then juat what did you mean? The image on the shroud is about as 2D as
you can get.
And besides, the cloth was WRAPPED around Jesus, and this would clearly
have caused the distortion I mentioned. Why have you not responded to
this?
Shane D. Killian
David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
>
> }on the ground covering your genitals as in the Shroud image.
> }
> }can't use their muscles.
> }
> } as a host of other inaccuracies such as the hair not falling downward
> }towards the back of the head, but hanging down towards the shoulders
> }violating the law of gravity, etc...
> }
> All of this is discussed in great detail at the Web Site (see above).
>
They don't go one single step toward explaining the nuerous inaccuracies
in the shroud image.
Shane D. Killian
Capella wrote:
>
> David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
>
> > That's why the above explanation is inadequate. The Camera Obscura
> > process takes too long and cannot produce the sharp image that appears
> > on the shroud.
> >
>
Anyone inspecting the image on the Shroud will notice that it isnot
sharp at all.
In fact, on shroud.com, they specifically tell you to look at the image
from a distance because the image breaks down as you come closer to it.
Notice they have no high-resolution images of the shroud?
> > But they didn't "wash" the samples as required by strict Carbon dating
> > tests. This is acknowledged by the STURP scientists and they have no
> > explanation why crucial steps were not carried out. There has been a
> > request from the STURP group to do a re-dating, but so far the Vatican
> > has declined.
> >
>
> That's not what the scientist said. Somebody's lying. Tell me
> something, did all three independent labs happen to be negligent
> at the same time? I doubt it.
>
And considering that they ALL say they thoroughly cleaned the fibers,
and that the fibers did NOT come from a burned portion, this again
sounds like wishful thinking.
> > All of this is discussed in great detail at the Web Site (see above).
> > As I stated in my previous post, all of this is highly controversial
> > and no one has come up with an adequate "naturalistic" explanation for
> > the data generated by the STURP group. Not even a significant
> > minority of it.
> >
>
> That doesn't explain why the arms on this Shroud are way too long.
>
Or why the eyes are too high up.
Ted Park
Shane D. Killian (sha...@vnet.net) wrote:
: > He said that no amount of
: > burning would affect the Carbon -14 tests because burning doesn't
: > produce the radio active carbon that is actually measured, it produces
: > a different kind of carbon.
: >
: Actually, it produces Carbon 12-the other isotope used in carbon dating,
: which would have made the shroud YOUNGER than measured, not older!
I believe that when objects are incompletely burned, oxygen is added and
some of the carbon escapes as CO and CO2, and hydrogen molecules are
bound with oxygen to create water vapor. Burning leaves behind carbon
that was in the original sample. Since this is a non nuclear process,
I don't see how the the ratio could be affected very much. I suppose
that there could be a difference in oxidation rates between carbon 12
and carbon 14, but I suspect it would be very small. I have not
found information detailing these differences.
I am curious to know what organizations believe that the shroud
is the genuine item. IIRC, the Catholic church no longer believes
it's the real thing, but I could be mistaken. Problems with
proportions on the image, carbon dating, and the weave of the
cloth are convincing arguments against it being any burial cloth
at all, and certainly not from the first century.
For those individuals out there who believe that the Bible is the
Literal Word of God, I suppose it wouldn't take much more imagination
stretching to accept the shroud is the Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ.
If you don't require reasonable evidence of something, or you choose
to ignore data which is presented, anything can be believed in.
After all, lab analysis and presentation of images showing incorrect
proportions could be a trick by Satan meant to lead astray members
of His Flock.
Or whatever.
--Ted.
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998 07:52:31 GMT, "WinBear" <rob...@SPAMKILLiglou.com>
wrote:
}Organization: x-no-archive: yes
}Message-ID: <01bda8b2$f21d6660$9ee3ffcc@default>
}X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
}
}
}
}David E. Weldon, Ph. D. <dwe...@erinet.com> wrote in article through
}> All these points are discussed in detail at the WEB Site I gave above.
}> It is clear from the discussion there what you are pushing is false or
}> at best controversial. I suggest you do some reading.
}
}I was just wondering...have you, personally, ever read Joe Nickell's book
}"Verdict on the Shroud"? Most of your points are well covered. A rigidly
}scientific examination of the Shroud was needed...and instead, we got
}STURP, which kicked the world's leading expert in microscopic particle
}identification (McCrone) out for finding the "blood" was actually pigment.
}I'm sorry to say that was just the top of the list. There was also a
}"computer analysis" of the shroud's 3D information, which appears to have
}come from the series of "correction factors" added to get the data to say
}what they wanted. For "correction factors" read "fudging" or even "fraud".
}Now the same old gang is trying to say the radiocarbon dating is invalid
}because the shroud had been in a church that burned. Of course, there
}wouldn't be a shroud left if the fire has affected it that much, and the
}tested samples were carefully cleaned of debris, anyway. Now they are
}saying that the Shroud is testing wrong because there are bacteria on the
}cloth! Of course, the Shroud would have to be 3/4ths modern bacteria to
}throw the dating off the amount needed to justify the Shroud as the burial
}cloth of Christ. And they can't point to any other artifact that has ever
}been tested whose dating was thrown off by the germs on it.
}
Actually, excerpts from Joe Nickell's book are presented extensively
at the Web Site I referenced (http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm) and, as
is clear from the comments on his assertions by several reputable
scientists, sometimes he has a point, but most times he is way off
track. I recommend the site because it is trying very hard to present
the facts clearly and give skeptics and believers equal time (or at
least time commensurate with the quality of their input).
Reading the material at the Web Site will go along way in removing a
lot of misinformation from this thread.
}
}It will *never* be possible to verify the shroud as legit. There is no way
}to prove that, even if were old enough, it ever contained the body of
}Jesus. But let's face it, the historical record of the Shroud begins with a
}report that the shroud was a hoax whose hoaxer had confessed. All the
}fumbling, juggling of data, and blatant fraud that the STURP types can do
}will not alter the fact that it is simply a leftover hoax, not half old
}enough to be the real thing.
}
According to legend, the shroud was brought back to France by the
Knights Templar after they sacked Constantinople in the fourth
crusade. The Pope at that time was determined to break the power of
the Knights Templar and, in fact, persecuted them as heretics. This
same Pope was the one who asserted the shroud was a hoax. He did it
for political reasons and also because the image on the shroud was a
very different view of Christ than that held by the Church at that
time. No evidence that it was a hoax was ever brought forth at that
time.
}
}I hope you read the Joe Nickell book, not just the quoted-out-of-context
}stuff you're going to hear from a Sindonologist. Or, for that matter, my
}attempt to squeeze his book into the above post. I admit I haven't done him
}justice. But as a former private investigator, Nickell has done an
}excellent and thorough job investigating the Shroud. I can also recommend
}any of the other books he's written, on any subject.
}
}WinBear
}
Go to the Web Site. Look at the rebuttals to several of Nickell's
claims. Ask yourself if the rebuttals are all biased and reflect
preconceived belief systems. Check the credentials of the writers.
Test it yourself.
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 00:45:45 GMT, "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
wrote:
}David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
}>
}> On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 21:01:21 -0500, Capella <cap...@airmail.net>
}> wrote:
}>
}> }It is also hopelessly out of proportion. Anyone that doubts this, trylaying
}> }on the ground covering your genitals as in the Shroud image.
}> }
}> }You can't do it without using your muscles. Dead people obviously
}> }can't use their muscles.
}> }
}> }In other words, the arms are too long on the Shroud picture as well
}> } as a host of other inaccuracies such as the hair not falling downward
}> }towards the back of the head, but hanging down towards the shoulders
}> }violating the law of gravity, etc...
}> }
}> All of this is discussed in great detail at the Web Site (see above).
}>
}You mean shroud.com? Been there, done that, refused the merchandising.
}They don't go one single step toward explaining the nuerous inaccuracies
}in the shroud image.
}
Which ones? Those that argue that it is an artists rendering? Or
those who state that no known processes can explain all the Data? Or
those that raise questions about the thoroughness of the tests?
By the way, the image is what it is. It cannot have inaccuracies
unless you presuppose a process for producing the image. What is YOUR
proposed process?
Cheers,
Dave W.
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 00:49:35 GMT, "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
wrote:
}Capella wrote:
}>
}> David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
}>
}> > That's why the above explanation is inadequate. The Camera Obscura
}> > process takes too long and cannot produce the sharp image that appears
}> > on the shroud.
}> >
}>
}Anyone inspecting the image on the Shroud will notice that it isnot
}sharp at all.
}
}In fact, on shroud.com, they specifically tell you to look at the image
}from a distance because the image breaks down as you come closer to it.
}Notice they have no high-resolution images of the shroud?
}
}> > But they didn't "wash" the samples as required by strict Carbon dating
}> > tests. This is acknowledged by the STURP scientists and they have no
}> > explanation why crucial steps were not carried out. There has been a
}> > request from the STURP group to do a re-dating, but so far the Vatican
}> > has declined.
}> >
}>
}> That's not what the scientist said. Somebody's lying. Tell me
}> something, did all three independent labs happen to be negligent
}> at the same time? I doubt it.
}>
}And considering that they ALL say they thoroughly cleaned the fibers,
}and that the fibers did NOT come from a burned portion, this again
}sounds like wishful thinking.
}
See the extended discussion of this issue by both sides at the Web
Site. The missing "wash" is not soap and water.
}
}> > All of this is discussed in great detail at the Web Site (see above).
}> > As I stated in my previous post, all of this is highly controversial
}> > and no one has come up with an adequate "naturalistic" explanation for
}> > the data generated by the STURP group. Not even a significant
}> > minority of it.
}> >
}>
}> That doesn't explain why the arms on this Shroud are way too long.
}>
No, but the issue is dealt with at the Web Site and you need to read
and assess the facts.
}
}Or why the eyes are too high up.
}
Ditto.
Regards, Dave W.
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 00:45:45 GMT, "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
wrote:
}David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
}>
}> On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 21:01:21 -0500, Capella <cap...@airmail.net>
}> wrote:
}>
}> }It is also hopelessly out of proportion. Anyone that doubts this, trylaying
}> }on the ground covering your genitals as in the Shroud image.
}> }
}> }You can't do it without using your muscles. Dead people obviously
}> }can't use their muscles.
}> }
}> }In other words, the arms are too long on the Shroud picture as well
}> } as a host of other inaccuracies such as the hair not falling downward
}> }towards the back of the head, but hanging down towards the shoulders
}> }violating the law of gravity, etc...
}> }
}> All of this is discussed in great detail at the Web Site (see above).
}>
}You mean shroud.com? Been there, done that, refused the merchandising.
}They don't go one single step toward explaining the nuerous inaccuracies
}in the shroud image.
"Inaccuracies" implies a presupposed process on your part. What is
that process.
Also, you haven't been there recently because, as near as I can tell,
the presentation is relatively impartial. The owner of the site is,
as he states, a Jew with no vested interest in the validity of the
shroud. He was just the photographer selected by the STURP group to
take the pictures. His stated intent is to present the data and the
various interpretations in order to try to stem the tide of
misinformation that is currently swirling around the shroud. This
thread is a clear example of that.
Cheers, Dave W.
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 00:55:08 GMT, "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
wrote:
}David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
}>
}> On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 23:53:40 GMT, "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
}> wrote:
}>
}> }Negatives have been used for thousands of years. they have a purpose
}> }other than photography, you know.
}> }
}> Not so you can put the image on linen with no trace of chemicals.
}>
}They found more than traces of red ocher paint.
}
}> }> Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
}> }> as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
}> }> ocher).
}> }>
}> }Then a) why is the blood on the shroud red and b) why did it show up
}> }under microscopic examination as ocher paint?
}> }
}> There are blood stains on the shroud, but they are not part of the
}> image imprinted on the shroud. The consensus of the forensic MDs and
}> scientists is that the blood stains on the shroud are just that. See
}> the Web Site, http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm, for details.
}>
}I've seen it; I've also seen the actual data from the shroud examiners
}where they found the same DNA traces elseqhere on the shroud where there
}was no image, and concluded that it was the DNA left behind by the
}numerous people who have handled the shroud over the centuries.
}
the same DNA traces? What does that mean? That they found additional
traces of DNA? Or that the DNA samples matched.
In any case, I was referring to the absence of metallic compounds in
the shroud samples that are always present in red ocher and the
presence of traces of blood albumen and other blood components in the
blood samples taken from the shroud.
}
}Maybe you ought to look at more than one source. Say, the people who
}have actually *examined* the shroud, maybe?
}
The owner of the Web site is the official photographer from the STRUP
team. The conclusions of the STRUP team are the first things
presented at the Web Site. Since the team consisted of both believers
and unbelievers, I don't see how the site is one sided. Even Mr.
Nickell's book is presented fairly and he is given a chance to respond
to each of his critics which are virtually universal.
If I didn't kow you are fiercely data-driven, i might think you were
engaging in avoidance behavior.
}
}> }> 1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
}> }> explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
}> }> There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
}> }> produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
}> }>
}> }BS. DaVinci did it all the time with corpses (they're called
}> }"rubbings")--and yes, they were in negative!!!
}> }
}> You should not make claims that you cannot substantiate. Go to the
}> web site I gave above.
}>
}I've poured through that website several times. As for DaVinci, go check
}any biography and you'll see that he performed numerous experiments with
}corpses--including rubbings and even autopsies.
}
I'm sorry, I must have been educated at an earlier time when the
renaissance was a major part of european history and Leonardo DaVinci
was a central character (as was Michelangelo). I have read
biographies of both and am fully aware of anatomy studies (done under
very difficult circumstances). I am also aware that DaVinci kept
copious notes and of those that survived (roughly 1/3 of the volumes
are missing), there is no mention of the shroud of Turin or of any
attempts by him to duplicate the process. It is known that he visited
the Castle of Savoy where the shroud was kept until it was given to
the Cathedral in Turin. It is also known that he made no mention of
it, verbally, or that he had an opinion about it one way or the other.
}
}>}Please identify these "reputable" scientists. No one has yet been able
}> }to sufficiently demonstrate that there is enough contamination on the
}> }shroud fibers to theow off the dating by 12-1300 years. And despite
}> }years of promises from many claimants that their C-14 dating will prove
}> }a 30CE date, these promises remain to this day unfulfilled.
}> }
}> See the WEB Site above.
}>
}I *HAVE*. The only scientists I saw making that claimw ere a couple of
}scientists at the University of Textas, and according to the Archbishop
}of Turin, the samples they have are NOT from the shroud.
}
}Interesting how they didn't mention that little fact on shroud.com?
}
it is mentioned. In the same paragraph where the Archbishop asserts
that no more carbon dating will be done; that the data gathered by the
STURP teams is the officially recognized data by the Church. That
does not change the fact that linen exposed to humidity and bacterial
spores develops an bio plastic layer--always without exception. It
does not change the fact that the shroud is currently housed in argon
gas specifically to prevent further activity of that type. Finally,
it does not change the fact that the bio plastic layer is extremely
thin and hard to detect.
}
}> }> 3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
}> }> perspective.
}> }>
}> }No, it is quite clearly a 2D image. If it were 3D, you would see the
}> }ears from the sides, for example.
}> }
}> This is an assumption based on draping a cloth over a form so that all
}> sides touch the form. That is not what I meant by a 3-D image.
}>
}Then juat what did you mean? The image on the shroud is about as 2D as
}you can get.
}
}And besides, the cloth was WRAPPED around Jesus, and this would clearly
}have caused the distortion I mentioned. Why have you not responded to
}this?
First of all, we do not know for sure that it is Jesus' burial shroud.
Second, it could not have been wrapped around the body, it could only
have been draped. It was wrapped, the distortion would make the nose
impossibly wide. If you had spent a little more time at the Web site
you would know that.
Cheers, Dave W.
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 12:13:52 GMT, simon...@bull.co.uk wrote:
}Hi,
}
}just food for thought....
}
}when making a painting, you apply the colours (the image), from the top ONTO
}the surface.
}
}The idea is that the image of jesus was placed as he passed through the cloth
}from the underside, so the image is laid down in the opposite manner
}
}Could this not have been the thought process that ceated the 'negative'
}situation.
}
}Just because it acts like a negative, does not mean that the idea only stems
}from photography & since there was no photography, the principle did not
}exist!
}
}is it not also fair to say, that you get a similar effect from brass-rubbings?
}
}simon.
}
No....See the Web Site.
}
}
}In article <35a0d101...@news.erinet.com>,
} dwe...@erinet.com (David E. Weldon, Ph. D.) wrote:
}>
}> Here are some real facts on the shroud of Turin:
}> 1. The image on the shroud is similar to a photographic negative, not
}> a picture or a painting. Question: If it is a fraud created in the
}> thirteenth century, how did the forger know about photographic
}> negatives. Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
}> as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
}> ocher).
}> 1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
}> explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
}> There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
}> produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
}> 2. The shroud project carbon dated the shroud to roughly 1200 AD--The
}> exact time when the church at Turin was burned. The shroud was saved,
}> but scorched. Reputable scientists agree that the carbon dating is
}> flawed for that reason.
}> 3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
}> perspective. A plaster cast made from a computer analysis of the
}> shroud's 3-D image is available for viewing at the chapel of the Air
}> Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It very clearly shows a
}> human being with normal arms and legs that has been brutally beaten.
}> The nose is broken, the cheekbones crushed, etc. The thorn holes in
}> the forehead are clearly indentations. It is very hard to argue that
}> the image is faked in any way.
}> 4. Examination of the shroud under magnifying lenses reveals it is
}> embedded with the pollen of plants found only on the Holy Land.
}>
}> The shroud is clearly a mysterious article for which there is
}> currently no adequate scientific explanation.
}>
Brant
Mr. Foot Grenade wrote in message <35A0D4A7...@proaxis.com>...
>No, Brant, you are still in the field of art criticism.
<snip>
After reading that line, I'm not going to read the rest of your post because
I'm growing weary of your attempts to tell me what I'm saying. I've made it
abundantly clear to anyone who isn't an idiot or a TB, that my criticisms of the
body proportions are purely physiological, and with regard to the hair, purely
gravitational. You can't dispute these obvious refutations of the shroud's
authenticity, so you try to characterize my points as some kind of artistic
subjectivity. I even used your *own* premises and assumed for the sake of
argument, that the image *was* made by some unknown energy emanating off of a
body. And given that premise, I stated that the body wasn't human, and that it
happened in the absence of any gravitational influence.
Like all boneheaded fundies who refuse to see anything that contradicts their
views, you attempt to mis-characterize and misrepresent my points. You attempt
to restate my arguments improperly so that you can argue against them.
My points were:
1) The right arm is too long to be human. (I made the mistake of calling it
the left arm before, but they're both too long.)
2) The legs would not be straight and together if this was caused by a dead
body covered by the shroud.
3) The hair does not fall back to the table and spread like it should if this
occurred in the presence of gravity.
These, among many other things, are REFUTATIONS. Live with it and stop trying
to re-characterize my posts.
Brant
Brant
WinBear wrote in message ...
>Organization: x-no-archive: yes
>Message-ID: <01bda8b2$f21d6660$9ee3ffcc@default>
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
>All the
>fumbling, juggling of data, and blatant fraud that the STURP types can do
>will not alter the fact that it is simply a leftover hoax, not half old
>enough to be the real thing.
Still, *I'd* love to own it. I'd hang it on my wall right next to my
*authentic* Japanese obi.
Or maybe the next time I have a crab feast, we can put two picnic tables end
to end and use the shroud as a table cloth, instead of the brown wrapping paper
I usually roll out. Ahhh, steamed crabs with Old Bay seasoning! Just dump
piles of those hot hummers out on the tablecloth and start whacking and cracking
away with a dozen friends. And wouldn't I be the cat's meow in my neighborhood
for having the Shroud of Turin as the tablecloth!
Only difference is that I wouldn't roll up all the piles of empty crab shells
and throw it away, as I would with the paper. Instead, I'd shovel all the stuff
off into a big trash can, scrape off all the gobs of gooey guts and yellow stuff
that would be all over it, and hang it on the back of my boat and drag it around
in the bay for awhile to clean it. (It's too big to put in the washer.)
Then to dry it, I could stretch it out between two trees. After that, it
would make a swell hammock. On each end, I could use a laundry marking pen and
write the words, "Place body as shown." Y'know, for a little comic effect.
The possibilities are endless.
Brant
cla...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35a9b9e2...@news.erinet.com>,
dwe...@erinet.com (David E. Weldon, "Ph. D.") typed:
<MASSIVE snip, leaving in David's ONE-liner>
> No....See the Web Site.
DOH! Not again.
What's your PhD in?
SJC
Brant
<snip>
>But he had to do this in secret. I seem to remember hearing that the
>church frowned upon this practice and punished those that
>"transgressed".
Yes, and as we can see, there are many who would just *love* to have *their*
church able to exercise that kind of power today.
Brant
Brant
<snip>
>But they didn't "wash" the samples as required by strict Carbon dating
>tests. This is acknowledged by the STURP scientists and they have no
>explanation why crucial steps were not carried out. There has been a
>request from the STURP group to do a re-dating, but so far the Vatican
>has declined.
Oh really? Then perhaps you should read the "Nature" article which is on the
web page you referred me to, nine times in one post. The samples went through
such rigorous cleaning, I'm surprised the *linen* survived it.
Brant
<snip>
Alf Kerensky
[Super Snip]
>My points were:
>
>1) The right arm is too long to be human. (I made the mistake of calling it
>the left arm before, but they're both too long.)
I think they're too long for normal humans of that period of time, but
JC was alegelly a caucasian male about 1,80 meters tall.
>2) The legs would not be straight and together if this was caused by a dead
>body covered by the shroud.
They could have been tied together to keep the body more straight.
>3) The hair does not fall back to the table and spread like it should if this
>occurred in the presence of gravity.
if he was inveloped in the cloth, the hair could be enveloping his
face and head has well, making the hair patern appear the way it does.
> These, among many other things, are REFUTATIONS. Live with it and stop trying
>to re-characterize my posts.
ok.
And these are possible answers to your REFUTATIONS, wich can be pretty
much true.
or not.
B well.
Señores, Señoras y Señoritas, Radio KATN,
la Super Cadena, presenta con mucho gusto
los Caballeros de Coronel Carlos Camacho!
*APPLAUSE*
- Warcry of the Seventeenth Recon
Regiment, AKA Camacho's Caballeros.
Capella
Shane D. Killian wrote:
> David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
> >
> > }> 3. The image on the shroud is a 3-D image, not a 2-D image with
> > }> perspective.
> > }>
> > }No, it is quite clearly a 2D image. If it were 3D, you would see the
> > }ears from the sides, for example.
> > }
> > This is an assumption based on draping a cloth over a form so that all
> > sides touch the form. That is not what I meant by a 3-D image.
> >
> Then juat what did you mean? The image on the shroud is about as 2D as
> you can get.
>
> And besides, the cloth was WRAPPED around Jesus, and this would clearly
> have caused the distortion I mentioned. Why have you not responded to
> this?
>
One has to wonder also what kind of effect could possibly make animage that is
only on the outer part of the cloth, not the side that
would actually have faced the corpse if it was genuine.
Jesus would have had to turn himself inside out immediately after
resurrecting,
surround the cloth with his inside-out body and radiate on the cloth,
correcting
for many distortions to make the image on the outer side of it.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
150 bible errors, contradictions, atrocities, failed prophecies, etc... at:
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
Capella
Ted Park wrote:
> Shane D. Killian (sha...@vnet.net) wrote:
> : > He said that no amount of
> : > burning would affect the Carbon -14 tests because burning doesn't
> : > produce the radio active carbon that is actually measured, it produces
> : > a different kind of carbon.
> : >
> : Actually, it produces Carbon 12-the other isotope used in carbon dating,
> : which would have made the shroud YOUNGER than measured, not older!
>
> I believe that when objects are incompletely burned, oxygen is added and
> some of the carbon escapes as CO and CO2, and hydrogen molecules are
> bound with oxygen to create water vapor. Burning leaves behind carbon
> that was in the original sample. Since this is a non nuclear process,
> I don't see how the the ratio could be affected very much. I suppose
> that there could be a difference in oxidation rates between carbon 12
> and carbon 14, but I suspect it would be very small. I have not
> found information detailing these differences.
>
> I am curious to know what organizations believe that the shroud
> is the genuine item. IIRC, the Catholic church no longer believes
> it's the real thing, but I could be mistaken.
I've seen different programs on TV that stated that the Catholicchurch ceased
to believe the Shroud was authentic after the
Carbon dating results showed it to be a fake.
> Problems with
> proportions on the image, carbon dating, and the weave of the
> cloth are convincing arguments against it being any burial cloth
> at all, and certainly not from the first century.
>
> For those individuals out there who believe that the Bible is the
> Literal Word of God, I suppose it wouldn't take much more imagination
> stretching to accept the shroud is the Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ.
> If you don't require reasonable evidence of something, or you choose
> to ignore data which is presented, anything can be believed in.
> After all, lab analysis and presentation of images showing incorrect
> proportions could be a trick by Satan meant to lead astray members
> of His Flock.
>
> Or whatever.
>
> --Ted.
>
> --
> tp...@world.std.com http://www.beer.org/~tpark/
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
Dallas, Texas
New - I've added thumbnails for all the astrophotographs
How to build your own hypering tank temperature regulator and
how to build a knife-edge foccusing camera body.
Capella's Observatory
http://web2.airmail.net/capella
Mr. Foot Grenade
that crow sandwich taste?
Mr. Foot Grenade
Brant? Typical fundamentalist behavior on your part, fear of the
unknown driving you every step of the way. Your "refutations" based on
Shroud distortions are meaningless since they assume that you know how
the image was produced, and that the method of production created
deformities in the image. You're not saying anything more meaningful
than the obvious, "distortions are distortions". You can't advance
beyond this stage unless you come up with a mechanism - natural or
artificial - which would account for these distortions. Once again,
Brant, either the distortions result on the one hand from a paranormal,
or a natural process - or they are the result of artistry. Since you
claim to know that the Shroud is a "fake", you have eliminated both the
natural and the paranormal explanations. You are left with only the
artistic alternative, and this places you in the field of art criticism.
Pity you didn't read the rest of my post, and lacked the courage to
resist snipping it - you would have found your "refutations" soundly
refuted.
Ted Park
: One has to wonder also what kind of effect could possibly make animage that is
: only on the outer part of the cloth, not the side that
: would actually have faced the corpse if it was genuine.
: Jesus would have had to turn himself inside out immediately after
: resurrecting,
: surround the cloth with his inside-out body and radiate on the cloth,
: correcting
: for many distortions to make the image on the outer side of it.
Sounds as credible as some of the stories surrounding the shroud.
Speaking of cloth, does anyone have any photographs detailing the
weave of the shroud? I have read that it is a "three to one twill
herringbone" - but I haven't seen images demonstrating this.
Andrew Lias
>Shane D. Killian (sha...@vnet.net) wrote:
>I am curious to know what organizations believe that the shroud
>is the genuine item. IIRC, the Catholic church no longer believes
>it's the real thing, but I could be mistaken.
Last I heard, the Church held a position of official neutrality.
According to official statements, the worth of the faith is not contingent
on the validity of its artifacts. At best, holy relics are meant to
inspire believers in their pursuit of the faith, but are not meant to be
the faith itself (a point which certain anti-Papist fundamental churches
would hotly deny).
--
Please direct all replies to anrwlias AT hotmail.com | Siste viator
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
Capella
David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
>
>
> "Inaccuracies" implies a presupposed process on your part. What is
> that process.
>
Inaccuracies means things that are obvious from even looking at apicture of the
Shroud such as the hair hanging towards the person's
shoulder's instead of backwards, seemingly defying the law of gravity.
The arms are hopelessly too long and there is no way a dead person
can cover their genitals with their hands.
The eyes on the image are way too high, etc, etc, etc...
> Also, you haven't been there recently because, as near as I can tell,
> the presentation is relatively impartial. The owner of the site is,
> as he states, a Jew with no vested interest in the validity of the
> shroud. He was just the photographer selected by the STURP group to
> take the pictures. His stated intent is to present the data and the
> various interpretations in order to try to stem the tide of
> misinformation that is currently swirling around the shroud. This
> thread is a clear example of that.
>
> Cheers, Dave W.
Of course you won't elaborate on exactly what this "misinformation"
is. Is it when you said that the pin hole effect couldn't have caused
the Shroud image because the Shroud image is supposedly sharp?
You were certainly wrong there.
What else? That the image of the Shroud is hopelessly out of proportion
such that it couldn't possibly be the image of a real person? A quick
objective inspection of the image will settle that.
Are you talking about the 3 independent datings that came out within
a few dozen years of each other and all three date it to around 1300 CE
when it is first mentioned in literature and also at a time when fake
relics were flourishing and big business?
Are you talking about the weave which is European and wasn't
invented yet at the time of Jesus?
Are you talking about the fact that the image is just on the outer part
of the Shroud away from the body, not being what you would
expect from some sort of radiation from inside the cloth that
would be required to cause the images on the cloth in that
manner?
Etc, etc, etc...
And you don't seem to have much input except for to wave us
to some web site. Could it be that you don't have any answers
for these because there are none?
Mr. Foot Grenade
describe the Shroud's distortions. Inaccuracy plainly describes an
"accurate" standard by which something is found to be accurate or
inaccurate. There is no such standard for the Shroud image. That the
Shroud image's features are disporportionate is simply an observation.
If the disporportion is the result of a human attempt at art, and the
art was meant to accurately portray human anatomy, then, "inaccuracy" is
indeed the correct term. But the means of image production is at this
time unknown. Hence, the distortions remain distortions, not
inaccuracies.
WinBear
will simply say that this is Usenet. If you want to spam your favorite web
page, you are apparently at liberty to do do. I will point out that if I
wanted to be subjected to "Go to the web page, go to the web page", I would
buy a parrot. You have not refuted anything I have said, you have claimed a
Pope permitted a holy relic to be declared a fraud unjustly for political
reasons (Do you have his signed confession, or is this something somebody
made up to give a cloth an extra 1200 years of existence it didn't actually
have?), and you have made it clear that Joe Nickell's book is known to you
only by selected quotes at a STURP website, and as STURP is about as
scientific as Pat Robertson, they are unlikely to have presented the whole
story. You also evaded the fact that STURP fired McCrone for being too
competant and thus learning the truth about this ca. 800 year old forgery,
whose history begins with a confession by the forger.Your next move will
undoubtedly be to claim you are completely familiar with Nickell's book, at
which point I will begin asking for quotes from given pages. The *only*
Shroud webpage, of all I've been to, that did not appear to be run by
pointy-headed fundies, is the shroud page at the Skeptic's Dictionary site.
WinBear
WinBear
Capella <cap...@airmail.net> wrote in article
> Jesus would have had to turn himself inside out immediately after
> resurrecting,
> surround the cloth with his inside-out body and radiate on the cloth,
> correcting
> for many distortions to make the image on the outer side of it.
And how he managed to do this to a cloth that wouldn't exist for another
1200 years, is certainly a mystery. Amazing guy...
WinBear
Blackguard
>
> David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > }It is also hopelessly out of proportion. Anyone that doubts this, trylaying
> > }on the ground covering your genitals as in the Shroud image.
> > }
> > }You can't do it without using your muscles. Dead people obviously
> > }can't use their muscles.
> > }
> > }In other words, the arms are too long on the Shroud picture as well
> > } as a host of other inaccuracies such as the hair not falling downward
> > }towards the back of the head, but hanging down towards the shoulders
> > }violating the law of gravity, etc...
> > }
> > All of this is discussed in great detail at the Web Site (see above).
> >
> You mean shroud.com? Been there, done that, refused the merchandising.
> They don't go one single step toward explaining the nuerous inaccuracies
> in the shroud image.
Gotta love the "Shroud of Turin beachtowels"!
Actually that was on an episode of The Simpsons. But I wonder how much
the EAC could make selling them to fundies? And if we impregnate them
with EAC gas, or somehow work some "anti-rapture" technology into them
we could thin the herd so to speak.
Worth looking into don't you think?
# 3.14159 Most Holy Blackguard, High Priest of the Church of Iconoclasts
aa #869
Surveillance and Black Helicopter Division EAC
---
to e-mail just use the appropriate numbers or letters, but beware, my
spamblock is up and running.
why you won for ate ate won three <at> yorku.ca
Capella
Mr. Foot Grenade wrote:
> Sorry, Capella, "inaccuracies" is itself an inaccurate term when used to
> describe the Shroud's distortions. Inaccuracy plainly describes an
> "accurate" standard by which something is found to be accurate or
> inaccurate. There is no such standard for the Shroud image.
I'm sorry but that's simply nonsense. If a body is asserted to
havemiraculously "radiated" inside of a wrapped cloth to produce an
image, there are most certainly standards to measure this claim by.
The arms should not be severly disproportional to the rest of the
body. The eyes should not be way too high on the face. The image
should be all the way through the cloth or on the side facing the
"radiating" corpse, not on the outside of the cloth.
There are other inaccuracies about this being a first century
Shroud such as the weave of the cloth being European and
not invented until centuries after Jesus and of course
the three independant laboratories that Carbon dated it back to
around 1300 CE when it first appears in literature not a dozen
centuries earlier as you would expect for a first century cloth.
> That the
> Shroud image's features are disporportionate is simply an observation.
>
No, it is a fact of dimensions of human beings that can be
accuratelymeasured. There is nothing subjective about it.
> If the disporportion is the result of a human attempt at art, and the
> art was meant to accurately portray human anatomy, then, "inaccuracy" is
> indeed the correct term. But the means of image production is at this
> time unknown. Hence, the distortions remain distortions, not
inaccuracies.
The means of image production are not unknown. The Shroud image
has been duplicated using procedures known to people at the time
it was dated to (~1300 CE) when dozens of other Shrouds and
other "holy relics" were big business in Europe.
Capella
David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
> You have an interesting idea, but it is not the basis of a
> photographic negative. For black and white film, a photographic
> negative means that white shows up as black, light gray shows up as
> dark gray and so on. In color photography, the difference between the
> photographic negative and the photographic positive (the actual
> prints) is a little more complex, but a close approximation is that
> the colors are complementary; i.e, if the print shows red, the
> negative will show green, if the print shows yellow, the negative will
> show a shade of green, and vice-versa. The complexities occur for the
> purples and browns.
> }
> Regards, Dave W.
> }
Food for thought: When a photographic print is being exposed
under an enlarger, the image forms on the side of the paper
exposed to the light, not on the other side as in the case of the Shroud
Obviously the Shroud was exposed from the outside, not from the
inside as you would expect for a radiating body wrapped inside of
the cloth. The image is only on the top of the cloth.
Capella
Blackguard wrote:
> Shane D. Killian wrote:
> > >
> > You mean shroud.com? Been there, done that, refused the merchandising.
> > They don't go one single step toward explaining the nuerous inaccuracies
> > in the shroud image.
>
> Gotta love the "Shroud of Turin beachtowels"!
>
> Actually that was on an episode of The Simpsons. But I wonder how much
> the EAC could make selling them to fundies? And if we impregnate them
> with EAC gas, or somehow work some "anti-rapture" technology into them
> we could thin the herd so to speak.
>
> Worth looking into don't you think?
>
Why not Shroud of Turin toliet paper and disposable napkins?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
Capella
Shane D. Killian wrote:
> Capella wrote:
> >
> > One has to wonder also what kind of effect could possibly make animage that is
> > only on the outer part of the cloth, not the side that
> > would actually have faced the corpse if it was genuine.
> >
> > Jesus would have had to turn himself inside out immediately after
> > resurrecting,
> > surround the cloth with his inside-out body and radiate on the cloth,
> > correcting
> > for many distortions to make the image on the outer side of it.
> >
> And then do a bit of color correcting.
Also Jesus would have to have pushed his eyeballs upnear his forehead, stretched
his arms (so his hands could make sure
no one would see his weenie), stand the cloth up somehow so his hair
could hang down, slash his neck, and of course hop into his time
machine to travel 12 centuries into the future to get the cloth in
the first place. :^)
> --
> Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
> "uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
> gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
> --Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
Capella
Shane D. Killian wrote:
> David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 00:55:08 GMT, "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > }I've poured through that website several times. As for DaVinci, go check
> > }any biography and you'll see that he performed numerous experiments with
> > }corpses--including rubbings and even autopsies.
> > }
> > I'm sorry, I must have been educated at an earlier time when the
> > renaissance was a major part of european history and Leonardo DaVinci
> > was a central character (as was Michelangelo). I have read
> > biographies of both and am fully aware of anatomy studies (done under
> > very difficult circumstances). I am also aware that DaVinci kept
> > copious notes and of those that survived (roughly 1/3 of the volumes
> > are missing), there is no mention of the shroud of Turin or of any
> > attempts by him to duplicate the process.
> >
> How can you possibly have a PhD and have zero comprehension skills?
>
> I NEVER SAID ONE WORD ABOUT DA VINCI MAKING THE SHROUD!!!!!
>
> *YOU* said to *ME* that you didn't believe that he worked with corpses,
> and I was pointing out that he quite clearly *did*.
>
> Sheesh...
>
Even his point of sarcasm is stupid. Assuming that someone wasasserting that Da
Vinci faked the Shroud, I doubt if that is the
sort of thing that Da Vinci would enter into his notes.
Geeze..
Example:
Jan 13th: Today I painted a street scene and drew sketches of a
parachute mechanism.
Jan 14th: Today I dissected cadaver hands to analyze the muscles.
Jan 15th: Today I created a hoax to try to make people believe that
Jesus rose from the dead.Jan 16th: Today I ...
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
}Hi,
}
}just food for thought....
}
}when making a painting, you apply the colours (the image), from the top ONTO
}the surface.
}
}The idea is that the image of jesus was placed as he passed through the cloth
}from the underside, so the image is laid down in the opposite manner
}
}Could this not have been the thought process that ceated the 'negative'
}situation.
}
}Just because it acts like a negative, does not mean that the idea only stems
}from photography & since there was no photography, the principle did not
}exist!
}
}is it not also fair to say, that you get a similar effect from brass-rubbings?
}
}simon.
}
Shane D. Killian
>
> Enjoy your picnic using the Shroud as a tablecloth, Brant. How does
> that crow sandwich taste?
>
anything useful--such as evidence or even an argument--to contribute to
the discussion?
Shane D. Killian
>
> Capella wrote:
> >
> > True. Da Vinchi worked with cadavers to learn about the humanbody's
> > organs, muscular, and skeletal system aspects to aid his
> > painting and other art work's realism.
>
> But he had to do this in secret. I seem to remember hearing that the
> church frowned upon this practice and punished those that
> "transgressed".
>
Shane D. Killian
> : > burning would affect the Carbon -14 tests because burning doesn't
> : > produce the radio active carbon that is actually measured, it produces
> : > a different kind of carbon.
> : >
> : Actually, it produces Carbon 12-the other isotope used in carbon dating,
> : which would have made the shroud YOUNGER than measured, not older!
>
> I believe that when objects are incompletely burned, oxygen is added and
> some of the carbon escapes as CO and CO2, and hydrogen molecules are
> bound with oxygen to create water vapor. Burning leaves behind carbon
> that was in the original sample. Since this is a non nuclear process,
> I don't see how the the ratio could be affected very much. I suppose
> that there could be a difference in oxidation rates between carbon 12
> and carbon 14, but I suspect it would be very small. I have not
> found information detailing these differences.
>
the point.
> I am curious to know what organizations believe that the shroud
> is the genuine item. IIRC, the Catholic church no longer believes
> proportions on the image, carbon dating, and the weave of the
> cloth are convincing arguments against it being any burial cloth
> at all, and certainly not from the first century.
>
people who have a deep-rooted desire to have their faith proven to the
world.
> For those individuals out there who believe that the Bible is the
> Literal Word of God, I suppose it wouldn't take much more imagination
> stretching to accept the shroud is the Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ.
>
I guess not.
Shane D. Killian
>
> wrote:
>
> }And considering that they ALL say they thoroughly cleaned the fibers,
> }and that the fibers did NOT come from a burned portion, this again
> }sounds like wishful thinking.
> }
> See the extended discussion of this issue by both sides at the Web
> Site. The missing "wash" is not soap and water.
>
I *have*. It doesn't jive with the records of the original examinations.
> }> That doesn't explain why the arms on this Shroud are way too long.
> }>
> No, but the issue is dealt with at the Web Site and you need to read
> and assess the facts.
>
I already have, a long time ago. You're not presenting me with any new
information.
> }Or why the eyes are too high up.
> }
> Ditto.
>
This is never even *mentioned* on shroud.com!
Shane D. Killian
>
> wrote:
>
> }You mean shroud.com? Been there, done that, refused the merchandising.
> }They don't go one single step toward explaining the nuerous inaccuracies
> }in the shroud image.
> }
> those who state that no known processes can explain all the Data? Or
> those that raise questions about the thoroughness of the tests?
> By the way, the image is what it is. It cannot have inaccuracies
> unless you presuppose a process for producing the image. What is YOUR
> proposed process?
>
The image cannot have inaccuracies unless I presuppose a process for
producing it????
The eyes are too high up, the arms are too long, the "blood" is red
ocher paint...what are these if not inaccuracies, *reegardless* of the
method used?
Shane D. Killian
>
> wrote:
>
> }I've poured through that website several times. As for DaVinci, go check
> }any biography and you'll see that he performed numerous experiments with
> }corpses--including rubbings and even autopsies.
> }
> I'm sorry, I must have been educated at an earlier time when the
> renaissance was a major part of european history and Leonardo DaVinci
> was a central character (as was Michelangelo). I have read
> biographies of both and am fully aware of anatomy studies (done under
> very difficult circumstances). I am also aware that DaVinci kept
> copious notes and of those that survived (roughly 1/3 of the volumes
> are missing), there is no mention of the shroud of Turin or of any
> attempts by him to duplicate the process.
>
How can you possibly have a PhD and have zero comprehension skills?
I NEVER SAID ONE WORD ABOUT DA VINCI MAKING THE SHROUD!!!!!
*YOU* said to *ME* that you didn't believe that he worked with corpses,
and I was pointing out that he quite clearly *did*.
Sheesh...
--
Shane D. Killian
>
> One has to wonder also what kind of effect could possibly make animage that is
> only on the outer part of the cloth, not the side that
> would actually have faced the corpse if it was genuine.
>
> Jesus would have had to turn himself inside out immediately after
> resurrecting,
> surround the cloth with his inside-out body and radiate on the cloth,
> correcting
> for many distortions to make the image on the outer side of it.
>
And then do a bit of color correcting.
--
Shane D. Killian
>
> Sorry, Capella, "inaccuracies" is itself an inaccurate term when used to
> describe the Shroud's distortions. Inaccuracy plainly describes an
> "accurate" standard by which something is found to be accurate or
> inaccurate. There is no such standard for the Shroud image.
>
> That the Shroud image's features are disporportionate is simply an
> observation.
>
It's an observation of objective facts. Human eyes are *not* that high
up. Human arms are *not* that long. Human hair does *not* act that way
when the body is lain down.
It doesn't match reality; plain and simple.
Shane D. Killian
>
> photographic negative. For black and white film, a photographic
> negative means that white shows up as black, light gray shows up as
> dark gray and so on.
>
compares to photosensitive emulsion...
Ted Park
: > I believe that when objects are incompletely burned, oxygen is added and
: > some of the carbon escapes as CO and CO2, and hydrogen molecules are
: > bound with oxygen to create water vapor. Burning leaves behind carbon
: > that was in the original sample. Since this is a non nuclear process,
: > I don't see how the the ratio could be affected very much. I suppose
: > that there could be a difference in oxidation rates between carbon 12
: > and carbon 14, but I suspect it would be very small. I have not
: > found information detailing these differences.
: >
: Perhaps; if you can produce a source explaining this then I'll concede
: the point.
I should have also said "hydrogen atoms". I have to dig for the books,
but combustion is a fairly well documented process. I only mention
this point so that True Believers in the Shroud realize that atmospheric
carbon is not incorporated into material during the burning process.
<snip>
: > For those individuals out there who believe that the Bible is the
: > Literal Word of God, I suppose it wouldn't take much more imagination
: > stretching to accept the shroud is the Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ.
: >
: If you believe that hares chew cud and grasshoppers have four legs, then
: I guess not.
I think that the fact there are people that still believe that the
Noah's Ark story is literally true shows what some people are willing
to take on faith.
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
wrote:
I do not intend to spend my valuable time doing the research and
paraphrasing the results for when you can get them for yourself. All
I did was point you to a site where the information is balanced and
people pay attention to the data presented. How was I to know that
your viewpoint is so skewed that you won't even visit the site--sure
that your position will be uniformily attacked. I can't have known
that, so I apologize for disturbing your cosy little view of things.
You may go back to your ranting and raving at others now.
Cheers, Dave W.
}WinBear
David E. Weldon, Ph. D.
}David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote in message <35a1672a...@news.erinet.com>...
}>On Sun, 5 Jul 1998 03:35:02 -0400, "Brant" <bra...@erols.com> wrote:
}>
}>}David E. Weldon, Ph. D. wrote in message
}<35a0d101...@news.erinet.com>...
}
}<snip>
}
}>}>}
}>}>Here are some real facts on the shroud of Turin:
}>}>1. The image on the shroud is similar to a photographic negative, not
}>}>a picture or a painting.
}>}
}>} As such, there is no explanation at this time which supports *either*
}>}viewpoint, as far as the "photonegativity" is concerned.
}>}
}>} You didn't respond to any of my points either.
}
}
} And after this second time around, you *still* did not respond to my
}observations. Instead, you posted a URL for a pro-shroud web site and then made
}seven other references to it, simply saying go read it. I think most people
}consider that kind of response annoying, if not deliberately evasive.
}
I'm sorry if you're upset. But I see no point in saying what someone
else has said much better than I. Remember, it was you folk who asked
for references. Finally, as far as I can tell, the site is very
balanced in its presentation as far as I can tell. At least it sticks
to the data and actual facts.
}
} So, doctor, what's your PhD in and where did you get it? It's perfectly
}reasonable to expect you to give this information since you so prominently
}identify yourself as a PhD.
}
Since you asked. It is in Cognitive Psychology and Computer Science.
I also have a minor in Mathematical Statistics.
}
} BTW, this wouldn't be *your* web site by any chance, would it? If so, I think
}you were being deliberately deceptive by not stating so.
}
Sorry it is not mine. It is owned by the person who is was the lead
photographer for the STURP team. He is Jewish and has no vested
interest in the authenticity of the shroud.
Finally, Brandt. You need to improve your attitude and your
willingness to access actual data. It is clear that you haven't even
visited the site since you could not have made the above statements if
you had. Shame on you.
}
}>}Question: If it is a fraud created in the
}>}>thirteenth century, how did the forger know about photographic
}>}>negatives. Incidently, dried blood in a photographic negative appears
}>}>as a slightly off-white blotch (so much for duplicating it with
}>}>ocher).
}>}>1a. To date, no one, artist or scientist, has come forward with an
}>}>explanation of how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
}>}>There are no known techniques that an artist could have known to
}>}>produce what appears on the shroud (see fact 3 below).
}>}>2. The shroud project carbon dated the shroud to roughly 1200 AD--The
}>}>exact time when the church at Turin was burned. The shroud was saved,
}>}>but scorched. Reputable scientists agree that the carbon dating is
}>}>flawed for that reason.
}>}
}>} My understanding is that the carbon was washed off, along with any other
}>}contaminates which could be removed, and the *linen* itself was dated. The
}only
}>}scientific analysis I have heard indicates that the contamination could not
}>}possibly effect the dating by anything *like* 1200 years. What reputable
}>}scientists are you referring to? You've made the claim. Now a name, please?
}>}
}>I'll do better than that. Go to http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm and do
}>some extensive reading.
}
} Yes, there are a lot of references on that page. Now why don't you respond to
}the question? The "Nature" article was included and I see nothing in it which
}contradicts what I just said. You said "reputable scientists" agree that the
}dating is flawed. Be specific. I know all the hoopla about the supposed
}plasticised bacterial film. I have seen the comments of two "reputable"
}scientists who say that it is impossible for such a film to cause an error that
}would even come *close* to 1200 years.
}
Good for you. That was my point and the gist of the web sites view of
the same data. The carbon dating is controversial.
}
} Yet fundies will continue to make their specious arguments just as they do
}with regard to evolution. Virtual mountains of evidence, all of which point to
}the same conclusion, simply roll off fundies like water off a duck's back.
}
} Or maybe you're referring to such reputably "scientific" work as the autopsy
}on the shroud, performed by a (claimed) coroner who has been immersed in
}shroudism for 45 years and presumes to give us a forensic analysis of the image.
}I'm doing some independent research now in order to determine just how
}"reputable" this examination is. Why? Because I found several terms and
}comments which were inconsistent with what I would expect a pathologist to say.
}More on that later.
}
}>}>A plaster cast made from a computer analysis of the
}>}>shroud's 3-D image is available for viewing at the chapel of the Air
}>}>Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
}>}
}>} Yeah, a 3-D projection was also created. Perfectly flat artistic renderings
}>}can be processed that way, based on the shading. Anyway, I never heard about
}>}this plaster cast. What, pray tell, did they pour the plaster into? Oh, you
}>}mean somebody who believes in the shroud simply made a sculpture based on the
}>}appearance of the image...one which *can* be viewed as a three dimensional
}>}object and which the sculptor *created* the image to look more real.
}>}
}>You are incredible.
}
}Yeah, I know. So what? You made no comment whatsoever concerning my specific
}remarks.
}
}>The Labs at the U.S. Air Force academy were part
}>of the STURP Team.
}
} I don't know the details here, but I guess I'll find them out in my research.
}Again, I'll say, before even completing my research, that *any* positive mold
}which shows correct proportions, is a deliberate alteration of the actual data
}which is obtainable from the shroud. An arm, shown in two dimensions, which is
}*way* too long, will *never* show up shorter in a 3-D reconstruction. No amount
}of reconstruction from true data can ever make those fingertips end up anywhere
}*but* at the lateral portion of the far thigh.
}
I hope so, but given your attitude I would guess that the probability
is pretty low.
}
} One can make a 3-D model of any flat illustration ever made, as long as it
}shows shading which represents the third dimension. The only feature which such
}reconstructions can help us with is the dimension which perpendicular to the
}plane of projection. The other two dimensions are well visible to the eye, as
}in the length of the arm and the proportions of the eyes and head. Features
}foreshortened by two-dimensional representation are always longer in reality.
}
}>It was at their labs that the image was analyzed
}>and reconstructed. Please go to http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm and do
}>some serious reading.
}
} Any reconstruction of the shroud image which ends up with proper proportions
}is a deliberate hoax, created purely to deceive.
}
On second thought don't bother. You've already reach the conclusion
you intend to reach. Save yourself some effort and focus on passing
out the same misinformation you've given us so far.
}
}>} I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold water. Plaster castings are only useful
}when
}>}you already have a negative form for a mold and you want to see a positive
}shape
}>}which resembles the object which made the depression.
}>}
}>Exactly.
}
} Exactly? The shroud is a flat surface, and the image shows no distortion due
}to wrapping or draping. Just *what* is one supposed to pour the plaster into?
}You just cite "plaster casting" as if it's some kind of validation of the
}shroud's authenticity. There *is* no negative mold for the plaster to show a
}positive of. The only way to do it is to *fabricate* a three dimensional
}negative mold. It is this fabrication of an intermediate image carrier that you
}have made no attempt to document.
}>}
}>}> It very clearly shows a
}>}>human being with normal arms and legs that has been brutally beaten.
}>}
}>} Then it is a forgery too, because no image or casting made from the
}dimensions
}>}of the shroud could show proper dimensions unless the creator deliberately
}>}altered them to look more correct. There is no way you can have an arm of
}>}anything close to normal length which touches the far thigh while being bent
}at
}>}that angle. Assuming the third dimension not apparent in the shroud, i.e. the
}>}fact that the upper arm would be lying on the surface and then have to come
}*up*
}>}on top of the hips from the elbow, this makes the length of the arm even
}>}*greater* than if you examined the image in only two dimensions.
}
And that is why you should not go to the web site. Even if you could
get data there to support your position, I don't think you want to be
bothered with the facts.
}
}><snip>
}
Sorry,
I'm out of time. There also doesn't seem to be much point in going
further. But we'll see how I feel tomorrow.
}
} Great answer. So I'll say again: if any casting shows proper anatomical
}proportions, then it is a deliberate act of deception. I have shown why this is
}the case. It *cannot* end up with the right hand fingertips any place but on
}the lateral edge of the far thigh.
}
} Note: in some previous posts, I believe I made a careless error in reversing
}right and left. Even though the left arm is too long, the right arm is nothing
}human at all. Web site or not.
}>}
}>} Being "brutally beaten" doesn't make your arms 20% longer. Nor does it make
}>}your hair defy gravity. Nor does it make your legs stay together when lying
}on
}>}your back at rest.
}>}
}>Who said he was laying on his back at rest. His knees were bent due
}>to rigor mortis. Go to the Web Site.
}
} There is a devastating contradiction between what you are saying and what the
}pathologist wrote. Perhaps *you* should do some reading. He says the rear
}image of the legs show one leg straight and the other slightly bent, (with other
}thinly veiled details which are intended to "prove" that he was nailed to a
}cross.) In the shroud, *both* legs appear to be pretty nearly completely
}straight, allowing for the fact that this *is* an example of how the third
}dimension is difficult to determine from the view given.
}
} But how could *either* leg be straight if rigor mortis set in while the body
}was hanging from a cross? They would *both* be bent...considerably. Also, the
}(claimed) coroner said one leg suggested rotation. This is as much a
}fabrication as his mentioning of "blood," (never determined from observation of
}the shroud image), "puncture wounds," (which we're supposed to believe he can
}determine from an image which was presumably made by a completely unknown
}method), and several other identifications of image components for which he
}could not possibly know the cause. Yet he blithely states that the arms and
}legs are properly proportioned.
}
}>}>The nose is broken, the cheekbones crushed, etc. The thorn holes in
}>}>the forehead are clearly indentations. It is very hard to argue that
}>}>the image is faked in any way.
}>}
}>} Only for those who are convinced it is Jesus. I see a face which is almost
}>}perfectly symmetrical. I see amorphous blobs in a very old piece of fabric
}>}which could be anything. You have absolutely *no way* to support your
}argument
}>}that "indentations" are visible.
}>}
}>Go to the WEB Site.
}
} See? This gets pretty annoying, doesn't it? Simply referring someone to a
}web site nine times in one post does not support your view.
}
} When I look more carefully, I have to confess that the face is not perfectly
}symmetrical. The right cheek is larger. Now that that's done, I'd like to see
}how you can identify puncture wounds and indentations on a piece of material
}which has been around for hundreds of years and is full of defects.
}
}>} But even if these things *were* clear, it is perfectly reasonable to assume
}>}that if it was forged, the artist tried to make it look as authentic as he
}>}could, considering what was believed about Jesus' torment. I saw a great big
}>}beautiful painting of Jesus with holes in his hands. Is this proof that the
}>}artist was looking at Jesus when he painted it?
}>}
}>That's just the point. Prior images of Jesus (before the shroud
}>surfaced in 1200 AD) were totally unlike the image on the shroud. You
}>really need to do some reading and I recommend the WEB Site. It has
}>both positive and negative responses to the shroud, this is not a
}>attempt to change your mind; I simply want you to get your facts
}>straight.
}
} First you'll have to tell me which of my "facts" are incorrect. Go ahead,
}since you haven't dealt with any of my specific arguments. Pick one and tell me
}why I need to get it straight.
}
} It's good that you're not trying to change my mind because you have given not
}one single reason for doing so.
}
} You are clearly on a pro-shroud crusade. You argue (excuse me...refer people
}to a web site) purely for the purpose of promoting a belief in the shroud as
}Jesus' burial cloth. Implicit in this goal, is always the miraculous means by
}which the image was created in the first place. To my knowledge, there has
}never been such an image left on a burial cloth. Only Jesus' resurrection, a
}miraculous event, would be responsible for that...right?
}
}<snip>
}
}>See the WEB Site.
}>}
}><snip of some inappropriate verbiage>
}
} More and more I'm questioning the legitimacy of your "PhD" label. One is
}supposed to be pretty well educated in order to get one. Here's exactly what I
}wrote, and I would like you to tell me what is inappropriate verbage. Or was
}this just a weak excuse for cutting out a very revealing experience?
}
}I wrote:
}
} "You know what a fundie said at a lunch table full of people a few years ago?
}I remember it word for word and he said it in his usual cocksure, haughty
}manner. He said 'The scientific community is universally agreed that evolution
}never happened.' That's how accurately fundies represent science."
}
}Now, tell me what's "innapropriate verbage" in that.
}
}>}>The shroud is clearly a mysterious article for which there is
}>}>currently no adequate scientific explanation.
}>}
}>} It is true that the actual origin of the shroud is not completely known.
}All
}>}we know is that an artist confessed to the forgery. A bishop accepted his
}>}admission.
}>}
}
}>Totally false. Go to the Web Site.
}
} Oooo, the web site again. No. *You* tell me why my comment was totally
}false.
}>}
}>} Carbon dating of the *cleaned* linen puts the age of the material at
}>}about 800 years.
}>}
}>That's the point. One of the crucial steps in Carbon Dating(complete
}>removal of all foreign matter prior to testing)was not done for some
}>inexplicable reason.
}
} If you read the nature article, you'll probably be surprised that the linen
}*itself* survived such a stringent cleaning process. And several cleaning
}processes were used, just in case anyone argued that the cleaning threw off the
}ressults. They were the same in all cases.
}
} I think it's reasonable (although probably not forgivable) for me to say that
}your faith is hanging by a thread. It is now based *solely* on the plasticized
}bacteria claim, and sources, (which I'm sorry I can't remember right now),
}which have examined the thread, say without any equivocation, that the amount of
}build-up is not *nearly* enough to cause an error of 1200 years. In order for
}this to occur, the bacteria would have to be a greater mass than the linen
}itself.
}
} No doubt, there are many pre-convinced believers who will say otherwise...not
}because their arguments are based on any scientific process but because they
}*want* to believe the shroud was used to bury Jesus. It's a cherished relic
}which implies a miraculous resurrection and therefore supports their religious
}faith.
}
}>There is also reason to believe the Shroud was
}>covered by a thin bio plastic layer that was not removed prior to the
}>carbon dating. Scientists are now acknowledging these errors and are
}>asking the Vatican for another test. So far permission has not been
}>given.
}
} And it probably won't be. I'm afraid the bioplastic layer will remain
}"unsolved" for a long time. I put that in quotes because I believe it has been
}adequately refuted as to having any significant effect on the dating, simply
}because of the comparative masses, but it would be nice to see a test in which
}this deposit is completely removed, if that is possible. I'd like to see more
}analysis of the "blood" and the image areas as well.
}
}>} The legs would not be together. The hair would not hang
}>}horizontally. The arms are way too long, (probably because drawing exposed
}>}genitals in the 13th century was frowned upon). Some of the supposed "blood"
}>}has been identified as red ochre. Any radiant process would not make an
}>}orthographic image. Relative value intensity can change with time, causing an
}>}apparently negative looking image. Religious forgeries have abounded through
}>}history. And some others.
}>}
}>All these points are discussed in detail at the WEB Site I gave above.
}>It is clear from the discussion there what you are pushing is false or
}>at best controversial. I suggest you do some reading.
}
} Just like evolution is false and controversial, right?
}
}><Snip of irrelevant non sequiturs>
}>}
}>} There are hundreds of other examples of things for which there are very good
}>}scientific explanations, but since those explanations contradict what fundies
}>}want to believe, they are ignored or misrepresented.
}>}
}>} Brant
}>}
}>That's just the problem. None of the "explanations" so far given for
}>the Shroud are adequate. Every proposed scientific explanation has
}>failed to account for all the data or even a significant minority of
}>it.
}
} Wrong. They are inadequate for verifying that the shroud was Jesus' burial
}cloth. They will always be "inadequate" to believers in that respect because
}the shroud *wasn't* Jesus' burial cloth. They have been quite adequate in
}showing that.
}
} Brant
}
}Now what's your PhD in, again?
}
Brant
>On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 02:48:58 -0400, "Brant" <bra...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>[Super Snip]
(well-placed)
>>My points were:
>>
>>1) The right arm is too long to be human. (I made the mistake of calling it
>>the left arm before, but they're both too long.)
>
>I think they're too long for normal humans of that period of time, but
>JC was alegelly a caucasian male about 1,80 meters tall.
My comment about the length of the arms was a matter of proportion. It would
be impossible for any human to lie flat on his back, with his elbows resting on
the same surface as his body, bent at the angle shown, (with even a space
between the elbow and the body), and have the fingertips reach to the lateral
edge of the far thigh. Try it and see how close yours come. The error is
enormous.
Since the entire arm can't be seen, I was going to do some comparisons based
only on the elbow-to-wrist length. When I get a chance, I will compare that
length to other measurable lengths on the shroud image.
>>2) The legs would not be straight and together if this was caused by a dead
>>body covered by the shroud.
>
>They could have been tied together to keep the body more straight.
Yes, that could be the case, and I initially suggested that it was the only
way I could see this happening. But none of the biblical experts has suggested
it, perhaps because they have never seen any reference which included the
binding of the feet as part of the burial ritual.
>>3) The hair does not fall back to the table and spread like it should if this
>>occurred in the presence of gravity.
>
>if he was inveloped in the cloth, the hair could be enveloping his
>face and head has well, making the hair patern appear the way it does.
If it enveloped the head, we would see a wrap-around image instead of the very
orthographic one we see. We would see the side of the head, for example. Also,
such a wrap would probably involve considerable wrinkling where the body widens
at the shoulders. The effect of any transfer of the body image on a wrinkled
surface would be very evident. Such an effect is not there.
>> These, among many other things, are REFUTATIONS. Live with it and stop
trying
>>to re-characterize my posts.
>
>ok.
>And these are possible answers to your REFUTATIONS, wich can be pretty
>much true.
>or not.
It was a decent attempt, especially the explanation about the bound feet, but
I believe my other two criticisms pretty much stand on their own. And your
refutations involve speculation. That's okay, as you are playing the role of
the skeptic in this case. The arms, though, are pretty hard to ignore.
Brant
Brant
>Too afraid of losing your viewpoint to read the rest of my post, huh,
>Brant?
I didn't read the rest of that one either. As I said, I have no tolerance for
people who repeatedly, despite my corrections, attempt to portray my comments in
a manner that I did not intend.
I'm not afraid of losing my viewpoint. Once upon a time, my viewpoint was
that there was a God, and that I have a soul, and if I was good I was going to
heaven to spend eternity in spiritual perfection. I have given up the belief in
immortality. I have given up the hope that there was a God who created
everything. I have given up the belief that the resurrected spirit of Christ
loves me and is looking out for me and will forgive me of my sins. Now tell me
I'm one to be afraid of giving up a viewpoint if it is proven wrong or if there
is no good reason to believe it.
Sure, I read your post after writing my response to your first line. Just
like I will with this one.
I'm not interested in your opinions about me or my motives. I'm simply
waiting for a response to my criticisms of the shroud. You haven't given any.
I am not going to play along with you while you try to establish the deceptive
premise that I am only making artistic comments. Give it up. When you are
ready to deal with my objections as they are presented: observations of the
physical features of an image presumably imprinted on a burial shroud by some
sort of energetic emanation from Jesus, then I'll listen.
If you wish to concede that the shroud is in fact a forgery, then we'll
discuss art.
Brant
Mr. Foot Grenade
either you know it and are trolling, or you haven't read my posts.
Mr. Foot Grenade
better than this. First you accuse me of posting nothing but ad hominem
attacks. But here you are, taking my post seriously enough to ask
substantive questions. Make up your "mind", Shane: if I only post ad
hominems, then there is nothing evidential in my posts for you to argue
about. If, on the other hand, I do post substantive text which can be
debated, then your accusation of ad hominem is phoney. Hope I've
cleared that up for you, Shane. Now, moving on to your current post:
You apparently dispute my position that "inaccuracies" is an incorrect
term when applied to the Shroud image's distortions, but you offer not
one single argument in refutation. You, like your friend Brant, can
only go so far as to endlessly repeat the obvious: "A human being is
shaped in such and such a way. The Shroud image has features which in
certain cases depict a distortion of the human figure." That tells us
nothing, ShaneBrant! As I have demonstrated, "inaccuracy" is valid only
if we know that the Shroud is a production of art. If the Shroud is a
natural or paranormal product, then "inaccuracy" is an... inaccurate...
term, since neither nature nor the paranormal are concerned with the
purely human mental construct of "accuracy". Get it?
Mr. Foot Grenade
happy skeptic you surely cannot expect us to take seriously your
contention that in jettisoning a form of previously-believed
(uncritical, popular) Christianity that you showed the courage implicit
in turning away from a world view. Looks like you simply dumped it when
you couldn't reconcile it with what you take to be "scientific
thinking". "Looks like" is my interpretation, and in my utter
arrogance, I grant you the benefit of the doubt (= not calling you
insincere). Although you have with the greatest of ease lumped me with
"those people/you people" and with fundamentalists - if you and Shane
don't want ad hominems, don't fling them yourselves... Even so:
Your need to have the Shroud be a fake, coupled as it has been with a
typically "rationalist" take on the NT, makes it appear that the
religion you rejected is still lurking in the shadows, waiting to pounce
- to seize and mutilate your new-found sci.skeptic intellect. A mighty
fortress was your God, and is now, your skepticism. That's fine, cuz we
all have our rocks of safety to which we cling. But it's important to
recognize them as such and not to allow the excitement and certainty of
new ways of thinking to skew our thinking in other areas, particularly
in those areas which seem to represent "the outer darkness" from which
we freed ourselves... But, be all this as it may, you are still in error
regarding my posts - which in your fundamentalist-materialist angst you
will not read (much as the religionist of pietistic cliche' may shut his
eyes and cross himself when a Damned Thing enters his presence), to wit:
You say I have not countered your statement that the Shroud image is
distorted. This is not strictly true. I have *granted* that the image
is distorted. What I disagree with is your refusal to acknowledge that
any statement beyond the obvious "the Shroud is distorted", is
necessarily interpretive. Moreover:
If you say that the Shroudman's image is inaccurate, you are misusing
this term, since inaccuracy/accuracy applies a human construct to a
human artifact: that is, in the case of the Shroud, "inaccuracy" means
that the image is an artistic attempt at duplication of a normal human
morphology. First, we don't know that this is true, because we do not
yet know the means of image production; and if the image is indeed art,
then you have placed yourself squarely, whether you like it or not,
within the arena of art criticism. Second, if the means of image
production turns out to have been natural or paranormal, then certainly
the term cannot be implied, since nature and the paranormal are nonhuman
entities for which "inaccuracy" is irrelevant. (Unless, of course, you
want to invalidate the term by diluting it to include "nature's
mistakes" - which of course are not really mistakes except by analogy
to the human consciousness which - ah, hubris - "evaluates" nonhuman
nature.)
Really, Brant, I have tried to answer your Shroud skepticism in nearly
every post I have made. I agree that there are distortions in the
image. But beyond that simple, observable fact, the rest - including
the notion that the distortions are "inaccuracies" (Shroud = "fake"), or
that they are natural or paranormal effects (Shroud = "genuine nonhuman
event") - is interpretation based on incomplete evidence.
Alf Kerensky
[hands]
>>I think they're too long for normal humans of that period of time, but
>>JC was alegelly a caucasian male about 1,80 meters tall.
>
> My comment about the length of the arms was a matter of proportion. It would
>be impossible for any human to lie flat on his back, with his elbows resting on
>the same surface as his body, bent at the angle shown, (with even a space
>between the elbow and the body), and have the fingertips reach to the lateral
>edge of the far thigh. Try it and see how close yours come. The error is
>enormous.
Well, since i'm speaking more out of memory, you'll have an edge on me
there. BUT (i'm not giving up that easily) you did say that it would
be impossible fo a human to present such an image.
Well, correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't jc a little bit more than
human????
> Since the entire arm can't be seen, I was going to do some comparisons based
>only on the elbow-to-wrist length. When I get a chance, I will compare that
>length to other measurable lengths on the shroud image.
Maybe the same way that the feet were tied, so were the wrists.
And the way that the cloth would fit to the body's shape, the hands
could appear to be more bellow than they really were.
[Feet]
>>They could have been tied together to keep the body more straight.
>
> Yes, that could be the case, and I initially suggested that it was the only
>way I could see this happening. But none of the biblical experts has suggested
>it, perhaps because they have never seen any reference which included the
>binding of the feet as part of the burial ritual.
well, it's known that a great deal of the judaistic culture was lost
during and after the roman invasion, so maybe the mummification
rituals of the jews were lost to us, and if we knew exactly how they
did it, we might have better answers for this matter.
[hair]
>>if he was inveloped in the cloth, the hair could be enveloping his
>>face and head has well, making the hair patern appear the way it does.
>
> If it enveloped the head, we would see a wrap-around image instead of the very
>orthographic one we see. We would see the side of the head, for example. Also,
>such a wrap would probably involve considerable wrinkling where the body widens
>at the shoulders. The effect of any transfer of the body image on a wrinkled
>surface would be very evident. Such an effect is not there.
It kind of depends on the position of the head, mind you.
If the head were tilted backwards, like post-mortem ligament
contractions in birds and dinos, that's the way the image would
appear.
> It was a decent attempt, especially the explanation about the bound feet, but
>I believe my other two criticisms pretty much stand on their own. And your
>refutations involve speculation. That's okay, as you are playing the role of
>the skeptic in this case. The arms, though, are pretty hard to ignore.
thanks.
Hope you get more of a challenge out of these... :-)
Señores, Señoras y Señoritas, Radio KATN,
la Super Cadena, presenta con mucho gusto
los Caballeros de Coronel Carlos Camacho!
*APPLAUSE*
- Warcry of the Seventeenth Recon
Regiment, AKA Camacho's Caballeros.
Keith Morrison
> >>2) The legs would not be straight and together if this was caused by a dead
> >>body covered by the shroud.
> >
> >They could have been tied together to keep the body more straight.
>
> Yes, that could be the case, and I initially suggested that it was the only
> way I could see this happening. But none of the biblical experts has suggested
> it, perhaps because they have never seen any reference which included the
> binding of the feet as part of the burial ritual.
So why don't the ropes show? People claim the image is precise
enough to show small wounds on the scalp and individual whip
lashes on the back but it doesn't show whatever is binding the
legs together?
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Karl E. Taylor
"explains" John 20:6-7. How come this thing that was wrapped around the
head does not show up in the shroud either. Come on you believers, your
not holding up your end. We ask, you tell us to go to hell for not
believing. Well, where's our curse, we're waiting!
--
________________________________________________________________________
Karl E. Taylor CEO & UNIX Systems Analyst
Desert Dragon SOHO Solutions kta...@dragon.illusions.com
http://www.illusions.com/ddsoho
________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Lao "You know what wisdom is?"
Little boy "No."
Dr. Lao "Wise answer."
Al Klein
But you haven't posted any evidence showing how Jesus could have lived
with Red Ocher for blood.
--
Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
Mr. Foot Grenade
Tickle my perineum.
- ignorant bleater
Capella
Mr. Foot Grenade wrote:
> Capella, the means of image production are indeed unknown. The Shroud
> does not match medieval art techniques; Joe Nickell proved this with
> premature triumphalism over his own attempt at duplication - the face of
> which graces the cover of his Inquest on the Shroud book. A fanciful
> exercise at best, and not one to fool anyone except those whose need
> that the Shroud be inauthentic runs away with their sense of proportion.
> Moreover, duplication - even, as was not the case with Nickell's team -
> even if successful, is not proof, but merely indication which says, "The
> Shroud *could* have been artistically created in this way".
It wasn't "artistically" produced. It shows that it could have been
producedin the 13th or 14th century the date that the Shroud was
manufactured.
>It does not
> say, "The Shroud necessarily was artistically created in this way."
> This "proof" will not come about until the cloth is retested, this time
> rigorously, and the image portions themselves processed in the testing.
> Until such time, the strongest pro-artistry argument can only be the
> unspectacular, "Well, we were able to do a clumsy approximation of the
> Shroud based on what we believe was done by medieval artists."
It was not "clumsy". I have seen pictures of the reproductions
and they are almost exactly like the Turin Shroud. Of course
they didn't have the statue or figure that the original faker used
that was disproportioned, so the reproductions are more
accurate.
You don't seem to know much about the reproduction of the
Shroud. I could do it in my backyard with no zero artistry.
It has nothing to do with art.
Capella
Shane D. Killian wrote:
> Capella wrote:
> >
> > Even his point of sarcasm is stupid. Assuming that someone wasasserting that Da
> > Vinci faked the Shroud, I doubt if that is the
> > sort of thing that Da Vinci would enter into his notes.
> >
> I actually don't think it's at all possible that it could have been Da
> Vinci. The timing and circumstance of presentation would have been quite
> different if it were.
>
I completely agree. One of the things that makes it unlikely in my thinking isthat
the forger did such a poor job making the figure or statue he used to
take an image of. If Da Vinci would have done it, he wouldn't have
been so sloppy and inaccurate.
> Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
150 bible errors, genocides by Yahweh and "God's people", contradictions,
failed prophecies, problems with bible cosmology, problems with the
Noah flood story by Mr. Peebles, problems with creationist arguments,
why I am no longer a Christian, why Christians need to imagine
a God, etc... at:
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
Brant
>I'm sorry if you're upset. But I see no point in saying what someone
>else has said much better than I.
So, as you said to WinBear and are now saying to me, you just make claims and
then advertise a web site when people dispute them. Most Usenetters consider
that rude and evasive.
>Remember, it was you folk who asked
>for references. Finally, as far as I can tell, the site is very
>balanced in its presentation as far as I can tell. At least it sticks
>to the data and actual facts.
It appears to me less and less so. I'm still working on this coroner guy
because some of his comments suggest that he is *not* a pathologist, or that he
completely went off the deep end, like so many others who abandon the good
rigors which were required in their professions when they start going after
paranormal stuff. If so, he has discredited himself like they did.
I question your claim that the articles stick to the data and actual facts.
>} So, doctor, what's your PhD in and where did you get it? It's perfectly
>}reasonable to expect you to give this information since you so prominently
>}identify yourself as a PhD.
>}
>Since you asked. It is in Cognitive Psychology and Computer Science.
>I also have a minor in Mathematical Statistics.
I learn something every day. I didn't know there was a PhD for "Cognitive
Psychology and Computer Science." Oh, you didn't say where you got this degree.
And "Mathematical Statistics"? [caps yours]. Is there any *other* kind?
>} BTW, this wouldn't be *your* web site by any chance, would it? If so, I
think
>}you were being deliberately deceptive by not stating so.
>}
>Sorry it is not mine. It is owned by the person who is was the lead
>photographer for the STURP team. He is Jewish and has no vested
>interest in the authenticity of the shroud.
I'll continue to see what's there.
>Finally, Brandt.
(no "d", thanx)
>You need to improve your attitude and your
>willingness to access actual data.
I have accessed quite a bit of data and did so years before ever communicating
with you. Most recently I read the Time article, another in a long string of
"actual data" which utterly refutes the authenticity of the shroud. Of course,
your opinion of what constitutes "actual data" may be considerably different
from mine.
>It is clear that you haven't even
>visited the site since you could not have made the above statements if
>you had. Shame on you.
Sorry, guy, that was pretty dumb. I made comments about the Nature article
and that rather questionable "pathological" analysis by the supposed coroner.
That pretty much proves, right there in the post that you are responding to,
that I did go to the site and I did do some reading. It's amazing what people
blinded by faith consider "clear."
<snip>
>}the question? The "Nature" article was included and I see nothing in it which
>}contradicts what I just said. You said "reputable scientists" agree that the
>}dating is flawed. Be specific. I know all the hoopla about the supposed
>}plasticised bacterial film. I have seen the comments of two "reputable"
>}scientists who say that it is impossible for such a film to cause an error
that
>}would even come *close* to 1200 years.
>}
>Good for you. That was my point and the gist of the web sites view of
>the same data. The carbon dating is controversial.
Your point? That this bacterial film could not possibly cause an error of
1200 years? It is controversial because once again we have fundies pulling
stuff out of their hat and making specious criticisms of a good refutation of
their precious shroud. Fundies consider evolution controversial, too. In
Galileo's time, they considered the heliocentric model controversial. The only
thing that makes these controversial is because fundies *create* controversies
where there should be no dispute.
>} I don't know the details here, but I guess I'll find them out in my
research.
>}Again, I'll say, before even completing my research, that *any* positive mold
>}which shows correct proportions, is a deliberate alteration of the actual data
>}which is obtainable from the shroud. An arm, shown in two dimensions, which
is
>}*way* too long, will *never* show up shorter in a 3-D reconstruction. No
amount
>}of reconstruction from true data can ever make those fingertips end up
anywhere
>}*but* at the lateral portion of the far thigh.
>}
>I hope so, but given your attitude I would guess that the probability
>is pretty low.
That's the second time you've mentioned my attitude. What does that have to
do with the price of Rubik's cubes in Poland? I said I would do more research.
My *attitude* is that there is no way to make a plaster casting without a mold.
If that mold was fabricated in such a way as to show a properly proportioned
right arm, then it is a deliberate deception.
>}
>} One can make a 3-D model of any flat illustration ever made, as long as it
>}shows shading which represents the third dimension. The only feature which
such
>}reconstructions can help us with is the dimension which perpendicular to the
>}plane of projection. The other two dimensions are well visible to the eye, as
>}in the length of the arm and the proportions of the eyes and head. Features
>}foreshortened by two-dimensional representation are always longer in reality.
>}
>}>It was at their labs that the image was analyzed
>}>and reconstructed. Please go to http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm and do
>}>some serious reading.
>}
>} Any reconstruction of the shroud image which ends up with proper proportions
>}is a deliberate hoax, created purely to deceive.
>}
>On second thought don't bother. You've already reach the conclusion
>you intend to reach. Save yourself some effort and focus on passing
>out the same misinformation you've given us so far.
No no. Don't give me that garbage. The statement I just made is true as it
stands. I know what I'm talking about. I *know* it is impossible to make a
casting of the shroud which shows a properly proportioned right arm without
cheating. I explained why, too. It's a statement fact, and of course, you are
free to show why it is incorrect.
No sir. I just *gave* you the facts, and as much as I would like to trim this
post, I felt a need to leave them in.
If you made the claim, "A special satellite imaging system has produced maps
which show Lake Erie to be larger than Lake Superior. Go to the web site and
see these maps."...then I would make the claim, "Sorry, but there is something
wrong with the imaging system or someone has made a mistake in the sizing of the
images." To which you would respond, "Your attitude is all wrong. Your mind is
closed and already made up. Don't bother going to the site since you probably
won't learn anything from it anyway."
That kind of drivel is for the birds. I *know* Lake Superior is larger then
Lake Erie because I have *already* learned this from many mutually confirming
and highly reliable sources of information. It has nothig to do with attitude.
The claim is simply false.
The same is true of your claim that the plaster casting shows perfectly
proportioned limbs. I have *already* seen lots of images of the shroud and it
is not a matter of attitude when I say that either you are wrong, or the plaster
mold is a deception. Or let's give the benefit of a *very* slim doubt, and say
that the casting was simply wrong.
>}><snip>
>}
>Sorry,
>I'm out of time. There also doesn't seem to be much point in going
>further. But we'll see how I feel tomorrow.
There hasn't been much point for as long as you have believed the shroud is
the image of Jesus.
If you're done, then why did you copy another 200 or so lines?
<snip>
Brant
Mr. Foot Grenade
you can do it in your backyard. The use of the term "art" in this
thread is to define the image as a product of human, rather than natural
or paranormal causes. Went right over your head, though.
Mr. Foot Grenade
knock it off.
Shane D. Killian
>
> Shane, every once in awhile I have to remind myself that there is a good
> reason these people have to argue the way they do. It's because they're *wrong*
> and it's all they've got! I guess we shouldn't be so offended by it, because
> their only alternative would be to say, "Hey, you're right! I have to do some
> serious re-thinking." Most people won't do that, nor should we expect them to,
> I guess.
>
Yeah, i guess...But the way I see it is, I'm still a Christian, but I
have had to reject and unlearn the dogmas instilled in me by an
upbringing in the church. I did this through soul-searching and learning
exactly what it was Jesus was actually preaching. I found much of it to
be at odds with the church dogma, and feel he would be very disappointed
at what he witnesses here.
Jesus taught me, among other things, to not be afraid of the truth,
whatever it might be. So I feel a true Christian would owe it to Jesus
to do exactly that. So when I see someone claiming to be a Christian
insulting his brother without due cause, and stating that anyone who
disagrees with them is un-Christian, I tend to take it kind of
personally.
> Wanna come to my crab feast?
>
Sounds delicious! Got any steamed snow crab?
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
Shane D. Killian
>
> Shane and Brant have announced their Wiccan handfasting.
>
See, Brant? There it is, in precisely the next post! Boatwright claims
I'm an atheist, now Foot Odor here or whatever his name is claims I'm a
Wiccan.
They just can't handle the fact that a Christian could disagree with
them!
Shane D. Killian
>
> Drop the sissy boy persona, Shane, I've posted plenty of evidence, and
> either you know it and are trolling, or you haven't read my posts.
>
me to the URL of a DejaNews search detailing them?
Shane D. Killian
>
> And we can all see, Shane, that you have no evidence to produce, just a
> phoney accusation of ad hominem attack.
>
That was in response to an ad hominem attach of yours. Don't try and
change the subject. *YOU* were the one guilty of the ad hominem attack,
and I called you on it.
Is this the activity of a true Christian?
Shane D. Killian
>
> Mr. Foot Grenade wrote in message <35A226E7...@proaxis.com>...
> >Enjoy your picnic using the Shroud as a tablecloth, Brant. How does
> >that crow sandwich taste?
>
> Don't know, but I'm sure it's better with Old Bay!
>
[reads label] Hey! This stuff's made in New York City!
Shane D. Killian
>
> Pick up your brain and put it back in, Shane. Really, you've got to do
> better than this. First you accuse me of posting nothing but ad hominem
> attacks. But here you are, taking my post seriously enough to ask
> substantive questions. Make up your "mind", Shane: if I only post ad
> hominems, then there is nothing evidential in my posts for you to argue
> about. If, on the other hand, I do post substantive text which can be
> debated, then your accusation of ad hominem is phoney. Hope I've
> cleared that up for you, Shane. Now, moving on to your current post:
>
yours to which I responded, only, "That the Shroud image's features are
disporportionate is simply an observation."
You attacked the idea on the basis that it was merely an observation. My
response was that this is no attack at all, rather a legitimate problem
with the shroud's credibility.
> You apparently dispute my position that "inaccuracies" is an incorrect
> term when applied to the Shroud image's distortions, but you offer not
> one single argument in refutation.
>
What, the arms being too long, hair in the wrong place, and eyes being
too high up are not enough for you?
Okay: The nose is too long, the image doesn't distort the way a wrap
wood, the "bllod" didn't darken the way real blood would, the shroud is
actually too fuzzy to tell any kind of real details...
> You, like your friend Brant, can
> only go so far as to endlessly repeat the obvious: "A human being is
> shaped in such and such a way. The Shroud image has features which in
> certain cases depict a distortion of the human figure." That tells us
> nothing, ShaneBrant! As I have demonstrated, "inaccuracy" is valid only
> if we know that the Shroud is a production of art.
>
Why? If someone is claiming that the shroud is an actual image of a real
person, then the question of the discrepancies in the image is quite
relevant!
> If the Shroud is a
> natural or paranormal product, then "inaccuracy" is an... inaccurate...
> term, since neither nature nor the paranormal are concerned with the
> purely human mental construct of "accuracy". Get it?
>
No...it seems to me that they're a big problem to anyone claiming that
the shroud is a direct image of a human being.
Shane D. Killian
>
> Capella, the means of image production are indeed unknown. The Shroud
> does not match medieval art techniques; Joe Nickell proved this with
> premature triumphalism over his own attempt at duplication - the face
> of which graces the cover of his Inquest on the Shroud book.
>
What kind of argumentation is this?
> Moreover, duplication - even, as was not the case with Nickell's team -
> even if successful, is not proof,
>
Nor is failure disproof.
> This "proof" will not come about until the cloth is retested, this
> time rigorously, and the image portions themselves processed in the
> testing.
>
What, precisely, was wrong with the original testing? And why did THREE
INDEPENDANT LABS come up with the same date?
Don't bring up the bacteria thing again; the mass of the bacteria would
need to be twice as much as the mass of the linen to throw the date off
by 1300 years.
So, what was wrong with the original dating?
> Until such time, the strongest pro-artistry argument can only be the
> unspectacular, "Well, we were able to do a clumsy approximation of the
> Shroud based on what we believe was done by medieval artists."
>
Even if it does, should the date yet again come up to arounf 1300, then
the whining about inaccurate dating techniques will simply continue.
After all, it's obviously an anti-Christian conspiracy, right? (Why not?
Everything else is...)
And this still doesn't say anything about the improper proportions or
the fact that the weave was not invented until centuries after Jesus's
death.
Shane D. Killian
>
> Even his point of sarcasm is stupid. Assuming that someone wasasserting that Da
> Vinci faked the Shroud, I doubt if that is the
> sort of thing that Da Vinci would enter into his notes.
>
I actually don't think it's at all possible that it could have been Da
Vinci. The timing and circumstance of presentation would have been quite
different if it were.
--
david ford
[snip]
WB Now they are saying that the Shroud is testing wrong because there are
WB bacteria on the cloth! Of course, the Shroud would have to be 3/4ths
WB modern bacteria to throw the dating off the amount needed to justify the
WB Shroud as the burial cloth of Christ.
[Nickell, "The Case of the Shroud" _Free Inquiry_ (spring 1998),
49.]".... some scientists at the University of Texas Health Science
Center claimed they had discovered microbial contamination on shroud
samples that may have altered the radiocarbon dating.... However, simple
calculations show that for there to be sufficient contamination to raise
the date 13 centuries there would have to be twice as much debris, by
weight, as the entire shroud cloth itself!" What is the source for
Nickell's "simple calculations show that...."?
[snip]
WB I hope you read the Joe Nickell book, not just the quoted-out-of-
WB context stuff you're going to hear from a Sindonologist.
Have you come across any quotations of Nickell in this thread
that were presented in an out-of-context manner? If "yes," what
were the quotations about?
WB Or, for that matter, my
WB attempt to squeeze his book into the above post. I admit I haven't done
WB him justice. But as a former private investigator, Nickell has done an
WB excellent and thorough job investigating the Shroud. I can also
WB recommend any of the other books he's written, on any subject.
Does your recommendation include Nickell's _Jesus the Magician_, which
AFAIK was never published?
Ted Park
: Capella wrote:
: >
: > Even his point of sarcasm is stupid. Assuming that someone wasasserting that Da
: > Vinci faked the Shroud, I doubt if that is the
: > sort of thing that Da Vinci would enter into his notes.
: >
: I actually don't think it's at all possible that it could have been Da
: Vinci. The timing and circumstance of presentation would have been quite
: different if it were.
Leonardo understood quite well the proportions of the human figure
- his capacity to draw was amazing. The shroud contains errors that
an artist of his capacity would not have made. It would be instructive
to look at the work of first term art students, and compare the proportions
that they use in their representationally incorrect drawings to that of
the shroud.
--Ted.
david ford
SK The image cannot have inaccuracies unless I presuppose a process for
SK producing it????
Yes. For example, in _Inquest_, 71, Nickell claims that the fingers are
too long, and calls this unusual length an anatomical anomaly. However,
perhaps the mechanism of image formation proceeded in such a manner that
normal-sized fingers showed up on the cloth as extra-long fingers. Or
perhaps the Shroud was wrapped so that it went under the fingers a bit;
the image was formed, the cloth is stretched out, and low and behold,
the fingers appear extra-long. Or perhaps a combination of 1) image
formation mechanism and 2) manner of wrapping resulted in extra-long
fingers.
In short, without descriptions of how the image was formed and how the
body was wrapped, from "extra-long fingers" one cannot conclude
"inaccurate."
SK The eyes are too high up, the arms are too long, the "blood" is red
SK ocher paint...what are these if not inaccuracies, *regardless* of the
SK method used?
[SK]"The 'blood' is red ocher paint." No, the blood is blood. When
will there be a reply to the following?
In the spring 1998 issue of _Free Inquiry_, in a paragraph with the
heading "_Fake blood,_"[n98, 48-9] Nickell writes about tests following
a 24 November 1973 examination,[W78, 58] "An official commission
conducted extensive tests of the 'blood' on the shroud," with "one of
the results [being] noteworthy: the 'blood' failed all tests, not only
the preliminary ones but also such additional analyses as those for
speciation and blood groups. The tests included chemical, microscopic,
microchemical, and microspectroscopic analyses, as well as thin-layer
chromatography and neutron activation analysis.[these tests really done?
who exactly did what? how do the tests work?] ....those conducting the
tests on the blood were... internationally known forensic serologists, a
fact that underscored the credibility of the results."
The truth of the matter is that the individuals conducting the tests did
not know what they were doing, and thus, their failure to obtain a
positive test result for the presence of blood means nothing. Their
failure most assuredly does not support Nickell's claim that "the
commission's tests of several fibers... indicated that _no blood was
present_."[n n/d78, 31. As elsewhere, emphasis in original.]
Ian Wilson reports that Professors Mari and Rizzati failed to detect the
presence of blood using a test in which red blood cells' peroxidase is
introduced to a benzidine mixture, and causes the benzidine, which is
normally colorless, to turn blue. No blue appeared. Wilson adds that
"the more specific tests then carried out produced similarly negative
results. Attempts to dissolve the granules during chemical treatment
with acidic acid, oxygenated water, and glycerin of potassium were all
unsuccessful."[W78, 58-9] Nickell concurs that dissolving was not
achieved, stating in 1981, "Reddish granules were found in the 'blood'
images on the threads, but these would not even dissolve...."[n81, 29]
After reading Wilson's 1978 book, John H. Heller recalls having the
following conversation with the U.S. Air Force Academy's John P.
Jackson. Observed Heller, "The two Italian forensic people did
simpleminded tests.... It's no wonder they didn't get any answers."
Jackson replied, "Are you sure?" "Dead sure. If you don't do the right
tests in the right way, you can never get old blood into solution. If
it's not in solution, you can't obtain a positive test." "But,...
they're both university professors, and..." "I don't care if they were
the pope and the president of Italy. I read what they did and what they
saw on the fiber. If that gunk on it is blood, they should have gotten
so positive a test, you could have seen it across the room. If they
didn't solubilize it, they didn't have a prayer. Of course, they could
have made physical measurements and gotten an answer." "Physics?"
"Sure. Microspectrophotometry."[h,13-14]
Using samples collected during the 1978 STURP examination of the Shroud,
individuals that knew how to test for the presence of blood performed
additional tests, and their results were peer-reviewed and published.
In "Blood on the Shroud of Turin," _Applied Optics_ 19:2742-4 (1980),
Heller and Alan D. Adler (both with the New England Institute,
Ridgefield, Connecticut) summarized their conclusions by saying in part,
"The following tests were performed:
(a) visual examination;
(b) positive association with iron by x-ray fluorescence;
(c) positive Soret absorption and reasonable correspondence to
expected met-hemoglobin visible spectral shapes by both transmission and
reflection spectroscopy; and
(d) positive chemical conversion to a fluorimetrically
characteristic prophyrin [sic?] species does confirm and give positive
presumptive evidence for identification of the alleged blood areas on
the Shroud of Turin as, in fact, containing blood."
Also, in the _Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal_ 14:81-103
(1981), Heller (of the New England Institute) and Adler (of the Dept of
Chemistry, Western Connecticut State College, Danbury, CT) present the
following "Table 5" under the heading "Tests Confirming the Presence of
Whole Blood on the Shroud":
"1) High Fe in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence
2) Indicative reflection spectra
3) Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra
4) Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence
5) Positive hemochromagen [sic?] tests
6) Positive cyanmethemoglobin tests
7) Positive detectionn [sic] of bile pigments
8) Positive demonstration of protein
9) Positive indication of albumin specifically
10) Protease tests, leaving no residues
11) Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls
12) Forensic judgement of the appearance of the various wound and blood
marks."
Nickell grossly misleads spring 1998 _Free Inquiry_ readers by citing as
authoritative amateurs' circa 1973 failure to obtain positive test
results for blood, while neglecting to mention the peer-reviewed journal
articles demonstrating that the blood is indeed blood.
John H. Heller, _Report on the Shroud of Turin_ (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1983).
John H. Heller and Alan D. Adler, "Blood on the Shroud of Turin,"
_Applied Optics_ 19:2742-4 (1980).
J.H. Heller and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of
Turin," _Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal_ 14:81-103
(1981).
Joe Nickell, "The Shroud of Turin--Solved!" _The Humanist_ (Nov/Dec
1978), 30-2.
Joe Nickell, "New Evidence: The Shroud of Turin is a Forgery" _Free
Inquiry_ (Summer 1981), 28-30.
Joe Nickell, "The Case of the Shroud" _Free Inquiry_ (Spring 1998),
48-9.
Ian Wilson, _The Shroud Of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Juice Christ?_
(Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1978).
Brant
>On Wed, 8 Jul 1998 07:20:10 -0400, "Brant" <bra...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>[Super Snip]
>>(well-placed)
>[Thank you. I hope you don't mind the excessive snipping]
>
>[hands]
>>>I think they're too long for normal humans of that period of time, but
>>>JC was alegelly a caucasian male about 1,80 meters tall.
>>
>> My comment about the length of the arms was a matter of proportion. It
would
>>be impossible for any human to lie flat on his back, with his elbows resting
on
>>the same surface as his body, bent at the angle shown, (with even a space
>>between the elbow and the body), and have the fingertips reach to the lateral
>>edge of the far thigh. Try it and see how close yours come. The error is
>>enormous.
>
>Well, since i'm speaking more out of memory, you'll have an edge on me
>there. BUT (i'm not giving up that easily) you did say that it would
>be impossible fo a human to present such an image.
>Well, correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't jc a little bit more than
>human????
You mean divine? Does that imply grossly misproportioned arms? The only
thing that might suggest is that he was much more closely related to apes than
the rest of humanity was at that time.
>> Since the entire arm can't be seen, I was going to do some comparisons based
>>only on the elbow-to-wrist length. When I get a chance, I will compare that
>>length to other measurable lengths on the shroud image.
>
>Maybe the same way that the feet were tied, so were the wrists.
>And the way that the cloth would fit to the body's shape, the hands
>could appear to be more bellow than they really were.
Look at the images, many of which are available online. The hands are not
bound. Certainly people who claim to see thorn punctures in this image could
not possibly miss a binding of the hands.
And to answer your question about the draping of the shroud, the answer would
be no, it would not cause a change in the length of the arms and *certainly*
could not account for the fact that a space is seen between the elbows and the
body, and that the fingers of the right arm reach all the way to the *far* side
of the *far* thigh. This would not be possible, no matter what method was used
to imprint the shroud. The arms are clearly defined and just as orthographic as
the rest of the image, IOW projected onto a flat surface showing only two
dimensions.
>[Feet]
>>>They could have been tied together to keep the body more straight.
>>
>> Yes, that could be the case, and I initially suggested that it was the only
>>way I could see this happening. But none of the biblical experts has
suggested
>>it, perhaps because they have never seen any reference which included the
>>binding of the feet as part of the burial ritual.
>
>well, it's known that a great deal of the judaistic culture was lost
>during and after the roman invasion, so maybe the mummification
>rituals of the jews were lost to us, and if we knew exactly how they
>did it, we might have better answers for this matter.
>
>[hair]
>>>if he was inveloped in the cloth, the hair could be enveloping his
>>>face and head has well, making the hair patern appear the way it does.
>>
>> If it enveloped the head, we would see a wrap-around image instead of the
very
>>orthographic one we see. We would see the side of the head, for example.
Also,
>>such a wrap would probably involve considerable wrinkling where the body
widens
>>at the shoulders. The effect of any transfer of the body image on a wrinkled
>>surface would be very evident. Such an effect is not there.
>
>It kind of depends on the position of the head, mind you.
>If the head were tilted backwards, like post-mortem ligament
>contractions in birds and dinos, that's the way the image would
>appear.
No it isn't. The tilting back of the head would have nothing to do with the
fact that you should be seeing some of it from the *side*, if the shroud wrapped
around it. The image is as two-dimensional as a shadow would be. All features
appear as they would if viewed from directly in front, (or from directly behind,
on the posterior image.)
Brant
Brant
>On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 07:27:39 -0700, "Mr. Foot Grenade"
><eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
>>Brant, please spare us your non-Christian witnessing.
>
Yeah, I just noticed that. There isn't a single religious group in the headers!
Brant
Brant
<snip a pile of specious, irrelevant rhetoric>
You have continued to avoid the specific issues now, for several consecutive
posts:
1) The arms are impossibly long for any human being.
2) The hair hangs straight to the shoulders, horizontally, instead of falling
back.
3) The legs cannot stay together that way.
These are direct observations of the shroud. You have been unable to deal
with them because the shroud is *not* the burial cloth of Jesus. It is a
forgery including physiological and gravitational impossibilities.
You can't avoid these obvious errors so you obfuscate, pontificate, and
equivocate your way around irrevocable proof that the shroud image was not
caused by *any* person buried in it.
A story:
A traffic cop pulls Mr. Foot Grenade over for speeding.
Cop: May I see your driver's license and registration, please.
(Oops, Foot's using his dad's driver's license!)
Foot: Here, officer.
Cop: This isn't a picture of you.
Foot: Sure, it's a picture of me.
Cop: No, it isn't. This is not you. This man is much older, the hair is white,
and he has brown eyes...you have blue.
Foot: Oh now wait a minute. Are you trying to make an *identification* or are
you just talking about the quality of that photograph? You know, photos often
don't look *exactly* like the person in the picture.
Cop: I know that, but this can't possibly be you.
Foot: You're just making comments about the technical qualities of that
photograph, aren't you? I can't believe this...are you making a value judgment
or an observation? Aren't your types supposed to be *objective*?
Cop: I'm saying the person in this picture can't be you.
Foot: Aha! You did it again...you're talking about the quality of that
photograph.
Cop: Stop saying I'm just making comments on the photography. I'm saying this
picture is definitely not you. This is someone else's driver's license.
Foot: Oh really? And you can tell that from a bad photograph? Your comments
don't have anything to do with the *real* *objective* truth. Seems like your
mind is already made up. You seem to have some need to just harrass motorists
tonight. What, are you jealous of my car? Or are you just in the mood to rev
up your cycle and sound your siren and flash your lights tonight? Hmmm? Maybe
you like the way your boots crunch the asphalt or maybe you just feel big,
walking around with your neato helmet and that big bad gun at your side.
Cop: I stopped you because you were speeding...and this isn't your driver's
license.
Foot: Still talking about the quality of a photograph, I see. Go ahead...admit
it. Your just having a discussion about *photography* with me, right? And if
it's just the photography you're talking about, then how can you reasonably say
that translates 100% into the real, external reality of *who* I *am*? You cops
don't seem to realize that the metaphysical intercorrelations of perceptual
inconsistencies when applied to ill-motivated bigotry always confuse those
without the spiritual enlightenment to realize that the doubt-vs-affirmation
complex of the arrogant reductionist paradigm invariably leads to a close-minded
world view which does not *allow* for the objective evaluation of things
previously not considered...like the quality of my photo there.
Cop: Get out of the car.
Foot: Oh sure, ha ha. What're gonna do now...*shoot* me? Yeah, *run* away
from the truth! *Hide* behind that badge of authority! *Bury* the evidence
when you can't support your false indictments! *Keep* dodging the point! Yeah,
go ahead...you're just one of those...
<BANG>
Brant
Brant
>Brant wrote:
>
>> >>2) The legs would not be straight and together if this was caused by a
dead
>> >>body covered by the shroud.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, that could be the case, and I initially suggested that it was the only
>> way I could see this happening. But none of the biblical experts has
suggested
>> it, perhaps because they have never seen any reference which included the
>> binding of the feet as part of the burial ritual.
>
>enough to show small wounds on the scalp and individual whip
>lashes on the back but it doesn't show whatever is binding the
>legs together?
The feet can't be seen. If the feet were tied together somewhere along the
metatarsals, you wouldn't be able to see it. Too bad, too, or this argument
could be easily dismissed.
In another post he did say that the arms might be tied, but I don't think he
has an image to look at, and is doing this from memory.
Funny, though...in my response to *that* suggestion, I made almost exactly the
same response you did here. Spooky.
Brant
Brant
<snip>
>You know, I asked the same thing about the jaw wrap that they claim
>"explains" John 20:6-7. How come this thing that was wrapped around the
>head does not show up in the shroud either. Come on you believers, your
>not holding up your end. We ask, you tell us to go to hell for not
>believing. Well, where's our curse, we're waiting!
So you won't be disappointed...
I curse you, Karl E. Taylor! May the children of a thousand fleas make their
homes in your beard. May Beavis and Butthead take a liking to your tool shed.
May your soul have to sit in a room and listen to rap music for all of eternity.
May your children and your children's children and your children's children's
children be blinded to God's eternal purpose. May your daughter marry Eric
Cartman. May Christians pray aloud for you at your funeral. May you be cast
naked in polyester resin and hung in the atrium of the Sultan's palace.
Oh wait!...I'm an atheist. I can't do that!
Damn! Never mind. I tried.
Brant
Brant
>Al Klein:
>
>Tickle my perineum.
>
> - ignorant bleater
That's the spirit! As long as you're going to dodge issues, might as well
save bandwidth.
(Hey Foot, you'd better watch out...evil forces are loose here in Usenet and I
think they're getting to you.)
Brant
Brant
>Brant wrote:
>>
>> Shane, every once in awhile I have to remind myself that there is a good
>> reason these people have to argue the way they do. It's because they're
*wrong*
>> and it's all they've got! I guess we shouldn't be so offended by it, because
>> their only alternative would be to say, "Hey, you're right! I have to do
some
>> serious re-thinking." Most people won't do that, nor should we expect them
to,
>> I guess.
>>
>Yeah, i guess...But the way I see it is, I'm still a Christian, but I
>have had to reject and unlearn the dogmas instilled in me by an
>upbringing in the church. I did this through soul-searching and learning
>exactly what it was Jesus was actually preaching. I found much of it to
>be at odds with the church dogma, and feel he would be very disappointed
>at what he witnesses here.
>
>Jesus taught me, among other things, to not be afraid of the truth,
>whatever it might be. So I feel a true Christian would owe it to Jesus
>to do exactly that. So when I see someone claiming to be a Christian
>insulting his brother without due cause, and stating that anyone who
>disagrees with them is un-Christian, I tend to take it kind of
>personally.
I guess this would be a good time to say that I have never had a problem with
Christians like you. You can think and you have been able to identify some of
the weaknesses passed down within your (my former) faith from ages past. You
and people like me can coexist peacefully. I pretty much stated what kinds of
Christians I have problems with in one of my other posts.
I know I have said some pretty harsh things about Christians, and I suppose I
should apologize to them, and you, now. It is not Christians, per se, that I
really intend to battle...just those who are ignorant, arrogant, and
authoritarian. It's not so much a characteristic of religion as it is of a
certain mindset of people in general, who go off believing in anything, willy
nilly, despite the evidence against it. Fundies are just one of many paranormal
and/or cultish classes of people who invariably struggle against reality and
want others to be just like them.
So when I have made my *occasional* mischievous digs at God and Jesus, it is
mainly to razz the fundie types. But now I realize that there are people like
yourself who may be silently hurt by some of those comments. I'll keep this in
mind in the future.
May your faith give you the strength, fulfillment, and security you seek.
Help those blinded by their abject adherence to ancient dogma to believe that
God didn't give them brains if he expected them to stay stupid.
If there *is* a God, I'm sure he likes you.
>> Wanna come to my crab feast?
>>
>Sounds delicious! Got any steamed snow crab?
No way, man...Chesapeake Blue Crabs. (Are we still friends?)
Brant
Brant
<snip>
>[reads label] Hey! This stuff's made in New York City!
ha ha ha
Oh my!
Sheeze!
Shaney boy obviously has never heard of ...
////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*****CONTINENTAL DRIFT********
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////
Take a science course.
OLD BAY gives OLD BAY!!!! See the word "BAY"????
Now see the word "OLD"????
OLD means...
<<<<<<A LONNNNG TIME AGO>>>>>>>>>>>
Get it? Long time=geological changes=CONTINENTAL DRIFT. It's OBVIOUSLY
referring to the CHESAPEAKE BAY...which USED to be where New York is today.
So you thought you were making some POINT????
Ya.
Alf Kerensky
[Super-dupper Snip]
> You mean divine? Does that imply grossly misproportioned arms? The only
>thing that might suggest is that he was much more closely related to apes than
>the rest of humanity was at that time.
Well, let's just say that since he left us (and by us i mean humanity,
so that you don't take for an obcessed catholic) without any real
evidence of his existence but his message, the church tries it's best
to garantee some proof of his existence. IF the shroud was in fact
false, i think that it would be a much more convincing forgery than
that.
Señores, Señoras y Señoritas, Radio KATN,
la Super Cadena, presenta con mucho gusto
los Caballeros de Coronel Carlos Camacho!
*APPLAUSE*
- Warcry of the Seventeenth Recon
Regiment, AKA Camacho's Caballeros.
Alf Kerensky
<kta...@dragon.illusions.com> wrote:
>> > >>2) The legs would not be straight and together if this was caused by a dead
>> > >>body covered by the shroud.
>> > >
>> > >They could have been tied together to keep the body more straight.
>> >
>> > Yes, that could be the case, and I initially suggested that it was the only
>> > way I could see this happening. But none of the biblical experts has suggested
>> > it, perhaps because they have never seen any reference which included the
>> > binding of the feet as part of the burial ritual.
>>
>> So why don't the ropes show? People claim the image is precise
>> enough to show small wounds on the scalp and individual whip
>> lashes on the back but it doesn't show whatever is binding the
>> legs together?
>>
>> Keith Morrison
>> kei...@polarnet.ca
Well, keith, it beats me.
Maybe, ad this is just a guess, an oppinion, the ropes around the legs
were wrapped around his ankles OUTSIDE of the shroud...
That way, whatever *devide* act occured to create the image would not
show because the rope was out, not in.
>You know, I asked the same thing about the jaw wrap that they claim
>"explains" John 20:6-7. How come this thing that was wrapped around the
>head does not show up in the shroud either. Come on you believers, your
>not holding up your end. We ask, you tell us to go to hell for not
>believing. Well, where's our curse, we're waiting!
The head thing beats me too, and since 'm no sherlock holmes, i think
i've made my deductionn of the day. ;-))))
Regarding the hell thing, i won't send you there.
First, i don't believe in it, second, i think that god, if infinitly
merciful, would nevere do that to his children.
I mean, if i were a father, I wouldn't do that, and my pacience has
limits, so why on hearth (not hell :-)) should he??????
Capella
Mr. Foot Grenade wrote:
The longer version of "art" (artificial) would be a more accurate term
then.
The definition of "art" implies skill or ability.
The forger of the Shroud was very sloppy and the process he
almost certainly used required no skill.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
150 bible errors, contradictions, Yahweh's many genocides, failed
prophecies, the bible's flat earth universe, problems with the Noah
flood myth by Mr. Peebles, problems with creationist arguments,
why I awoken out of Christianity, why all Christians need to
imagine God, etc... at:
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide