What's the shroud of Turin?

[JD Wolfe]

I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?

The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery. It is, allegedly, the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately, radioisotope dating makes it to be from a considerably later time. Indeed, the dating approximates the time when it was 'found', making it likely that it was a mid-Medieval forgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

Many of the more pious dispute the findings of the radioisotope dating. I personally note that the person depicted on the shroud appears to be of western European physiognomy, making it quite unlikely that the subject of the shroud would be a native of Nazareth and/or Bethlehem during the 1st century ACE. The subject of the shroud does look quite like the person depicted in drawings, paintings, and statues made in western Europe during the mid-Medieval period.

To put it bluntly: the shroud shows a tall white European, not a short dark Semite.

[erik simpson]

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 3:45:03 PM UTC-7, JD Wolfe wrote:
> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?

You should take that question up with some of the resident theologians.

[Kalkidas]

It's not a forgery. It's a genuine shroud, almost a thousand years old.
Some claimed that it was Jesus' burial shroud, but that doesn't make the
actual artifact a forgery.

[dale]

On 3/22/2018 6:41 PM, JD Wolfe wrote:
>
> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>

The body markings on the shroud cloth are said to be from Jesus passing
through from death to life. Think they had this on Ancient Aliens.

--
dale - http://www.dalekelly.org/
Not a professional opinion unless specified.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:41:17 -0400, JD Wolfe <Lo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?

There's this wonderful new invention, called the Internet. It lets
you search about all kinds of topics all by yourself. You may have
heard of it.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 9:25:02 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 3/22/2018 3:58 PM, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
> >> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
> >> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
> >
> > The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery. It is, allegedly, the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately, radioisotope dating makes it to be from a considerably later time. Indeed, the dating approximates the time when it was 'found', making it likely that it was a mid-Medieval forgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
> >
> > Many of the more pious dispute the findings of the radioisotope dating. I personally note that the person depicted on the shroud appears to be of western European physiognomy, making it quite unlikely that the subject of the shroud would be a native of Nazareth and/or Bethlehem during the 1st century ACE. The subject of the shroud does look quite like the person depicted in drawings, paintings, and statues made in western Europe during the mid-Medieval period.
> >
> > To put it bluntly: the shroud shows a tall white European, not a short dark Semite.
> >
>
> It's not a forgery.

It is a forgery. It is purported to be Christ's burial shroud. It is over 1200 years too young to be that. It also shows totally incorrect physiognomy, but physiognomy which matches then current illustrations in western Europe.

> It's a genuine shroud, almost a thousand years old.

It was never used as a burial shroud for anyone. And it is considerably less than 1000 years old, as it dates from somewhere between 1260 and 1390, making it something on the order of 630b to 760 years old.

> Some claimed that it was Jesus' burial shroud, but that doesn't make the
> actual artifact a forgery.

No, the fact that it was made to try to look like what mid-Medieval pious people might have thought that Christ's shroud looked like is what makes it a forgery. It is an example of many such pious frauds, including the many, many, fragments of the 'True Cross' which when added up would have weighed hundreds of tons, and of the legendary 'bones of the Apostle James, son of Zebedee', allegedly found in Spain just prior to the alleged Battle of Clavijo, allegedly won by pious Christian Spaniards and lost by evil Muslims. In actuality, there were no bones, it being quite unlikely that a 1st century Jew would be buried on the Iberian peninsula and his tomb discovered just in time to inspire victory. There was not even a battle; it was all made up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Clavijo

Should you actually believe that the Shroud of Turin was an actual burial shroud for someone who actually lived, who was s/he, and when did s/he die?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:24:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Panthera Tigris Altaica
<northe...@outlook.com>:

Kalkie is being literal: A shroud is a shroud, whether or
not it was ever used as such, and the fact that it was not
what it was claimed to be (the burial shroud of Jesus)
doesn't make it a forgery, since it's still a shroud, not a
forgery of one (whatever that might entail).

Kalkie is, as usual, playing word games. Stupid ones.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

He trails only Captain Yellowstain, the idiot who claims to have multiple terminal-level degrees, in the local imbecile stakes. It is my opinion that Captain Yellowstain _still_ does not realise just how gravely I insulted him when I referred to his work as 'geometric logic'. Google is your friend, Captain Yellowstain. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046816/quotes

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
<northe...@outlook.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>
>The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.

Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.

[Wolffan]

On 23Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
(in article<7guabddftigvj5pa1...@4ax.com>):

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
> > > I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
> > > a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
> >
> > The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>
> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.

Probably a skilled painter.

[JWS]

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 5:45:03 PM UTC-5, JD Wolfe wrote:
> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?

Don't worry about it. It's so out of style now that no one would
be seen dead in it.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:05:48 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 23Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>(in article<7guabddftigvj5pa1...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>> > > I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>> > > a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>> >
>> > The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>
>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>
>Probably a skilled painter.

Nope, that's been ruled out.

[Wolffan]

On 23Mar 2018, JWS wrote
(in article<23d7bacf-7d68-42e1...@googlegroups.com>):

oooh. Funny man. Step a little closer, just a little...

[Wolffan]

On 24Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
(in article<852cbdl7f48ier5vt...@4ax.com>):

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:05:48 -0400, Wolffan<akwo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 23Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
> > (in article<7guabddftigvj5pa1...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
> > > <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
> > > > > I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
> > > > > a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
> > > >
> > > > The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
> > >
> > > Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
> >
> > Probably a skilled painter.
>
> Nope, that's been ruled out.

Interesting. I hadn’t been paying close attention. What is the current
leading candidate for how it was done?

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 06:56:12 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 24Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>(in article<852cbdl7f48ier5vt...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:05:48 -0400, Wolffan<akwo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On 23Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>> > (in article<7guabddftigvj5pa1...@4ax.com>):
>> >
>> > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>> > > <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>> > > > > I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>> > > > > a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>> > > >
>> > > > The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>> > >
>> > > Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>> >
>> > Probably a skilled painter.
>>
>> Nope, that's been ruled out.
>Interesting. I hadn’t been paying close attention. What is the current
>leading candidate for how it was done?

Neither have I but last I checked, there were no candidates at all, it
boiled down to "It's a forgery but we haven't a clue how it was
forged."

Actually, that's a bit unfair, the scientists who examined it didn't
actually call it a forgery, they just said it isn't 2000 years old but
the bit about not having a clue about how it was forged is true.

[Rolf Aalberg]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:imq8bd5i6acmu72pf...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:41:17 -0400, JD Wolfe <Lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>
> There's this wonderful new invention, called the Internet. It lets
> you search about all kinds of topics all by yourself. You may have
> heard of it.
>

Maybe vaguely. Didn't make me religious.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:32:30 +0100, "Rolf Aalberg"
<rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:imq8bd5i6acmu72pf...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:41:17 -0400, JD Wolfe <Lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>>a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>
>> There's this wonderful new invention, called the Internet. It lets
>> you search about all kinds of topics all by yourself. You may have
>> heard of it.
>>
>
>Maybe vaguely. Didn't make me religious.

Depending on whether something else made you religious, give yourself
a gold star.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 08:13:52 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:05:48 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 23Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>>(in article<7guabddftigvj5pa1...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>> > > I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>> > > a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>> >
>>> > The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>>
>>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>>
>>Probably a skilled painter.
>
>Nope, that's been ruled out.

What has been ruled out is that the Shroud is not a painting, in the
sense of brushing standard pigments onto a cloth. Since nobody knows
for certain how it was done, one can't rule out that a skilled painter
did it by some means other than conventional painting methods.

>>> > It is, allegedly, the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately,
>>> > radioisotope dating makes it to be from a considerably later time. Indeed,
>>> > the dating approximates the time when it was 'found', making it likely that
>>> > it was a mid-Medieval forgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
>>> >
>>> > Many of the more pious dispute the findings of the radioisotope dating. I
>>> > personally note that the person depicted on the shroud appears to be of
>>> > western European physiognomy, making it quite unlikely that the subject of
>>> > the shroud would be a native of Nazareth and/or Bethlehem during the 1st
>>> > century ACE. The subject of the shroud does look quite like the person
>>> > depicted in drawings, paintings, and statues made in western Europe during
>>> > the mid-Medieval period.
>>> >
>>> > To put it bluntly: the shroud shows a tall white European, not a short dark
>>> > Semite.
>>

[Bill Rogers]

Clearly it is a product of Intelligent Forgery. We have no idea who the Forger was, and no idea how the Forger did the Forgery, but the theory of Intelligent Forgery is only interested in determining Mode of Causation. And the Mode of Causation is clearly Intelligent Forgery.

[R. Dean]

On 3/24/2018 7:39 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 08:13:52 +0000, Martin Harran
> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:05:48 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>>> (in article<7guabddftigvj5pa1...@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>>>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>>>>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>>>
>>>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>>>
>>> Probably a skilled painter.
>>
>> Nope, that's been ruled out.
>
>
> What has been ruled out is that the Shroud is not a painting, in the
> sense of brushing standard pigments onto a cloth. Since nobody knows
> for certain how it was done, one can't rule out that a skilled painter
> did it by some means other than conventional painting methods.
>

The cloth was tested by radio carbon and found to be dated back no
further than the 14th century so clearly it was not real, but a
fake.

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/23/18 3:05 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>
>> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>
> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.

But there's no doubt that it *could* have been forged by readily
available methods. And indeed, it has been replicated.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218457/Shroud-Turin-replica-proves-medieval-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html

Furthermore, the lack of perfect knowledge of it origins does not
counter all the other positive evidence that the Shroud is a pious
forgery, any more than the lack of perfect knowledge of, say, HOX gene
origins argues against the observation that they have evolved.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 11:17:54 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

I'd point out that if the age (or rather the "non-age") is
correct (and IIRC it's been confirmed), the lack of method
is irrelevant; it's still a forgery.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:58:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com>:

Cool! I believe I read about that in a poem by Kipling...

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if---

....although he probably had in mind a different meaning of
"IF".

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:39:36 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

>On 3/24/2018 7:39 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 08:13:52 +0000, Martin Harran
>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:05:48 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>>>> (in article<7guabddftigvj5pa1...@4ax.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>>>>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>>>>>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>>>>
>>>> Probably a skilled painter.
>>>
>>> Nope, that's been ruled out.
>>
>>
>> What has been ruled out is that the Shroud is not a painting, in the
>> sense of brushing standard pigments onto a cloth. Since nobody knows
>> for certain how it was done, one can't rule out that a skilled painter
>> did it by some means other than conventional painting methods.
> >
>The cloth was tested by radio carbon and found to be dated back no
>further than the 14th century so clearly it was not real, but a
>fake.

Careful; according to Kalkidas that doesn't mean it's a
"forgery" (which I assume is synonymous with "fake" in this
context).

>>>>>> It is, allegedly, the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately,
>>>>>> radioisotope dating makes it to be from a considerably later time. Indeed,
>>>>>> the dating approximates the time when it was 'found', making it likely that
>>>>>> it was a mid-Medieval forgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many of the more pious dispute the findings of the radioisotope dating. I
>>>>>> personally note that the person depicted on the shroud appears to be of
>>>>>> western European physiognomy, making it quite unlikely that the subject of
>>>>>> the shroud would be a native of Nazareth and/or Bethlehem during the 1st
>>>>>> century ACE. The subject of the shroud does look quite like the person
>>>>>> depicted in drawings, paintings, and statues made in western Europe during
>>>>>> the mid-Medieval period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To put it bluntly: the shroud shows a tall white European, not a short dark
>>>>>> Semite.
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:29:00 -0700 (PDT), the following

Thanks. I believe "terminal-level degrees" has a specific
meaning in this context...

And I wonder where he keeps "his* key...?

[JD Wolfe]

When this was first tested in a lab by scientist I was a young kid, so
it had no bearing on me. But as a doubter, I didn't expect or like
what I found by going to the internet for information. I read that it
was middle age creation never recognized as genuine by the Catholic
Church. And so, it makes not a dot of difference. But then I found
this that the part tested was not the original cloth, but a piece of
cloth was chosen and cut from an area that had been repaired and had
cotton interwoven and expert stained to blend. If this is true, why
was this particular piece chosen? I don't believe this is the opinion
of any experts but rather by folks who want to believe it's the
burial cloth of this Christ man. I'm seriously doubt this is real,
but I would like to know how it was done.

[Burkhard]

Martin Harran wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:05:48 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 23Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>> (in article<7guabddftigvj5pa1...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>>>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>>>
>>>> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>>
>>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>>
>> Probably a skilled painter.
>
> Nope, that's been ruled out.
>

It's always fascinating when the Shroud makes its appearance on TO. It
has the tendency to make people switch sides, epistemologically. Folks
(don't mean you btw) who normally argue that no design assumption is
needed to explain complex structures now argue that design is a much
better explanation, while those who tend to deny that "complex specified
information" - which I'd say includes depictions of human bodies - can
occur naturally are hell bend to rule out a designer.

Me, I'd say the same rules apply. That means ruling out "a"
(unspecified) painter/designer will not be possible, but then again
postulating such a painter without any specifics as to their method,
tools, limitations etc, that is at least some idea who that person(s)
was, is essentially empty and meaningless.

Now, some such designers have been postulated with sufficient levels of
specificity to test the assumption, and to the best of my knowledge it
was indeed to rule out all of these.

[JD Wolfe]

There is a lot about this shroud of Turin on You Tube. I just
started watching and what is amazing is that forensic doctors
are saying a real man was murdered, who had the marks of
Jesus on his body. How could someone in the middle ages do this
to a fellow man. How did they know how about some of the things
a forensic doctor found? This man was murdered in the middle
ages. This shows just how far religious fanitics will go to
create something to fool everyone. This is horrible!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm83NipcIbs

[Paul J Gans]

JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/24/2018 6:56 AM, Wolffan wrote:
>> On 24Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>> (in article<852cbdl7f48ier5vt...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:05:48 -0400, Wolffan<akwo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>>>> (in article<7guabddftigvj5pa1...@4ax.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>>>>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>>>>>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>>>>
>>>> Probably a skilled painter.
>>>
>>> Nope, that's been ruled out.

>> Interesting. I hadn???t been paying close attention. What is the current

>> leading candidate for how it was done?
>>
>When this was first tested in a lab by scientist I was a young kid, so
>it had no bearing on me. But as a doubter, I didn't expect or like
>what I found by going to the internet for information. I read that it
>was middle age creation never recognized as genuine by the Catholic
>Church. And so, it makes not a dot of difference. But then I found
>this that the part tested was not the original cloth, but a piece of
>cloth was chosen and cut from an area that had been repaired and had
>cotton interwoven and expert stained to blend. If this is true, why
>was this particular piece chosen? I don't believe this is the opinion
>of any experts but rather by folks who want to believe it's the
>burial cloth of this Christ man. I'm seriously doubt this is real,
>but I would like to know how it was done.

I strongly suggest one go to the Wikipedia article on the Shroud
of Turin.

Here is the url:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

It is all there, dating methods, possible ways the shroud was
produced, etc. etc.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

I don't believe this, either. That kind of nonsense has all the earmarks of the reverse of the pious fraud coin, where those who have a problem with one or more religion make things up. This is just as bad, if not worse, than pious fraud. Orginised religion makes itself ridiculous without outside assistance. When attacks of this kind are made, the attackers had best have overwhelming evidence or they will be immediately discredited, and not only by the pious, but by those who have no axe to grind in the process.

True Believers are a plague. I, personally, would like to exile all True Believers, religious and non-religious, to somewhere far away and let them fight it out between themselves. And I'd not send a boat to see who won; the last one standing could swim out. I propose using Pitcairn Island for the purpose.

[JD Wolfe]

This was a real crusifiction, but you cannot get around the radio-
carbon test that this happened about 600 years ago.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:56:00 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>I strongly suggest one go to the Wikipedia article on the Shroud
>of Turin.
>
>Here is the url:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
>
>It is all there, dating methods, possible ways the shroud was
>produced, etc. etc.
>
>--
> --- Paul J. Gans

JD Wolfe seems to be unfamiliar with how to use the Internet. His OP
suggested he only recently learned of its existence.

[Rolf Aalberg]

"JWS" <jld...@skybeam.com> wrote in message
news:23d7bacf-7d68-42e1...@googlegroups.com...

LOL

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:08:14 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 3/23/18 3:05 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>>
>>> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>
>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>
>But there's no doubt that it *could* have been forged by readily
>available methods. And indeed, it has been replicated.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218457/Shroud-Turin-replica-proves-medieval-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html

With all the warnings that have been given here over the years about
the dangers of taking seriously scientific claims as reported in the
popular press, I am somewhat taken aback that you should resort to the
Daily Mail as a credible source; for the benefit of US people, the
Daily Mail is a UK equivalent of the National Enquirer.

Here is an actual scientific analysis of Luigi Garlaschelli's image
compared to the Shroud of Turin:

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/HeimburgerWeb.pdf

It states in the conclusion:

"We therefore conclude that the TS image was certainly
not produced by the technique proposed by LG or, very-
likely, by any kind of similar rubbing technique, because
the technique itself seems unable to produce an image
having the most critical TS image characteristics. The TS
image still remains not reproducible and not explainable."

>
>Furthermore, the lack of perfect knowledge of it origins does not
>counter all the other positive evidence that the Shroud is a pious
>forgery, any more than the lack of perfect knowledge of, say, HOX gene
>origins argues against the observation that they have evolved.

I don't think the two compare at all; we can put forward perfectly
plausible explanations for how HOX genes evolved and we can compare
their evolution to other known evolutionary paths. Claims about
forgery in regard to the Turin Shroud ring a bit hollow when no method
of forgery is offered, especially where it would necessarily have
involved techniques such as negative imagery and an understanding of
human anatomy which were unknown at the time the forgery was supposed
to have been created.

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/24/18 4:21 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:08:14 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/23/18 3:05 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>>>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>>>
>>>> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>>
>>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>>
>> But there's no doubt that it *could* have been forged by readily
>> available methods. And indeed, it has been replicated.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218457/Shroud-Turin-replica-proves-medieval-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html
>
> With all the warnings that have been given here over the years about
> the dangers of taking seriously scientific claims as reported in the
> popular press, I am somewhat taken aback that you should resort to the
> Daily Mail as a credible source; for the benefit of US people, the
> Daily Mail is a UK equivalent of the National Enquirer.

I am not so familiar with UK papers. I did notice that the story was
reported in at least half a dozen different papers.

> Here is an actual scientific analysis of Luigi Garlaschelli's image
> compared to the Shroud of Turin:
>
> http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/HeimburgerWeb.pdf
>
> It states in the conclusion:
>
> "We therefore conclude that the TS image was certainly
> not produced by the technique proposed by LG or, very-
> likely, by any kind of similar rubbing technique, because
> the technique itself seems unable to produce an image
> having the most critical TS image characteristics. The TS
> image still remains not reproducible and not explainable."

Very well; I amend my statement to note that some aspects of the Shroud
have been replicated.

>> Furthermore, the lack of perfect knowledge of it origins does not
>> counter all the other positive evidence that the Shroud is a pious
>> forgery, any more than the lack of perfect knowledge of, say, HOX gene
>> origins argues against the observation that they have evolved.
>
> I don't think the two compare at all; we can put forward perfectly
> plausible explanations for how HOX genes evolved and we can compare
> their evolution to other known evolutionary paths. Claims about
> forgery in regard to the Turin Shroud ring a bit hollow when no method
> of forgery is offered, especially where it would necessarily have
> involved techniques such as negative imagery and an understanding of
> human anatomy which were unknown at the time the forgery was supposed
> to have been created.

I disagree. I don't know the details, but I know that there have been
techniques used in manufacturing steel and porcelain which were lost for
centuries, but were eventually recovered. If such economically valuable
techniques remained unknown for so long, there is no reason to expect a
useless fabric painting technique to get worked out.

It seems likely that the "technique" is really a side-effect of the
actual technique. The original artist maybe used a rubbing technique
like Garlaschelli's to rough out an image; then he painted it with
multiple bright pigments to produce something wondrous to behold. Then
the pigments faded, flaked off, and otherwise disintegrated, leaving
only discoloration from the chemical side-effects, and those were
probably spread and smeared by humidity and time. Replicating six
centuries of aging is not easy.

I will agree with you that the making of the Shroud of Turin is
unexplained. But I know of nothing about the Shroud which is inexplicable.

The dating which tells with near-certainty that the Shroud could not
possibly be what it is claimed to be, plus a long history of forgery of
pious frauds, plus a confession of forgery, together make the conclusion
of forgery a no-brainer, with or without a method.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica

Except you might like to note that it is scientists who are arguing
the evidence for the shroud, not religious believers.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:40:32 -0700, Mark Isaak

<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 3/24/18 4:21 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:08:14 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/23/18 3:05 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>>>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>>>>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>>>
>>>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>>>
>>> But there's no doubt that it *could* have been forged by readily
>>> available methods. And indeed, it has been replicated.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218457/Shroud-Turin-replica-proves-medieval-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html
>>
>> With all the warnings that have been given here over the years about
>> the dangers of taking seriously scientific claims as reported in the
>> popular press, I am somewhat taken aback that you should resort to the
>> Daily Mail as a credible source; for the benefit of US people, the
>> Daily Mail is a UK equivalent of the National Enquirer.
>
>I am not so familiar with UK papers. I did notice that the story was
>reported in at least half a dozen different papers.

Which means nothing - the popular media foloows the popular media and
warnings have previousoy been given about how science is presented in
the popular media

So, without anything to offer against them, you simply dismiss the
scinetists above whohave studied the evidence in depth and concluded
that "The TS image still remains not reproducible and not
explainable."

Now, who does that remind me of?

>
>The dating which tells with near-certainty

The reliability of dating process has been questioned by some of the
scientists involved as they are not confident that the sample used for
dating was a clean one so I'd be careful about taking the dating as
"near certainty".

>that the Shroud could not
>possibly be what it is claimed to be, plus a long history of forgery of
>pious frauds, plus a confession of forgery,

I really wish people would check their facts before repeating
unsubstantiated claims. There was no *confession of forgery" other
than an unnamed bishop claiming that another earlier but also unnamed
bishop stated that somebody else, also unnamed, had confessed to him
that they had forged the shroud.

Or do you really regard that as some sort of reliable evidence?

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:21:09 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:05:48 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>>> (in article<7guabddftigvj5pa1...@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>>>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>>>>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>>>
>>>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>>>
>>> Probably a skilled painter.
>>
>> Nope, that's been ruled out.
>>
>
>It's always fascinating when the Shroud makes its appearance on TO. It
>has the tendency to make people switch sides, epistemologically. Folks
>(don't mean you btw) who normally argue that no design assumption is
>needed to explain complex structures now argue that design is a much
>better explanation, while those who tend to deny that "complex specified
>information" - which I'd say includes depictions of human bodies - can
>occur naturally are hell bend to rule out a designer.

Yes, I have noticed that too and also how people who normally argue
for the scientific approach suddenly enthusiastically embrace
unsubstantiated claims and anecdotal evidence.

>
>Me, I'd say the same rules apply. That means ruling out "a"
>(unspecified) painter/designer will not be possible, but then again
>postulating such a painter without any specifics as to their method,
>tools, limitations etc, that is at least some idea who that person(s)
>was, is essentially empty and meaningless.

My point precisely.

I would also add that I am wary of accepting the dating evidence as
conclusive. Apart from ongoing arguments about the reliability of the
sample used for dating, until we know how the image was created, we
don't know whether that process may have done something to the fabric
itself that could affect the dating process.

[Mark Isaak]

What I remember from reading about the Shroud years ago was that one
supposedly inexplicable aspect of it was the wrap-around perspective.
Garlaschelli replicated that. (He also replicated the negative-image
aspect, though I am not convinced that his method there is relevant.)

>> The dating which tells with near-certainty
>
> The reliability of dating process has been questioned by some of the
> scientists involved as they are not confident that the sample used for
> dating was a clean one so I'd be careful about taking the dating as
> "near certainty".

We should consider that the history of pious frauds continues into the
present day. I know for a fact that that history has entered some
modern writings about the Shroud of Turin. It is particularly prevalent
in claims to throw out the carbon dating for no reason (or, in terms of
the pious frauds, because a miracle occurred). Especially when the
dating comes not just from carbon dating.

>> that the Shroud could not
>> possibly be what it is claimed to be, plus a long history of forgery of
>> pious frauds, plus a confession of forgery,
>
> I really wish people would check their facts before repeating
> unsubstantiated claims. There was no *confession of forgery" other
> than an unnamed bishop claiming that another earlier but also unnamed
> bishop stated that somebody else, also unnamed, had confessed to him
> that they had forged the shroud.
>
> Or do you really regard that as some sort of reliable evidence?

I regard it as evidence.

[JD Wolfe]

I did. I read the entire article, it resolved nothing! The Wikipedia
article seemed impartial. It examined the pro shroud views then the
skeptics views; including scientist who are as uncertain as everyone
else. How it came to be: I don't know. But I come to believe that a
real man was murdered in the 16/th century and his body modeled to
fit the preconceived image of a crucified Jesus. You cannot get
around the radio carbon dating.

[JD Wolfe]

I don't know what you mean about a coin fraud. My dollar bill today is
not worth the value of a dime of 20 years ago .

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica

Devil's Island might be more symbolic.

The Shroud of Turin raises two separate questions. One question is
whether it is the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. This is
impossible to prove, unless, as one wag put it, Christ's Mum sewed his
name on it. But it can be disproved, and has, through radiocarbon
dating. The shroud material itself is of Medieval origin, so the
image can't be from anbody's burial circa 33 AD.

Having settled that, the second question remains interesting: how was
the image made. Once again, it's impossible to prove for certain, but
likely scenarios have been proposed.

It's certain the Shroud of Turin is a fraud, in the sense that claims
of its Biblical origins can't be true. However, to say that it's a
forgery is pedantically incorrect. Forgery is a specific kind of
fraud, of objects made to copy or imitate prior works. To the best of
my knowledge, no other shroud has ever existed bearing a likeness of a
body buried within it. However fraudulent is the Shroud as an
artifact of Biblical origin, it is an original work, and so not a
forgery.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 18:21:36 -0700, Mark Isaak

Let's apply the same basic questions that you and so many other people
have been asking of R. Dean here:

1) Who was the forger?

2) How did he forge it?

[nod to Burkhard for raising this comparison.]

[solar penguin]

On Sunday, 25 March 2018 17:00:04 UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:

>
> Except you might like to note that it is scientists who are arguing
> the evidence for the shroud, not religious believers.
>

Religious believers just plain don't care about evidence, by definition.

[Martin Harran]

Actually, most religious believers that I know care very much about
evidence and that their religious beliefs are not in contradiction of
any evidence. That's a long established principle going back at last
as far as St. Augustine in the 5th century.

[jillery]

Your questions above assume there was in fact a "forger", more
accurately a designer. In that way, they share a parallel to R.Dean's
Design inference.

Beyond that, your question asserts a false equivalence, that the
identity of the Shroud's designer, even if there was one, is relevant
to the primary question asked about the Shroud: Is it the burial
shroud of Jesus Christ? Since that question has been definitively
answered by other means, the identity of the Shroud designer is of a
lesser historical interest.

That is not the case with R.Dean's alleged creative Agent. The
primary question to which the identity of said Agent applies is: Is
the origin of life on Earth, or of the entire Universe, depending on
the whims of the ID proponent, a consequence of a conscious,
intelligent Agent who made it for a purpose?

Unlike the Shroud, this can't be proved with certainty. Even if it
could be shown that an Agent is unnecessary, which more and more seems
to be the case, it can't be disproved in principle that said Agent
Designed [whatever] to appear as if a Designer was unnecessary. Given
that, the identity of R.Dean's Designer, more accurately its
characteristics, remains relevant evidence to his Inference.

So, unless you can prove [whatever] in fact originated by unguided
natural processes, then the possibility of the R.Dean's Designer
Inference remains, and the characteristics/identity of said Designer
remains relevant. OTOH the Shroud is proved to be of Medieval origin,
and so the identity of its designer is moot to that question.

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 00:47:56 -0700 (PDT), solar penguin
<solar....@gmail.com> wrote:

Religious believers shouldn't care about evidence if they're True
Believers, by definition. That they do care about evidence when it
supports their beliefs shows their Faith is lacking.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 17:10:50 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>I really wish people would check their facts before repeating
>unsubstantiated claims. There was no *confession of forgery" other
>than an unnamed bishop claiming that another earlier but also unnamed
>bishop stated that somebody else, also unnamed, had confessed to him
>that they had forged the shroud.
>
>Or do you really regard that as some sort of reliable evidence?

Sorry, slight correction, the bishops were in fact named but the claim
is very dubious to out it midly.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/christianitydarcis.htm

"Pierre [d’Arcis] claims that his predecessor, Bishop Henri de
Poitiers of Troyes conducted an inquest in which a painter had
confessed to painting the Shroud. Pierre doesn’t have first hand
knowledge of this artist. The artist is unnamed. There is no evidence
of such an inquest in contemporaneous documents.

Pierre states that Henri had the Shroud removed from the church
because it was a fake, yet other documents dispute this. It was,
according to other documents, removed from the church for safekeeping
because of the war raging about the area. The memorandum must be
understood and assessed in the light of several of Christianity's
documents of the same period and in the context of the political
situation in the region. At least eight documents challenge the
veracity of the d’Arcis Memorandum.

There are other problems as well. All existing copies of the
memorandum are unsigned and undated drafts. The copy at the
Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris includes a heading stating that it is
a letter that Pierre intends to write. It is definitely a draft with
Latin annotations in the margins. It is unlikely that it was ever sent
to Clement as no properly signed or sealed copies of the document can
be found in the Vatican or Avignon archives. No document of Clement
refers to it, suggesting it was never received.

Numerous classicist and historians find the document questionable."

There is a widely held view among historians that Pierre d’Arcis was
likely motivated to make his claims because of his annoyance at
pilgrims abandoning his cathedral in the city of Troyes, France to go
Lirey where the shroud was kept at that time.

[solar penguin]

Religious believers have belief. The clue is in the word "believers".
Belief doesn't need any evidence. It's a nice bonus if there does just
happen to be evidence supporting your belief, but it's not needed.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 06:20:29 -0700 (PDT), solar penguin

There is also the need to deal with any evidence that contradicts
belief, an aspect that you seem determined to avoid.

I am a religious believer, I have studied all the scientific evidence
that I am aware of that might contradict my religious belief and I
have found NOTHING in science that I have to ignore or dismiss. I
know many other religious believers who have done the same thing; how
does that fit in with your assertion that religious believers " just
plain don't care about evidence" ?

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/26/18 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> [snip re Shroud of Turin]

> Let's apply the same basic questions that you and so many other people
> have been asking of R. Dean here:
>
> 1) Who was the forger?

A 14th-century artist. Probably one interested in making money.

> 2) How did he forge it?

He (or she) got an old cloth, wrapped it around a model to determine the
basic outline, and then painted it with pigments (the complete list of
ingredients for which is unknown) and, for the wounds, with blood of
unknown origin. The shroud was probably displayed for a while with a
prominent image. That image faded after a few years but left
discolorations which we see today. Possibly some of that discoloration
was done to the rest of the shroud, while the pigments protected the
linen in painted areas from fading or yellowing. Most of the artist's
forgery work, however, has been done in the last century by modern
believers eager to interpret any detail as evidence of authenticity.

> [nod to Burkhard for raising this comparison.]

Do you have a more plausible explanation?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 02:23:33 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:


<snip to a single point>

>It's certain the Shroud of Turin is a fraud, in the sense that claims
>of its Biblical origins can't be true. However, to say that it's a
>forgery is pedantically incorrect. Forgery is a specific kind of
>fraud, of objects made to copy or imitate prior works. To the best of
>my knowledge, no other shroud has ever existed bearing a likeness of a
>body buried within it. However fraudulent is the Shroud as an
>artifact of Biblical origin, it is an original work, and so not a
>forgery.

You are of course correct, and I and others have been
mischaracterizing the possible attempted* fraud as a
forgery; thanks for bringing this up.

* "possible" because we don't know the motives of the
originator; it may have been intended as a tribute, or the
equivalent of a crucifix, and "attempted" for the obvious
reason that it didn't work.

Anyway, thanks for the correction.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:55:07 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 3/26/18 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> [snip re Shroud of Turin]
>> Let's apply the same basic questions that you and so many other people
>> have been asking of R. Dean here:
>>
>> 1) Who was the forger?
>
>A 14th-century artist. Probably one interested in making money.

So you haven't a clue who the forger is, juts like R. Dean doesn't
know who his designer is.

>
>> 2) How did he forge it?
>
>He (or she) got an old cloth, wrapped it around a model to determine the
>basic outline, and then painted it with pigments (the complete list of
>ingredients for which is unknown) and, for the wounds, with blood of
>unknown origin. The shroud was probably displayed for a while with a
>prominent image. That image faded after a few years but left
>discolorations which we see today. Possibly some of that discoloration
>was done to the rest of the shroud, while the pigments protected the
>linen in painted areas from fading or yellowing. Most of the artist's
>forgery work, however, has been done in the last century by modern
>believers eager to interpret any detail as evidence of authenticity.

And just like R. Dean, you simply ignore or dismiss everything the
conclusions of the scientists who have studied it in favour of your
own beliefs.

A good example of someone who claims to be scientific in their
approach but when it comes to religious matters, adopts the methods
they decry in religious believers :(

>
>> [nod to Burkhard for raising this comparison.]
>
>Do you have a more plausible explanation?

Well "more plausible" suggests that your explanation is plausible but
science has ruled it out so it is not plausible at all.

In regard to me offering alternative explanations, I have nothing at
all to offer but I'm not making any claims whatsoever about the
shroud so I don't feel any particular need to offer any explanation.

[jillery]

Even if what you say above is true, you and those "many other
religious believers" you know are not *all* religious believers, and
may not even be representative of them. Posters like R.Dean and Ray
Martinez, and famous deniers like Ken Ham, and all those folks from
the Discovery Institute, don't fit in with your assertion, that
religious believers care about evidence. My experience with religious
believers is that they cherrypick their evidence.

[erik simpson]

For heaven's sake, people! The Turin Shroud was made by aliens! The same ones
that produced the Voynich manuscript! Cut out all the religious and
anti-religious crap.

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:30:00 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:55:07 -0700, Mark Isaak
><eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>
>>On 3/26/18 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> [snip re Shroud of Turin]
>>> Let's apply the same basic questions that you and so many other people
>>> have been asking of R. Dean here:
>>>
>>> 1) Who was the forger?
>>
>>A 14th-century artist. Probably one interested in making money.
>
>So you haven't a clue who the forger is, juts like R. Dean doesn't
>know who his designer is.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>>> 2) How did he forge it?
>>
>>He (or she) got an old cloth, wrapped it around a model to determine the
>>basic outline, and then painted it with pigments (the complete list of
>>ingredients for which is unknown) and, for the wounds, with blood of
>>unknown origin. The shroud was probably displayed for a while with a
>>prominent image. That image faded after a few years but left
>>discolorations which we see today. Possibly some of that discoloration
>>was done to the rest of the shroud, while the pigments protected the
>>linen in painted areas from fading or yellowing. Most of the artist's
>>forgery work, however, has been done in the last century by modern
>>believers eager to interpret any detail as evidence of authenticity.
>
>
>And just like R. Dean, you simply ignore or dismiss everything the
>conclusions of the scientists who have studied it in favour of your
>own beliefs.
>
>A good example of someone who claims to be scientific in their
>approach but when it comes to religious matters, adopts the methods
>they decry in religious believers :(
>
>
>>
>>> [nod to Burkhard for raising this comparison.]
>>
>>Do you have a more plausible explanation?
>
>Well "more plausible" suggests that your explanation is plausible but
>science has ruled it out so it is not plausible at all.
>
>In regard to me offering alternative explanations, I have nothing at
>all to offer but I'm not making any claims whatsoever about the
>shroud so I don't feel any particular need to offer any explanation.

That's exactly the same excuse R.Dean uses. You two must have read
the same book.

[Martin Harran]

Shut up man, for God's sake, you will have our resident panspermia
expert jumping in and dragging in unrelated threads from all over the
place!

[Paul J Gans]

I think it resolved everything that could be resolved. As an example
note that the carbon dating has been verified and that there was no
admixture of "other stuff" to change the carbon dating date.

That alone is better evidence than we have for most things.

It is also important to note that the manufacture of many sacred
objects was in full swing for several hundred years around the time
of the "discovery" of the shroud.

Examples include pieces of the True Cross were all over the place in
enough quantity to have build several giant trees. And the very lance
that was used to pierce the side of Jesus on the Cross just happened
to be discovered at the bottom of a pool in the Holy Land (I forget
which city) and recovered in time to lead the Crusaders to a glorious
victory, after which time it once again fades from history.

I'm not even going to mention the hair, the toe nails, and the other
bodily remains of both Jesus and major biblical personages that were
discovered during the same period.


What we have hear is a "shroud" of unknown providence. To attribute
it to Jesus requires more than a statement that it is so. A great
burden of proof is needed that actually points to the holy origin
of the shroud. It is not enough to simply say that the carbon dating
is in doubt (which it is not).

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Now you've gone and done it. My advice is for you to quickly dig a
deep hole, get into it, and pull the entrance closed after you.

[JD Wolfe]

When it comes to religion I am about as impartial as you can get.
However this Shroud is a little challenging to my comfort. There
are too many unanswered questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au-YZlNjq4w

[Earle Jones]

On 2018-03-26 21:20:51 +0000, JD Wolfe said:

> On 3/26/2018 5:07 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2018 3:56 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/24/2018 6:56 AM, Wolffan wrote:
>>>>>> On 24Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>>>>>> (in article<852cbdl7f48ier5vt...@4ax.com>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:05:48 -0400, Wolffan<akwo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:

[...big clippit...]

>>
>>
>> What we have hear is a "shroud" of unknown providence. To attribute
>> it to Jesus requires more than a statement that it is so. A great
>> burden of proof is needed that actually points to the holy origin
>> of the shroud. It is not enough to simply say that the carbon dating
>> is in doubt (which it is not).
>>
> When it comes to religion I am about as impartial as you can get.
> However this Shroud is a little challenging to my comfort. There
> are too many unanswered questions.

*
....and we all know what "unanswered questions" unerringly lead to:

Goddiddit!

earle
*

[Paul J Gans]

All you need is a proper dating and you have that.

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/26/18 11:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:55:07 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/26/18 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> [snip re Shroud of Turin]
>>> Let's apply the same basic questions that you and so many other people
>>> have been asking of R. Dean here:
>>>
>>> 1) Who was the forger?
>>
>> A 14th-century artist. Probably one interested in making money.
>
> So you haven't a clue who the forger is, juts like R. Dean doesn't
> know who his designer is.

R. Dean's set of possible designers is infinite. I have narrowed that
down considerably.

So you haven't a clue what "haven't a clue" means.

>>> 2) How did he forge it?
>>
>> He (or she) got an old cloth, wrapped it around a model to determine the
>> basic outline, and then painted it with pigments (the complete list of
>> ingredients for which is unknown) and, for the wounds, with blood of
>> unknown origin. The shroud was probably displayed for a while with a
>> prominent image. That image faded after a few years but left
>> discolorations which we see today. Possibly some of that discoloration
>> was done to the rest of the shroud, while the pigments protected the
>> linen in painted areas from fading or yellowing. Most of the artist's
>> forgery work, however, has been done in the last century by modern
>> believers eager to interpret any detail as evidence of authenticity.
>
>
> And just like R. Dean, you simply ignore or dismiss everything the
> conclusions of the scientists who have studied it in favour of your
> own beliefs.

Actually, in the paragraph above, you just did what you accuse me of.

> A good example of someone who claims to be scientific in their
> approach but when it comes to religious matters, adopts the methods
> they decry in religious believers :(

So you admit that belief can skew a person's conclusions! Excellent!
Now see if you can apply that to the most fervently held beliefs.

>>> [nod to Burkhard for raising this comparison.]
>>
>> Do you have a more plausible explanation?
>
> Well "more plausible" suggests that your explanation is plausible but
> science has ruled it out so it is not plausible at all.

What, from my explanation, has science ruled out, specifically?

> In regard to me offering alternative explanations, I have nothing at
> all to offer but I'm not making any claims whatsoever about the
> shroud so I don't feel any particular need to offer any explanation.

I believe in going with best explanations. Evidence should be neither
contradicted nor ignored. Such explanations are never certain, and
sometimes are more uncertain than others. The particularly tentative
parts should be pointed out. That, after all, is how hypothesis testing
works.

The explanation I gave is very likely wrong in part, but I expect it is
a whole lot closer to the truth than saying nothing. To deny even that
a human made the Shroud is absurd.

[jillery]

Then let me mention my favorite bodily remain; the foreskin from
Jesus' bris.

>What we have hear is a "shroud" of unknown providence. To attribute
>it to Jesus requires more than a statement that it is so. A great
>burden of proof is needed that actually points to the holy origin
>of the shroud. It is not enough to simply say that the carbon dating
>is in doubt (which it is not).

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. My impression is to some True Believers, the claims about the
Shroud aren't extraordinary.

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:20:51 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>

Will you specify which question(s) you're most uncomfortable with, and
say why you're uncomfortable with them?

[Burkhard]

Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:55:07 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/26/18 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> [snip re Shroud of Turin]
>>> Let's apply the same basic questions that you and so many other people
>>> have been asking of R. Dean here:
>>>
>>> 1) Who was the forger?
>>
>> A 14th-century artist. Probably one interested in making money.
>
> So you haven't a clue who the forger is, juts like R. Dean doesn't
> know who his designer is.
>

Well, that too I'd say is problematic, and indeed perpetuates R. Dean's
misunderstanding of what it means to identify a designer. It does not
require a name and last known address. It merely requires sufficient
constraints on the knowledge, methods and tools that the designer used
to make testable hypotheses, which then ideally lead to further ideas
about these persons.

Limiting yourself to humans in the 14th century imposes quite a lot of
constraints already, saying that it was by an artists (with financial
interest) even more.

That constraints the available tools significantly. It also imposes
limitations on the available knowledge, but there one has to be more
careful. In this context and in many others (Daeniken as prime culprit),
there is a tendency to underestimate what older cultures knew, and in
particular a problematic inference from "X was not generally done" to
"people did not know how to do X" (just imagine a future generation,
after a major catastrophe, rediscovering abstract art from the 21
century or impressionist art from the 20th, would infer about your
knowledge of perspective, human anatomy etc

My own theory would not be that it started just as a fortuitous find
which was then "enhanced" - i.e. it's a real, dead person, someone
spotted the similarity, just like today people see Christ in toast, and
then helped it a little bit along.

[Ernest Major]

On 27/03/2018 12:20, Burkhard wrote:
> My own theory would not be that it started just as a fortuitous find
> which was then "enhanced" - i.e. it's a real, dead person, someone
> spotted the similarity, just like today people see Christ in toast, and
> then helped it a little bit along.

Wouldn't that hypothesis predict the existence of other shrouds with
images of people?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/25/18 9:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:40:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/24/18 4:21 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:08:14 -0700, Mark Isaak
>>>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/23/18 3:05 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>>>>>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>>>>>>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>>>>>

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, I'd say. The test was
carried out in the early days of carbon dating when our knowledge about
contamination was still limited. The owner also imposed limitations and
constraints on the sampling techniques that would otherwise have been
scientifically unacceptable.

It was one of the researchers involved with that group who raised the
most vocal objections, Raymond N. Rogers. There is no reason to believe
that he was particularly pious, or driven in some other way by religious
motivations. Quite on the contrary, he was quite happy with the result
as originally reported, and had indeed set out to refute some of the
critics that had been made - only to change his mind when his own
research seemed to confirm the allegation that there had been a sampling
problem.

The whole issue is rather messy, with studies both for and against the
authenticity affected by questions about the provenance and handling of
the fibers that were used.

Some of the candidates for contamination in turn are build on
problematic assumptions or methods.

I tend to give that story (together with the Shakespeare authorship
question) to my students as case studies when they build argumentation
support tools.

My own, current, take is that the original measurement was sufficiently
correct to rule out origin during the time of Christ. Manly for two
reasons: a) if all of the fibers came from later repairs, at least some
of them should have clearer traces of having been added b) even if you
take a conservative approach to the error sources, it should not lead to
a false result of more than a few hundred years and c) it converges
roughly with the records.

But I don't give a high probability to this belief - from a forensic
perspective, I would not consider the carbon evidence admissible, and
the totality of evidence leaving room for more than reasonable doubt.

(or, in terms of
> the pious frauds, because a miracle occurred). Especially when the
> dating comes not just from carbon dating.
>
>>> that the Shroud could not
>>> possibly be what it is claimed to be, plus a long history of forgery of
>>> pious frauds, plus a confession of forgery,
>>

>> I really wish people would check their facts before repeating
>> unsubstantiated claims. There was no *confession of forgery" other
>> than an unnamed bishop claiming that another earlier but also unnamed
>> bishop stated that somebody else, also unnamed, had confessed to him
>> that they had forged the shroud.
>>
>> Or do you really regard that as some sort of reliable evidence?
>

[Peter Nyikos]

I'm that resident expert, but I see no reason to bring
in any other threads, related or otherwise, let alone
anything as goofy as space aliens, into this topic.


I came to this thread in a roundabout way, and so this
post may not be seen by anyone, but I hope someone
takes interest. It's about a feature of this Shroud of Turin
controversy that I haven't seen aired at length here.


It's been claimed that the carbon-14 testing was done
on a piece of the shroud that is not part of the original,
but was a patch with its edges skilfully rewoven into
the original, to replace a damaged part. The Wikipedia
entry mentions this claim in a passage that has changed
since I looked it earlier this week:

Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the
results were skewed by the introduction of material from the
Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon
dating.[sources 1] However, all of the hypotheses challenging
the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted.
[sources 2]

I saw nothing as unequivocal as that last sentence
before, only a claim to the effect that the reweaving
hypothesis is not subscribed to by the majority of
the interested people in the scientific community.
So I wonder:

Was this change made by someone in talk.origins?

If not, has anyone here made comparison of the sources
lumped together as "sources 1" and "sources 2" to
see whether a refutation has really taken place?

> >The same ones
> >that produced the Voynich manuscript! Cut out all the religious and
> >anti-religious crap.

Simpson, who wrote the above, had denied being a militant
atheist, while leaving open the issue of being an atheist
at all. Could he be uncomfortable with all religious
and anti-religious talk, be it crap or otherwise?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[erik simpson]

Jokes/sarcasm R not you, Peter.

[JD Wolfe]

had lost interest in this, I see others are posing points of view on me.

[JD Wolfe]

That's your opinion. I don't pretend to know, as you seem to be implying.
>
> earle
> *
>

[Peter Nyikos]

While you were gone, JD, I "discovered" this thread
and posted about the controversy over the nature
of the piece that was chosen for Carbon-14 dating.

I posed two questions, and all the answer I've gotten
so far is a smart-alecky crack by Erik Simpson.
Have you seen what I wrote?

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 7:55:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
> On 3/26/2018 7:53 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> > JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/26/2018 5:07 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>> JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 3/24/2018 3:56 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>>>> JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>> When this was first tested in a lab by scientist I was a young kid, so
> >>>>>> it had no bearing on me. But as a doubter, I didn't expect or like
> >>>>>> what I found by going to the internet for information. I read that it
> >>>>>> was middle age creation never recognized as genuine by the Catholic
> >>>>>> Church. And so, it makes not a dot of difference. But then I found
> >>>>>> this that the part tested was not the original cloth, but a piece of
> >>>>>> cloth was chosen and cut from an area that had been repaired and had
> >>>>>> cotton interwoven and expert stained to blend. If this is true, why
> >>>>>> was this particular piece chosen?

Because it was in a nonessential part of the shroud,
and skilled weaving of the patch, if there is one,
could easily have been overlooked.

I don't believe this is the opinion
> >>>>>> of any experts but rather by folks who want to believe it's the
> >>>>>> burial cloth of this Christ man. I'm seriously doubt this is real,
> >>>>>> but I would like to know how it was done.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I strongly suggest one go to the Wikipedia article on the Shroud
> >>>>> of Turin.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I did. I read the entire article, it resolved nothing! The Wikipedia
> >>>> article seemed impartial.

The Wikipedia article was more impartial then than it is
now, JD. Between the time you wrote this and late last week,
it changed the part about the reweaving-of-patch issue
from a tentative statement about the general opinion
of scientists to a categorical claim that the issue had
been resolved and the part used for dating was indeed
part of the original shroud.

> >>>>It examined the pro shroud views then the
> >>>> skeptics views; including scientist who are as uncertain as everyone
> >>>> else. How it came to be: I don't know. But I come to believe that a
> >>>> real man was murdered in the 16/th century and his body modeled to
> >>>> fit the preconceived image of a crucified Jesus. You cannot get
> >>>> around the radio carbon dating.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is the url:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is all there, dating methods, possible ways the shroud was
> >>>>> produced, etc. etc.

Gans, making a rare (as of the past year) public appearance on t.o., used the ambiguous "other stuff" which may refer
to contaminants or the patch:

> >>>
> >>> I think it resolved everything that could be resolved. As an example
> >>> note that the carbon dating has been verified and that there was no
> >>> admixture of "other stuff" to change the carbon dating date.

"admixture" suggests that he wasn't thinking of the patch,
especially since the Wikipedia entry hadn't made a
definitive statement up to that point.

> >>> That alone is better evidence than we have for most things.
> >>>
> >>> It is also important to note that the manufacture of many sacred
> >>> objects was in full swing for several hundred years around the time
> >>> of the "discovery" of the shroud.
> >>>
> >>> Examples include pieces of the True Cross were all over the place in
> >>> enough quantity to have build several giant trees.

Gans is uncritically repeating an urban legend that
has never been confirmed.

<snip examples of real fakery>

> >>> What we have hear is a "shroud" of unknown providence.

Gans is REALLY slipping here. He dominated soc.history.medieval
for decades, and here he is writing "providence" for
"provenance."

Maybe he should have retired from internet posting
years ago. :-) :-(

> >>> To attribute it to Jesus requires more than a statement that it is so. A great
> >>> burden of proof is needed that actually points to the holy origin
> >>> of the shroud.

Gans doesn't believe Jesus (or anyone else) was holy in
the traditional sense, so I'm not sure what he is trying
to say here.

> >>> It is not enough to simply say that the carbon dating
> >>> is in doubt (which it is not).

By the same token, it was not enough simply to insert
that parentetical comment at the time Gans wrote it.

> >> When it comes to religion I am about as impartial as you can get.
> >> However this Shroud is a little challenging to my comfort. There
> >> are too many unanswered questions.
> >
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au-YZlNjq4w
> >
> > All you need is a proper dating and you have that.

Again Gans is "simply saying" something as if that
were enough.

> had lost interest in this, I see others are posing points of view on me.

What do you mean by "on me"?

Anyway, have you had a chance to look at the supposedly
definitive refutation claimed in Wikipedia now? For
what it's worth, one of the proponents of the "later
patch" hypothesis stuck to his guns in a recent conference.
See Abstract number 26 here:

http://shroudresearch.net/abstracts.html#26


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

> Jokes/sarcasm R not you, Peter.

There are so many things wrong with this comment of yours
that I hardly know where to begin, Erik.


So, in no particular order:

(A) If there was any doubt in
my mind that you were making a mean-spirited joke about
me, it was dispelled by Martin Harran's own mean-spirited joke [1].

Neither of you had the minimal backbone to name me, so I
am forced to wonder just how many derogatory comments the
two of you make behind my back.

[1] I'm giving Martin the benefit of the doubt, but your
failure to reply to him, coupled with Martin's clumsy
campaign of character assassination towards me elsewhere,
makes me wonder whether he intends for people to really
think that his "joke" is an accurate reflection on my behavior.


(B) It was obvious that you and Martin were being sarcastic,
since I myself have been a satire writer, on and off, since my
high school days. But to be a really good satire writer, as opposed
to Martin's and your amateurish, heavy-handed sarcasm,
one needs to have a robust and consistent moral outlook, and I see
precious little evidence of either you or Martin having one.


(C) Your one bit about "religious and anti-religious crap"
was so heavy-handed, I couldn't tell whether you were being
serious or sarcastic. It even stuck out like a sore thumb
from the rest of what you wrote. You were being entertaining
with your talk of the Voinich manuscript and would have
done well to stop there. What WAS the point of your last crack,
anyway?


(D) You have used your allegation
about "not you, Peter" to neatly avoid, ONCE AGAIN,
addressing the issue of whether you are an atheist.

I freely admit that you do not come across as a militant
atheist. It's more like you are a cheerful, laid-back atheist,
secure in the "knowledge" that death holds no fears for you.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 5:20:03 PM UTC-4, Rolf Aalberg wrote:
> "JWS" <jld...@skybeam.com> wrote in message
> news:23d7bacf-7d68-42e1...@googlegroups.com...

> > On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 5:45:03 PM UTC-5, JD Wolfe wrote:
> >> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
> >> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
> >

> > Don't worry about it. It's so out of style now that no one would
> > be seen dead in it.
> >
>
> LOL

Yes, that was a fine joke, from someone to whom I should
really pay more attention.

That applies to you, too, Rolf. Are you the same Rolf who
has been posting to t.o. without a surname for a number of years?

If not, I think you are quite a sensible person, from the very
few posts I've seen from you.

The other Rolf, I'm not so sure of.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:43:05 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>The Wikipedia article was more impartial then than it is
>now, JD. Between the time you wrote this and late last week,
>it changed the part about the reweaving-of-patch issue
>from a tentative statement about the general opinion
>of scientists to a categorical claim that the issue had
>been resolved and the part used for dating was indeed
>part of the original shroud.

Wikipedia keeps a change log on every article, which goes back to the
latest 500 days. AFAICT, there are no changes logged of the type you
describe in this topic. I could be wrong, but if not, on what basis do
you make the above claim, other than your recollection?

[Glenn]

"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:79e60f2e-eddb-48f4...@googlegroups.com...

It appears *something* at least similar to the Shroud did exist earlier than 1200.

"And so, what exactly is it? By the simple touching to the face of Christ, an image of his form was made, so that people would not think in a dangerous or perilous way that it never actually existed and has been invented."

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf


Gans etal make a mockery of science.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 3:45:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> The Wikipedia article was more impartial then than it is
> now, JD. Between the time you wrote this and late last week,
> it changed the part about the reweaving-of-patch issue
> from a tentative statement about the general opinion
> of scientists to a categorical claim that the issue had
> been resolved and the part used for dating was indeed
> part of the original shroud.
>

I have been to the Wiki page in question, and have noted that there does not seem to have been edits of the type suggested by Dr. Nyikos dating back into March 2018. Dr. Nyikos, it appears that your comment was inaccurate, or mistaken, or something, as there is no mention in the history log of such changes. Here is a copy-paste of the current first page of the revision history:


(cur | prev) 02:22, 17 April 2018‎ Deisenbe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,754 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (→‎top: better wording) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 01:09, 13 April 2018‎ Sunrise (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,748 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (ref grouping consistency) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 06:19, 12 April 2018‎ KH-1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,720 bytes) (+2,758)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by StephenHHawkins (talk): Restore sourced version. (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [accepted by KH-1]
(cur | prev) 06:18, 12 April 2018‎ StephenHHawkins (talk | contribs)‎ . . (119,962 bytes) (-2,758)‎ . . (Updated with new study results.) (undo) (Tags: references removed, Visual edit: Switched)
(cur | prev) 22:28, 11 April 2018‎ SemiHypercube (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (122,720 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 24.151.139.157 (talk) to last revision by Guy Macon. (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 21:54, 11 April 2018‎ 24.151.139.157 (talk)‎ . . (122,729 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (Fixed typo) (undo) (Tags: canned edit summary, Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
(cur | prev) 15:54, 10 April 2018‎ Guy Macon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,720 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (Reverted 1 pending edit by 158.195.147.96 to revision 835625179 by Wdford: Under active discussion on talk page and at WP:DRN Do not change until dispute is settled.) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 14:24, 10 April 2018‎ 158.195.147.96 (talk)‎ . . (122,724 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (The word "some" and the word "questioned" added as replacements for "all" and "refuted," as it is not factually true that "all" the challenges have as yet been scientifically refuted. The source here is original carbon-dating team scientist Raymond Rogers: Thermochimica Acta Volume 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin, which has not been scientifically refuted. Thank you.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:28, 9 April 2018‎ Wdford (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,720 bytes) (+749)‎ . . (→‎Flowers and pollen: more from Danin) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 15:17, 9 April 2018‎ Thucyd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (121,971 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (→‎Flowers and pollen: not a contradiction (or give a RS that says it is a contradiction), the other source is a biased anonymous article published by an unreliable source) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 15:13, 9 April 2018‎ Thucyd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,465 bytes) (+195)‎ . . (recent ref. lifescience: an "unsettled question") (undo) (Tag: Visual edit) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 00:20, 9 April 2018‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,270 bytes) (+350)‎ . . (Rescuing orphaned refs ("Meacham 1983" from rev 835455160)) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 20:48, 8 April 2018‎ Blaue Max (talk | contribs)‎ . . (121,920 bytes) (-457)‎ . . (First exhibition in France, but the cited source says "it now seems virtually certain that the Turin Shroud was among the spoils of the [1203 Constantinople sack]") (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 20:25, 8 April 2018‎ Blaue Max (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,377 bytes) (-99)‎ . . (removed redundancy) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 20:21, 8 April 2018‎ Blaue Max (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,476 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (The image is a negative) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 18:17, 6 April 2018‎ Guy Macon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,440 bytes) (-625)‎ . . (→‎Description: More claims not supported by a WP:RS , but rather a WP:FRINGE advocacy book.) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 16:05, 6 April 2018‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,065 bytes) (+142)‎ . . (Rescuing orphaned refs ("Bernard Ruffin 1999, p. 14" from rev 834064180)) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 14:31, 6 April 2018‎ JzG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,923 bytes) (-739)‎ . . (→‎Description: Not a WP:RS, in fact a WP:FRINGE advocacy book.) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 19:19, 3 April 2018‎ Guy Macon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,662 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (Reverted 1 pending edit by KoshVorlon to revision 834048209 by Guy Macon: WP:OR) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 19:15, 3 April 2018‎ KoshVorlon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,635 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (Way too much evidence stands for it to have been produced by any known means, and correctly shows the crucifiction marks through the wrists, rather than the hands. It's the real deal. Correcting that portion of the leade) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:36, 3 April 2018‎ Guy Macon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,662 bytes) (-348)‎ . . (Editorializing in the source. We need to show only scientific conclusions, not snarky comments by one researcher about another researcher.) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 17:35, 3 April 2018‎ Wdford (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,010 bytes) (+315)‎ . . (That WAS their scientific conclusion - the available evidence actually supports both hypotheses, so this particular approach is not going to solve the debate. It does however further debunk the gumpf from Frei, whose conclusions were very definitive but always deeply suspect) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 17:20, 3 April 2018‎ Guy Macon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,695 bytes) (-315)‎ . . (→‎Flowers and pollen: We really don't need a quote that doesn't contain any scientific conclusions.) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 17:07, 3 April 2018‎ Wdford (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,010 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (Needs a talk page section please) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 17:02, 3 April 2018‎ Wdford (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,974 bytes) (-308)‎ . . (→‎Flowers and pollen: Panic over, all fixed up) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 16:57, 3 April 2018‎ Wdford (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,282 bytes) (+2,644)‎ . . (There are reasons - take it to talk please) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 16:55, 3 April 2018‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (121,638 bytes) (+16)‎ . . (Dating maintenance tags: {{Primary sources}}) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:34, 3 April 2018‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (121,622 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (→‎top: severe problems with the articles with Wikipedia editors playing at writing a review) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:33, 3 April 2018‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (121,603 bytes) (-681)‎ . . (→‎Blood stains: fringey primary source, no thanks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:30, 3 April 2018‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,284 bytes) (-1,993)‎ . . (→‎Flowers and pollen: Iffy primary source and HuffPo? Seriously? No thanks.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:29, 3 April 2018‎ 97.84.43.50 (talk)‎ . . (124,277 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (Changed refuted to disputed to be more open to opinion and less bias. The reference given for refutation is not scientific enough to refute. If refuting is correct, change the source.) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
(cur | prev) 02:51, 3 April 2018‎ KolbertBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (124,282 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Bot: HTTP→HTTPS (v485)) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 21:46, 2 April 2018‎ Wdford (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,278 bytes) (+508)‎ . . (→‎Flowers and pollen: more accurate reflection of the source) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 20:19, 2 April 2018‎ Thucyd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,770 bytes) (+972)‎ . . (Undid revision 833861219 by Hob Gadling (talk) Archaeometry (Oxford) is not fringe, and Philip Ball editorial (Nature materials) is a secundary source.) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 19:26, 2 April 2018‎ Hob Gadling (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,798 bytes) (-972)‎ . . (Undid revision 833671184 by Thucyd (talk) we do not quote primary sources. Wait until there are secondary ones. No sources behind paywalls coming from fringe POV pushers because they need to be checked.) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 21:53, 1 April 2018‎ Thucyd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,770 bytes) (+972)‎ . . (→‎Flowers and pollen: Boi) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 14:21, 1 April 2018‎ Randy Kryn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,798 bytes) (+37)‎ . . (add template 'Turin landmarks' collapsed) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 10:41, 1 April 2018‎ Textorus (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,761 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Vatican position: Correction, per source [2] cited at the end of this sentence.) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 23:07, 30 March 2018‎ Wdford (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,762 bytes) (+34)‎ . . (No its not simply a difference of opinion - the challenges have actually been scientifically refuted) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 21:47, 30 March 2018‎ Actuarialninja (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,728 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (Changed the wording from "all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" to "Other researchers maintain that the radiocarbon date is accurate", as the sources cited support the latter, and the new wording promotes a more neutral POV.) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 10:46, 27 March 2018‎ Wdford (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,762 bytes) (+116)‎ . . (added additional scientific reference whcih refutes Jackson's carbon monoxide hypothesis) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 10:45, 27 March 2018‎ Wdford (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,646 bytes) (+117)‎ . . (→‎Radiocarbon dating: added additional reference, which utterly debunks Jackson's carbon monoxide hypothesis) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 18:21, 26 March 2018‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (122,529 bytes) (-74)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by 24.249.28.98 to version by Guy Macon. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (3330640) (Bot)) (undo) (Tags: Rollback, Undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 18:21, 26 March 2018‎ 24.249.28.98 (talk)‎ . . (122,603 bytes) (+74)‎ . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
(cur | prev) 02:21, 26 March 2018‎ Guy Macon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,529 bytes) (+132)‎ . . (Restoring 20:29, 18 March 2018 version (stable version from before edit war. Please discuss proposed changes of the article talk page. Further edit warring is likely to result in blocks.) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 01:16, 26 March 2018‎ Aarghdvaark (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,397 bytes) (-130)‎ . . (Undid revision 832165717 by Hob Gadling (talk)Yes, stop edit warring please) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 06:47, 24 March 2018‎ Hob Gadling (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,527 bytes) (+130)‎ . . (Undid revision 832158643 by Aarghdvaark (talk) Stop that) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 05:10, 24 March 2018‎ Aarghdvaark (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,397 bytes) (-130)‎ . . (Undid revision 832044119 by Wdford (talk)Reverted, because the refs you have added do not unambiguously support "all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted".) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 22:44, 23 March 2018‎ 82.16.134.40 (talk)‎ . . (122,527 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Minimal Facts approach: Title is wrong) (undo) [accepted by Anthony Appleyard]
(cur | prev) 14:06, 23 March 2018‎ Wdford (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,529 bytes) (+130)‎ . . (reinstated deleted refs - there is nothing wrong with these references, as has been pointed out in detail - please stop your edit warring) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted]


Could you please point out the edit to which you were referring?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-4, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 3:45:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > The Wikipedia article was more impartial then than it is
> > now, JD. Between the time you wrote this and late last week,
> > it changed the part about the reweaving-of-patch issue
> > from a tentative statement about the general opinion
> > of scientists to a categorical claim that the issue had
> > been resolved and the part used for dating was indeed
> > part of the original shroud.
> >
>
>
> I have been to the Wiki page in question, and have noted that there does not seem to have been edits of the type suggested by Dr. Nyikos dating back into March 2018.

I think I see the version I saw earlier referred to below.
I've snipped away a lot of the rest of the information,
which is about unrelated changes.

> Dr. Nyikos, it appears that your comment was inaccurate, or mistaken, or something, as there is no mention in the history log of such changes. Here is a copy-paste of the current first page of the revision history:

First, I stop deleting here:

> (cur | prev) 14:24, 10 April 2018‎ 158.195.147.96 (talk)‎ . . (122,724 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (The word "some" and the word "questioned" added as replacements for "all" and "refuted," as it is not factually true that "all" the challenges have as yet been scientifically refuted.

Note how the current wording is contradicted above.

>The source here is original carbon-dating team scientist Raymond Rogers: Thermochimica Acta Volume 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin, which has not been scientifically refuted. Thank you.) (undo)

[...]

The following also may refer to the earlier version I saw:

> (cur | prev) 16:29, 3 April 2018‎ 97.84.43.50 (talk)‎ . . (124,277 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (Changed refuted to disputed to be more open to opinion and less bias. The reference given for refutation is not scientific enough to refute. If refuting is correct, change the source.) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit

[...]

The following also may refer to it, or some
variation on it.

> (cur | prev) 21:47, 30 March 2018‎ Actuarialninja (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,728 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (Changed the wording from "all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" to "Other researchers maintain that the radiocarbon date is accurate", as the sources cited support the latter, and the new wording promotes a more neutral POV.) (undo) [automatically accepted]

Here too:

[...]

> (cur | prev) 05:10, 24 March 2018‎ Aarghdvaark (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,397 bytes) (-130)‎ . . (Undid revision 832044119 by Wdford (talk)Reverted, because the refs you have added do not unambiguously support "all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted".) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted]


>

> Could you please point out the edit to which you were referring?

Well, I can't recall for sure, but as you can see,
there have been a lot of recent changes in the part
I was talking about.


Now, you could do us all a big favor if you were to
look in detail at one of the "refutations" and
report back on whether you agree that it succeeded in
doing just that.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Dr. Nyikos, I still don't see where the Wikipedia article was updated in the manner specified in your original post. Please be more specific. I cannot 'look in detail' at the article as

(a) I have no records of how the article looked before the edits

(b) am not clear on what, exactly, you say was changed.

You will have to specify the changes, if any, which you think had the effect that you mentioned in the original post.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:45:02 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-4, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 3:45:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Wikipedia article was more impartial then than it is
> > > > now, JD. Between the time you wrote this and late last week,
> > > > it changed the part about the reweaving-of-patch issue
> > > > from a tentative statement about the general opinion
> > > > of scientists to a categorical claim that the issue had
> > > > been resolved and the part used for dating was indeed
> > > > part of the original shroud.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have been to the Wiki page in question, and have noted that there does not seem to have been edits of the type suggested by Dr. Nyikos dating back into March 2018.
> >
> > I think I see the version I saw earlier referred to below.
> > I've snipped away a lot of the rest of the information,
> > which is about unrelated changes.
> >
> >
> > > Dr. Nyikos, it appears that your comment was inaccurate, or mistaken, or something, as there is no mention in the history log of such changes.

"such changes" has been replaced by you, this time around,
by a request for the exact description of the specific change
to which I am referring.

I want to believe that you are doing this in good faith,
but I hope you understand that this looks at the moment
like a case of "moving the goalposts".

> Here is a copy-paste of the current first page of the revision history:

...as opposed to exact wordings of the changes that
were made. It looks like you've found a bunch of
justifications for actual changes that had been made.

> >
> > First, I stop deleting here:
> >
> >
> > > (cur | prev) 14:24, 10 April 2018‎ 158.195.147.96 (talk)‎ . . (122,724 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (The word "some" and the word "questioned" added as replacements for "all" and "refuted," as it is not factually true that "all" the challenges have as yet been scientifically refuted.
> >
> >
> > Note how the current wording is contradicted above.

The current wording is as follows. Note how it uses the
words "all" and "refuted" and NOT "some" and "questioned"
as seen above:

Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating.[sources 1] However, all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted.[sources 2]

> >
> > >The source here is original carbon-dating team scientist Raymond Rogers: Thermochimica Acta Volume 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin, which has not been scientifically refuted. Thank you.) (undo)

How do you interpret that "(undo)," Panthera? Does it mean that
the nuanced "some" and "questioned" was replaced on April 10 by
the unequivocal "all" and "refuted" that had previously
been there -- and is there again, today?

> >
> > [...]
> >
> > The following also may refer to the earlier version I saw:
> >
> > > (cur | prev) 16:29, 3 April 2018‎ 97.84.43.50 (talk)‎ . . (124,277 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (Changed refuted to disputed to be more open to opinion and less bias. The reference given for refutation is not scientific enough to refute. If refuting is correct, change the source.) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit

Was this replacement of "refuted" by "disputed" also
undone here, on April 3?

> >
> > [...]
> >
> > The following also may refer to it, or some
> > variation on it.
> >
> > > (cur | prev) 21:47, 30 March 2018‎ Actuarialninja (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,728 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (Changed the wording from "all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" to "Other researchers maintain that the radiocarbon date is accurate", as the sources cited support the latter, and the new wording promotes a more neutral POV.) (undo) [automatically accepted]

There can be no doubt that this change was also undone,
but was it undone on 30 March, or was it "done" there
on that date and undone later?

> >
> > Here too:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > (cur | prev) 05:10, 24 March 2018‎ Aarghdvaark (talk | contribs)‎ . . (122,397 bytes) (-130)‎ . . (Undid revision 832044119 by Wdford (talk)Reverted, because the refs you have added do not unambiguously support "all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted".) (undo) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted]

Note that the last quote is *identical* to the end
of the paragraph as it now stands in the Wikipedia
entry.

> >
> > >
> > > Could you please point out the edit to which you were referring?
> >
> >
> > Well, I can't recall for sure, but as you can see,
> > there have been a lot of recent changes in the part
> > I was talking about.
> >
> >
> > Now, you could do us all a big favor if you were to
> > look in detail at one of the "refutations" and
> > report back on whether you agree that it succeeded in
> > doing just that.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > University of South Carolina
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>
> Dr. Nyikos, I still don't see where the Wikipedia article was updated in the manner specified in your original post.

I was going on a memory of something I did not bother to
make a copy of.

> Please be more specific. I cannot 'look in detail' at the article as
>
> (a) I have no records of how the article looked before the edits

I think it is enough to know what it looks like NOW and
to compare it with the fragmentary comments you have
managed to dig up from somewhere. How did you access
them, by the way?

> (b) am not clear on what, exactly, you say was changed.
>
> You will have to specify the changes, if any, which you think had the effect that you mentioned in the original post.

Are you only interested in casting doubt on what I wrote?
Doesn't the issue of whether the alleged refutations
are REAL refutations concern you at all?

I am an unimportant person who has no dog in this fight
about whether the Shroud is authentic or not. All I
want is to know which of the various wordings is
an accurate description of reality. Otherwise this
issue will be like so many others in talk.origins:
unresolved because the people who DO have a dog in
the fight don't want to know whether they have been
refuted or not.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-4, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:

> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:

> > I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
> > a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>

> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery. It is, allegedly, the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately, radioisotope dating makes it to be from a considerably later time. Indeed, the dating approximates the time when it was 'found', making it likely that it was a mid-Medieval forgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
>
> Many of the more pious dispute the findings of the radioisotope dating. I personally note that the person depicted on the shroud appears to be of western European physiognomy,

Any source you can cite for this claim?


> making it quite unlikely that the subject of the shroud would be a native of Nazareth and/or Bethlehem during the 1st century ACE. The subject of the shroud does look quite like the person depicted in drawings, paintings, and statues made in western Europe during the mid-Medieval period.

> To put it bluntly: the shroud shows a tall white European, not a short dark Semite.

Ah, I see you DO have a dog in this fight. That adds a bit of irony
to what I wrote about an hour ago in reply to a post where you showed no
interest in whether your claim of "a pious forgery" is true or not:

I am an unimportant person who has no dog in this fight
about whether the Shroud is authentic or not. All I
want is to know which of the various wordings is
an accurate description of reality. Otherwise this
issue will be like so many others in talk.origins:
unresolved because the people who DO have a dog in
the fight don't want to know whether they have been
refuted or not.

If you choose to reply to the post where I wrote this in reply
to you, I request that you level with everyone on
how much you care about the actual issue of whether
it is a "pious forgery" or not.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Thank you for this reference, Glenn. I write about
the gist of it below.

>
> Gans etal make a mockery of science.

And, if your source is correct that the Shroud is the image of
which Gregory Refondarius spoke of in 944, one of the
persons involved in this thread could be confusing
cause and effect:

The subject of the shroud does look quite like
the person depicted in drawings, paintings, and
statues made in western Europe during the mid-Medieval
period.

-- Panthera Tigris Altaica, in direct reply to the OP
on March 22

Panthera absented himself all the time that Martin Harran
was enthusiastically supporting the authenticity of
the shroud. Now Panthera has re-emerged, interrogating me
about what I saw and did not see in the Wikipedia
changes. And he continues to ignore the elephant in the room,
Martin Harran.

Peter Nyikos

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

That would be because you have failed to support your contention that the Wikipedia article was modified in a certain way.

And I fail to see what Martin Harran might have to do with me. Please explain why you are attempting to link us. I feel that it is likely that you are attempting the classic "Let's you and him fight" troll, though I would have thought that something like that is beneath the dignity of a full professor.

I still contend that the Shroud is a pious fraud, and that the image on it is that of a north-western European as seen in pious illustrations of the time and not a Semite. I say this because that is what the image looks like to me. If this is insufficient for you... too bad.

[jillery]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 07:31:39 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
<northe...@outlook.com> wrote:

[...]

>> Panthera absented himself all the time that Martin Harran
>> was enthusiastically supporting the authenticity of
>> the shroud. Now Panthera has re-emerged, interrogating me
>> about what I saw and did not see in the Wikipedia
>> changes. And he continues to ignore the elephant in the room,
>> Martin Harran.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
>That would be because you have failed to support your contention that the Wikipedia article was modified in a certain way.
>
>And I fail to see what Martin Harran might have to do with me. Please explain why you are attempting to link us. I feel that it is likely that you are attempting the classic "Let's you and him fight" troll, though I would have thought that something like that is beneath the dignity of a full professor.

As you will almost certainly learn by yourself, rockhead shows no
dignity, as illustrated by his accusing you of "interrogating" him
while he conveniently ignores my post where I asked him about the same
thing even before you did.

>I still contend that the Shroud is a pious fraud, and that the image on it is that of a north-western European as seen in pious illustrations of the time and not a Semite. I say this because that is what the image looks like to me. If this is insufficient for you... too bad.

In fairness, it might not be a fraud of any kind, any more than all of
the other artistic representations of Biblical events. It's creator
might not have intended it to be taken as Jesus' actual burial cloth.
And others, not knowing its provenance, may have sincerely convinced
themselves of a convenient delusion. If so, it wasn't the first or
last time that happened.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 07:31:39 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Panthera absented himself all the time that Martin Harran
> >> was enthusiastically supporting the authenticity of
> >> the shroud. Now Panthera has re-emerged, interrogating me
> >> about what I saw and did not see in the Wikipedia
> >> changes. And he continues to ignore the elephant in the room,
> >> Martin Harran.
> >>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >
> >That would be because you have failed to support your contention that the Wikipedia article was modified in a certain way.
> >
> >And I fail to see what Martin Harran might have to do with me. Please explain why you are attempting to link us. I feel that it is likely that you are attempting the classic "Let's you and him fight" troll, though I would have thought that something like that is beneath the dignity of a full professor.
>
>
> As you will almost certainly learn by yourself, rockhead shows no
> dignity, as illustrated by his accusing you of "interrogating" him
> while he conveniently ignores my post where I asked him about the same
> thing even before you did.

He needs to get over himself. Especially when he spends so much effort dodging the question, which he still hasn't answered and which he shows zero interest in answering. His non-answer answer is of itself all the answer needed to show exactly what his problem is, of course.

>
>
> >I still contend that the Shroud is a pious fraud, and that the image on it is that of a north-western European as seen in pious illustrations of the time and not a Semite. I say this because that is what the image looks like to me. If this is insufficient for you... too bad.
>
>
> In fairness, it might not be a fraud of any kind, any more than all of
> the other artistic representations of Biblical events. It's creator
> might not have intended it to be taken as Jesus' actual burial cloth.
> And others, not knowing its provenance, may have sincerely convinced
> themselves of a convenient delusion. If so, it wasn't the first or
> last time that happened.

That's possible. What's certain is that it's not an image of a 1st century Semite.

[Martin Harran]

I never supported the authenticity of the shroud in any way let alone
"enthusiastically". Feel free to insult me all you like but please
don't tell direct lies about me.

[Peter Nyikos]

You supported it for me, with lots of information
that it HAD been altered. And you have not replied
to the post where I pointed out all the places
where justifications for various changes were
made, according to the huge documentation that you
gave me.

Here is the post where I pointed these things out:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/B15iLx6215Q/NOo6ouLAAAAJ
Subject: Re: What's the shroud of Turin?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5b715296-536b-41e0...@googlegroups.com>

> And I fail to see what Martin Harran might have to do with me.

Oh, that depends on whether you give a rat's ass
about supporting your allegation that the
Shroud is a 'pious fraud'. Martin Harran spent a lot
of time trying to refute that, and I see no sign
that anyone has successfully rebutted him.

You called it a "pious fraud" right in
reply to the OP by JD Wolfe, and I replied to that post
yesterday; you are ignoring that post too:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/B15iLx6215Q/pZvjDUDFAAAJ
Subject: Re: What's the shroud of Turin?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <46ef9dc6-56ba-41cf...@googlegroups.com>

Kalkidas also replied to the same post of yours, way back on
the day you posted it. You replied to him the next day,
spending a considerable time making it look like you DID
give a rat's ass about the Shroud being a "pious fraud".

Casanova then made some derogatory comments about
Kalkidas, and you amplified them, making some
garbled comments alluding to "The Caine Mutiny."

> Please explain why you are attempting to link us. I feel that it is likely that you are attempting the classic "Let's you and him fight" troll, though I would have thought that something like that is beneath the dignity of a full professor.

It would seem that you do NOT give a rat's ass
about whether the Shroud is "a pious forgery" or not.
I apologize for thinking otherwise.

> I still contend that the Shroud is a pious fraud,
and that the image on it is that of a north-western European as seen in pious illustrations of the time and not a Semite. I say this because that is what the image looks like to me. If this is insufficient for you... too bad.

It is insufficient for anyone who gives a rat's
ass as to whether the Shroud is authentic or not.
I have no dog in that fight, but I AM keenly
interested in seeing a meeting of minds on this issue.

The Shroud has been the source of a huge, ongoing
controversy in the big outside world. It would
be awfully nice if we had a GOOD idea of where that
controversy stands now, but you seem far more interested
in puking all over Kalkidas in support of Casanova
than in contributing substantively to either where
the authenticity issue stands or what the actual truth
of it is.

Peter Nyikos

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Oh, that depends on whether you give a rat's ass

You keep on insisting on using that particular phrase. Let me be blunt: fuck off.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

You are not the only one he's telling lies about. What on _Earth_ did I do to deserve being attacked?

>
>
>
> > Now Panthera has re-emerged, interrogating me

I asked a (still unanswered!) question, you berk! This is not conducting an interrogation by any means.

> >about what I saw and did not see in the Wikipedia
> >changes. And he continues to ignore the elephant in the room,
> >Martin Harran.

Words fail me.

> >
> >Peter Nyikos

[Martin Harran]

Martin Harran did no such thing. I asked you to stop telling lies
about me but apparently you are determined to keep doing so.

[...]

[Martin Harran]

You dared to disagree with him.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-4, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > Oh, that depends on whether you give a rat's ass
>
> You keep on insisting on using that particular phrase.

"insisting on" is illogical, since all I did was to
use it several times in *one* post. Nobody requested
that I cease and desist, and that includes you -- even now.

> Let me be blunt: fuck off.

Thanks for not contesting my conclusion that you don't care the least bit
about whether the Shroud is REALLY a pious fraud or not.

In fact, do you even care about the truth or falsehood of
any controversy -- creationism vs. common descent, atheism vs. theism,
supernatural intervention in evolution vs. nonintervention, etc?

Or do you think of talk.origins as though it were a debate run according
to some artificial rules, like the typical high school or college
debate, where style often counts for more than substance? And where,
as Vince Lombardi put it, "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."?

And where there are winners or losers according to pluses or minuses
as to who does what according to an indeterminate set of criteria?

For example, it might be that in your personal set of criteria,
a minus in a given one-on-one between two debaters
is assigned to the first person who uses vulgar language, and
and a plus given to the other person if he then retaliates
with another vulgarity, followed by another plus for deleting
everything else the first person posted.

Also, since "rockhead" is not a vulgarity, perhaps you would
give jillery a plus for using it, eh?


It sounds like a fascinating game, but I prefer to continue
to search for the truth about issues of more than
local importance, especially those relevant to the themes
I mentioned up there.


Peter Nyikos

PS I think there are still enough people interested in substantive
issues around to make it worthwhile for me to continue posting to t.o.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:59:44 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

That does seem to be the criterion.

>>> > Now Panthera has re-emerged, interrogating me
>>
>>I asked a (still unanswered!) question, you berk! This is not conducting an interrogation by any means.
>>
>>> >about what I saw and did not see in the Wikipedia
>>> >changes. And he continues to ignore the elephant in the room,
>>> >Martin Harran.
>>
>>Words fail me.
>>
>>> >
>>> >Peter Nyikos

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Wolffan]

On 21 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<phtmddtc5svntl6is...@4ax.com>):

Petey der Gross is just being his usual charming self.

You're a mean one, Peter Nyikos
You really are a heel.
You're as cuddly as a cactus,
And as charming as an eel,
Peter Nyikos!

You're a bad banana,
With a greasy black peel!

You're a monster, Peter Nyikos!
Your heart's an empty hole.
Your brain is full of spiders.
You've got garlic in your soul,
Peter Nyikos!

I wouldn't touch you
With a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!

You're a vile one, Peter Nyikos!
You have termites in your smile.
You have all the tender sweetness
Of a seasick crocodile,
Peter Nyikos!

Given the choice between the two of you,
I'd take the seasick crocodile!

You're a foul one, Peter Nyikos!
You're a nasty, wasty skunk!
Your heart is full of unwashed socks.
Your soul is full of gunk,
Peter Nyikos!

The three words that best describe you
Are as follows, and I quote,
"Stink, stank, stunk!"

You're a rotter, Peter Nyikos!
You're the king of sinful sots!
Your heart's a dead tomato,
Splotched with moldy, purple spots,
Peter Nyikos!

Your soul is an appalling dump-heap,
Overflowing with the most disgraceful
Assortment of deplorable rubbish imaginable,
Mangled-up in tangled-up knots!

You nauseate me, Peter Nyikos!
With a nauseous super naus!
You're a crooked jerky jockey,
And you drive a crooked hoss,
Peter Nyikos!

You're a three-decker sauerkraut
And toadstool sandwich,
With arsenic sauce!

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:21:09 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:05:48 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> On 23Mar 2018, Martin Harran wrote
>>> (in article<7guabddftigvj5pa1...@4ax.com>):
>>>

>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>>>> <northe...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>> I was watching CBS and the newswoman was already talking about
>>>>>> a shroud of Turin what is this? Ever heard of it?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Shroud of Turin is a pious forgery.
>>>>

>>>> Only nobody has ever been able to explain how it was actually forged.
>>>
>>> Probably a skilled painter.
>>
>> Nope, that's been ruled out.
>>
>

>It's always fascinating when the Shroud makes its appearance on TO. It
>has the tendency to make people switch sides, epistemologically. Folks
>(don't mean you btw) who normally argue that no design assumption is
>needed to explain complex structures now argue that design is a much
>better explanation, while those who tend to deny that "complex specified
>information" - which I'd say includes depictions of human bodies - can
>occur naturally are hell bend to rule out a designer.
>
>Me, I'd say the same rules apply. That means ruling out "a"
>(unspecified) painter/designer will not be possible, but then again
>postulating such a painter without any specifics as to their method,
>tools, limitations etc, that is at least some idea who that person(s)
>was, is essentially empty and meaningless.
>
>Now, some such designers have been postulated with sufficient levels of
>specificity to test the assumption, and to the best of my knowledge it
>was indeed to rule out all of these.


I regret that I didn't reply to the above sooner. But you raised a
point I had not considered before, and one which IMO was not given the
attention it deserves when you posted it.

In your comments above, you assert there should be an equivalence with
epistemology of the Shroud and that of Intelligent Design, that the
same rules should apply. I agree it's ironic that the roles seem
reversed with the Shroud, in the sense that the believers argue for an
unguided but unknown cause while the skeptics argue for a designer
using equally unknown methods.

However, ISTM the basis for your equivalence is flawed. For example,
you assert above that it's impossible to rule out a painter/designer,
similar to the arguments against ID. However, the alleged
painter/designer is assumed to be human, and his methods limited to
medieval technologies, even if both the specific person and his
specific methods are unknown. So if the evidence shows the Shroud
required methods beyond that of a medieval human, that hypothesis can
be ruled out. That's not the case with ID, as its presumptive
Designer is capable of doing anything at any time for any reason, and
so all possibilities are consistent with it, and for that reason is a
useless hypothesis.

Another example, you assert above that the methods of an alleged
Shroud painter/designer should be specified, again alluding to
arguments against ID. However, the competing inferences with the
Shroud are human design vs unguided natural processes. With ID, the
competing inferences are unguided natural processes vs guided
supernatural processes, so again, your alleged equivalence is lacking.

My understanding is both sides of the Shroud's origin have had limited
success finding evidence for their preferred inference. In the case
of an alleged painter/designer, some methods have yielded similar but
not identical results to the Shroud itself. In the case of alleged
natural causes, their success lies more in showing reasonable doubt
against an alleged painter/designer, but no positive evidence for any
natural processes which produce anything remotely similar to the
Shroud.

Elsethread you expressed skepticism against the C14 test results:
***************************************
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:14:20 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, I'd say. The test was
>carried out in the early days of carbon dating when our knowledge about
>contamination was still limited. The owner also imposed limitations and
>constraints on the sampling techniques that would otherwise have been
>scientifically unacceptable.
****************************************

The C14 tests were done in three separate labs in 1984. C14 testing
has been done since the late 1940s. Originally, the method measured
the radiation from beta decay, and so required a relatively large
sample to be destroyed. This is one of the reasons to deny prior
testing.

However, by 1984, the technology switched to accelerator mass
spectrometry, which counts the atoms themselves. This increased both
the sensitivity and accuracy of C14 testing, and so required a
substantially smaller sample. This is the only way reliable results
could come from the small Shroud samples provided each lab.

The criticisms of the C14 results are based mostly on claims of
contaminants, from smoke, from biofilms, from invisible reweaves. I
claim no greater expertise about C14 testing than those who make these
objections, but I would be very surprised if those three different
testing labs weren't well aware of potential contaminants, and didn't
have sufficient protocols for detecting and cleaning their samples. If
some contaminants got through anyway, I would expect them to have
skewed the results between the three different labs more than the one
standard deviation they reported.

So if the C14 results are wrong, it's almost certainly not from sample
contamination. It's up to the C14 critics to show that the results
are wrong. Their failure to do so suggests the Shoud, regardless of
how the image was created, can't have originated during Jesus' time.

[Burkhard]

Yes, I'd agree that the analogy is not perfect, and the argument has as
a result less weight - though I 'd still say it has some weight, and
come to a slightly different result when comparing it to the non-design
explanation:

Yes, it is true that the putative designer, unlike the god of the
creationists, is operating under known constraints, as you say (human
with the technology and knowledge of the late middle ages etc). But as
you also say, none of the proposed methods managed to really replicate
the shroud, and that's where the problem comes back. We have a pretty
good knowledge of the capacities of 14th century artists and craftmen -
after all in addition to a lot of their works, there is an emerging body
of contemporaneous literature that describes the then state of the art,
e.g. Cennino d'Andrea's Il Libro dell'Arte. But any specific hypothesis
has so far failed, and the best matches came with techniques and methods
that are unlikely to have been available at that time. We also have lots
of known artifacts from that time, and none of them similar to the
shroud, so it is pretty unique. Which leaves that hypothesis with
something very similar to the god of the gaps - some lone genius must
have found a method, unknown to their contemporaries, with unknown tools
(even though we know a lot of the tools at that time) and unknown
methods (even though we know a lot about the methods at that time),
which was never shared with anyone etc etc.

That does not mean it's impossible - there are things we can't
replicate, either because we lack the material (Damascus steel,
arguably) or lost the knowledge (some languages, e.g) And we must of
course avoid the "Daeniken inference" ("stupid people of past ages could
not possible have been so clever, therefore unknown aliens), but on
balance, given what we know about the time it should be easy to answer
how it was done, which leaves the "unknown genius using unknown methods"
a pretty weak hypothesis.

By contrast, the natural processes theory is slightly less affacted -
true, there too as you note we don't have a clear candidate for the
exact processes that could result in an imprint from a dead body. But we
have less reasons to think we should - there aren't that many burial
shrouds of that time left, so unlike with paintings, we can;t
systematically compare them - and the rather obvious experiments are
impossible due to ethical concerns. So my own favourite a medieval
object that was created using a real corpse, does not quite run up
against a lot of failed tests the way the various design hypotheses do.

There are two lines of attack which I think one should keep separate for
analysis purposes

. The first is regarding the sampling technique that was used, and
whether they may have tested much later repairs - that one is associated
mostly with Raymond Rogers. It in turn has two elements - the first is a
pure methodological concern - a good sampling method would have used
fibers from very different parts, which was ruled out by the owners.
While not ideal, that would only matter if there was concern that the
shroud is not homogeneous. Some of Roger's analysis seems to indicate
this (measurements of vanillin in the fibers) but that is in turn
contested. It also creates the follow-up problem that the method of
repair would have been more subtle than we should expect, given our
knowledge of weaving techniques etc . Here the proponents of the "old
shroud" face a similar issue as the proponents of the "medieval fake"
above - it is doubtful that there is any method of repair/mending that
is not detectable by modern methods. Again, people with relevant
expertise disagree also on this.

The other is the issue of contamination. Now this is a bit a moving
target, as we can and do discover of course sometimes new problems - if
I recall correctly, there was a fairly recent (2014?) issue discovered
with dating of mummies, where the embalming fluid that was used
apparently lead to wrong results. There have been several suggestions of
culprits that "could" have led to contamination - the shroud was most
certainly not stored and handled in forensically sound protocols, but
then of course few things ever are. I've read one meta-study that I
found quite convincing though, which looked at all the known possible
error sources, took an extremely non-conservative estimate or worst case
scenario, and still concluded that not even the cumulative effect would
have led to a misdiagnosis as consistently off by over 1k.

My own take from all this, as I said before I think, would be this:

- the C14 dating is good evidence that the shroud is more recent than
the time of Christ, but it is not the killer evidence that it could have
been had a better object been handled more in line with normal testing
protocols, and independent replication.

- while on the balance of probabilities, I think the C14 evidence is
persuasive, I also accept that with different prior probabilities, and
different methodological preferences, one can come rationally to the
opposite conclusion (e.g. when balancing it against some equally
contestable evidence that the pollen found in the cloth are more typical
for middle eastern origin than French etc). So if e.g. we were to find
strong evidence that showed that the Turin shroud is really the same
object as described as the Image of Edessa which someone brought up
elsethread, I'd be not terribly surprised or would feel the need to
revise radically my opinion about C14 dating etc. Now for all sorts of
other reasons, I don't find the identification of the two particularly
plausible, this is just to indicate that it would not take a lot of
evidence for me to conclude that the shroud is indeed older, from other
disciplines.

- this does not settle anyway the question whether it is designed image
or the result of non-designed processes, after all people also died and
were wrapped in cloth in the middle ages.

- at the same time, none of this would settle the question if it is the
shroud of Christ, as after all crucifixion was not an uncommon
punishment at the time, and dead bodies regularly wrapped in shrouds.

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:01:26 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

First and most important, I want to thank you for an intelligent and
reasoned reply, one completely lacking in ad hominems, non sequiturs,
and irrelevant asides. It's so rare I get such a reply, I am out of
practice how to deal with it. Please forgive that I don't respond as
cogently and coherently to you as you did to me.

IIUC you raise above two issues; that "it should be easy to answer"
how a putative medieval designer created the Shroud, and that
practical and ethical issues are involved in duplicating the Shroud
with an actual corpse.

Dealing with your second issue first, ISTM the following should answer
most of your ethical and practical concerns:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_farm>

It might still require some additional effort to precisely match the
Shroud material itself. Nevertheless, AIUI STURP et al have made no
effort to duplicate a shroud using any of their hypotheses. That
would be another contrast to your "ID equivalence" analogy.

WRT the ease of duplicating the results of a medieval artist, I am
reminded of the questions of making an Egyptian pyramid or the Sphinx.
AIUI we still don't know *exactly* how the Egyptians did it, but
plausible methods have been shown to *approximate* the results. To
argue that since we can't match the originals exactly, therefore these
artifacts are a result of natural processes, is an unreasonable as to
argue that since we can't match the Shroud exactly, therefore it's the
result of natural processes.

Techniques get lost and rediscovered all the time, if only because
nobody wrote down the details, or if they did, the one copy got lost.
Even excluding ETs, we still don't know exactly how some of von
Däniken's examples were made, ex. Antikythera mechanism.

It's also important to keep in mind here a separate important point,
that *in principle* the presumptive ID designer isn't a testable
hypothesis, because an entity capable of doing what IDists claim their
Designer does/did, is necessarily a supernatural one, and so any
effect or outcome would be consistent with it. That is not the case
with a presumptive medieval designer for the Shroud. To me that is
the final nail in your "ID equivalence" analogy.

Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
A problem with that statement, and one well illustrated by the Shroud,
is what is an extraordinary claim. My impression is you and I share
the same ignorance about both invisible reweaves and C14 testing
protocols. However, in contrast to you, I regard truly invisible
"invisible reweaves" a more extraordinary claim than that three
independent labs were equivalently careless about sample contamination
and yet still got equivalent results.

[Mark Isaak]

To further complicate the issue, the image on the Shroud could very
easily be from a *combination* of artificial and natural processes.
E.g., a person painted the image; then, over time, a combination of
humidity, wear, and bacteria caused some of the paint to diffuse, some
to change color, and some to be lost entirely. In fact, I think there
is little doubt that both natural and artificial processes were
involved. The question is how much of each, in what forms, and at what
times?

> [...]
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan