Shroud of Turin What about the New Evidence?

[Stargazer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FRU92fJO_g&t=2012shttp:
>
//www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKfgfeZnJ5g

[jillery]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:25:40 -0400, Stargazer <star...@att.net>
wrote:

>
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FRU92fJO_g&t=2012shttp:
> >
>//www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
> >
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKfgfeZnJ5g

2013 isn't all that new.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[passer...@gmail.com]

It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Bad geometry too. Wrap a linen around a face, it does not leave a drawing of a face shape.

And failed every scientific test.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.

So artists decide science now? An indication would be useful about
which artists you have such a high opinion of.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:17:01 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Bad geometry too. Wrap a linen around a face, it does not leave a drawing of a face shape.

A suggestion as to how the face shape was actually formed would be
useful.

>
>And failed every scientific test.

Failed *some* scientific tests - now under dispute - and passed others
which I'm not aware of any other scientists disputing; feel free to
enlighten me if I've missed any.

[raven1]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:52:10 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>wrote:
>
>>It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.
>
>So artists decide science now?

Pretty much any artist could tell you that the Shroud is a fake
without even testing it. The proportions are wrong, for a start, and
the image isn't distorted when the cloth is spread out, as it would be
if it was caused by contact with a three-dimensional body.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 08:19:34 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:52:10 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
><alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.
>>
>>So artists decide science now?
>
>Pretty much any artist

IME "pretty much any" usually means "I don't actually know any"

> could tell you that the Shroud is a fake
>without even testing it.

Hmm, I get worried about people who can determine things without
testing them, not exactly what I would call scientific.

[raven1]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:38:47 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions

<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 08:19:34 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:52:10 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>><alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.
>>>
>>>So artists decide science now?
>>
>>Pretty much any artist
>
>IME "pretty much any" usually means "I don't actually know any"

I know quite a few, actually, not that it's relevant in any way.

>> could tell you that the Shroud is a fake
>>without even testing it.
>
>Hmm, I get worried about people who can determine things without
>testing them, not exactly what I would call scientific.

I can tell that Monopoly money isn't real US currency without testing
it, as, I suspect, can you. How about addressing the actual substance
below?

[Mark Isaak]

And it has been considered a fraud by high-ranking church officials
pretty much from its appearance. (One bishop contemporary with the
Shroud's origin noted that the forger confessed.) It doesn't matter,
though. People want to believe in it, so facts are irrelevant.

The Shroud's main value is to show how holy relics lead to the worship
of the relics, not the religious ideas behind them.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 10:28:05 -0400, raven1

<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:38:47 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
><alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 08:19:34 -0400, raven1
>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:52:10 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>>><alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.
>>>>
>>>>So artists decide science now?
>>>
>>>Pretty much any artist
>>
>>IME "pretty much any" usually means "I don't actually know any"
>
>I know quite a few, actually,

But you can't even name one well known artist who has claimed the
shroud is a fake on the basis of the facial dimensions.

> not that it's relevant in any way.

Correct. Nobody is claiming the shroud was painted - all the experts
who studied in have agreed it's not - so claims based on artist
measures are totally irrelevant. But that doesn't stop passerby and
you continuing to make them.

>
>>> could tell you that the Shroud is a fake
>>>without even testing it.
>>
>>Hmm, I get worried about people who can determine things without
>>testing them, not exactly what I would call scientific.
>
>I can tell that Monopoly money isn't real US currency without testing
>it, as, I suspect, can you.

I have some notes in my hand right now - can you tell me if they are
monopoly or genuine US dollars or some other currency?

>How about addressing the actual substance
>below?

What substance? Who is claiming the image was painted?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:42:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 7/4/16 11:55 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:17:01 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bad geometry too. Wrap a linen around a face, it does not leave a drawing of a face shape.
>>
>> A suggestion as to how the face shape was actually formed would be
>> useful.
>>
>>>
>>> And failed every scientific test.
>>
>> Failed *some* scientific tests - now under dispute - and passed others
>> which I'm not aware of any other scientists disputing; feel free to
>> enlighten me if I've missed any.
>
>And it has been considered a fraud by high-ranking church officials
>pretty much from its appearance. (One bishop contemporary with the
>Shroud's origin noted that the forger confessed.)

Err, you said "high-ranking church officials" and then referred to one
bishop. "High ranking" generally suggests a bit higher than bishop and
"officials" is of course plural so would you care to expand upon that
your assertion?

Also, the image, which is a negative, wasn't discovered until 1898
when the first photo of it was taken and nobody knows *how* the image
was actually created so apparently the forger confessed to an image
that nobody knew about and he didn't tell anyone how he did it .

[raven1]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 17:45:20 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions

<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 10:28:05 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:38:47 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>><alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 08:19:34 -0400, raven1
>>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:52:10 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>>>><alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.
>>>>>
>>>>>So artists decide science now?
>>>>
>>>>Pretty much any artist
>>>
>>>IME "pretty much any" usually means "I don't actually know any"
>>
>>I know quite a few, actually,
>
>But you can't even name one well known artist who has claimed the
>shroud is a fake on the basis of the facial dimensions.

Any competent artist could tell you that if you asked them. Hell, any
art student could.

>> not that it's relevant in any way.
>
>Correct. Nobody is claiming the shroud was painted - all the experts
>who studied in have agreed it's not

That's not actually true, although other artistic techniques are
currently thought to be more likely.

> - so claims based on artist
>measures are totally irrelevant.

That does not follow.

> But that doesn't stop passerby and
>you continuing to make them.
>
>>
>>>> could tell you that the Shroud is a fake
>>>>without even testing it.
>>>
>>>Hmm, I get worried about people who can determine things without
>>>testing them, not exactly what I would call scientific.
>>
>>I can tell that Monopoly money isn't real US currency without testing
>>it, as, I suspect, can you.
>
>I have some notes in my hand right now - can you tell me if they are
>monopoly or genuine US dollars or some other currency?

No, I never claimed to be clairvoyant.

>>How about addressing the actual substance
>>below?
>
>What substance?

The substance of what I said earlier.

>Who is claiming the image was painted?

I don't know. I didn't, so why are you asking?

[ann.br...@gmail.com]

So... The article claimed that tests were performed using infrared spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Those tests are used to determine atomic composition. I have never read of them used for dating purposes.

A third set of tests were done involving "voltage". I have no idea how changes in voltage -- in linen threads, no less -- could be used for dating. I presume that it is intended to give the impression of being similar to luminescence dating. It fails there too. Luminescence dating can only determine how long it has been since a ceramic (or similar) object was exposed to light. If you are not certain that an object has been buried, undisturbed, between the time that it was covered by events and centuries and now, then you cannot claim a valid result. I certainly don't imagine any better results with voltage.

As far as I'm concerned, this 'new evidence' is garbage out.

Let's talk about the linen.

First, this piece of linen fabric was woven on a loom that had previously been used to weave a woolen fabric. This would not be considered kosher (Leviticus 19:19). It would never have been used as the burial shroud for a Jew.

Second, this piece of linen fabric was woven in a twill weave pattern. No such funerary cloth has ever been associated with a burial in the first century Holy Land. Such fabric is either plain weave linen, or twill weave silk, and there has *never* been a twill linen hybrid.

Third, the claim that, somehow, the very careful experts who removed the three tiny samples, using magnifying glasses and tiny, sharp scissors, took all the samples from mended areas, is a ludicrous claim. Here is a quote from the report: "The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas."

The Shroud of Turin is medieval. But please do not call it a forgery. It was conceived of, and presented as, an homage, as the artist freely admitted.

Pfusand

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:05:17 -0400, raven1

<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 17:45:20 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
><alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 10:28:05 -0400, raven1
>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:38:47 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>>><alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 08:19:34 -0400, raven1
>>>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:52:10 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>>>>><alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So artists decide science now?
>>>>>
>>>>>Pretty much any artist
>>>>
>>>>IME "pretty much any" usually means "I don't actually know any"
>>>
>>>I know quite a few, actually,
>>
>>But you can't even name one well known artist who has claimed the
>>shroud is a fake on the basis of the facial dimensions.
>
>Any competent artist could tell you that if you asked them.

So you can't name one one well known artist who has claimed the shroud

is a fake on the basis of the facial dimensions.

> Hell, any
>art student could.
>
>>> not that it's relevant in any way.
>>
>>Correct. Nobody is claiming the shroud was painted - all the experts
>>who studied in have agreed it's not

>
>That's not actually true,

The Sturp team - those who studied it in 1978 and dated it as only 700
years old - found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in
sufficient amounts to explain the image nor were there any signs of it
being rendered in brush strokes.

Feel free to cite any expert who claims it was painted.

> although other artistic techniques are
>currently thought to be more likely.
>
>> - so claims based on artist
>>measures are totally irrelevant.
>
>That does not follow.

Yes it does. You and passerby are arguing on the basis of artistic
techniques; if there were no artistic techniques involved then your
argument is totally irrelevant.

>
>> But that doesn't stop passerby and
>>you continuing to make them.
>>
>>>
>>>>> could tell you that the Shroud is a fake
>>>>>without even testing it.
>>>>
>>>>Hmm, I get worried about people who can determine things without
>>>>testing them, not exactly what I would call scientific.
>>>
>>>I can tell that Monopoly money isn't real US currency without testing
>>>it, as, I suspect, can you.
>>
>>I have some notes in my hand right now - can you tell me if they are
>>monopoly or genuine US dollars or some other currency?
>
>No, I never claimed to be clairvoyant.

So you can't tell whether or not my money is Monopoly money without
testing it.

>
>>>How about addressing the actual substance
>>>below?
>>
>>What substance?
>
>The substance of what I said earlier.
>
>>Who is claiming the image was painted?
>
>I don't know. I didn't, so why are you asking?

Because you are arguing on the basis of techniques applicable to
painting.

[Pfusand]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:28:59 PM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

blah, blah, blah.

> >>>>>>>It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>So artists decide science now?

Artists know art. You don't, as you have made clear.

> >>But you can't even name one well known artist who has claimed the
> >>shroud is a fake on the basis of the facial dimensions.

Woosh! go the goalposts. No longer any artist will do; it has to be a"well known artist."

Next thing you know, James Warhola (nephew of Andy Warhol), Bob Eggleton (Hugo Winner), and Rick Sternbach (Oscar Winner) won't be good enough. (Yes, I can contact each of them.)

> >>Correct. Nobody is claiming the shroud was painted - all the experts
> >>who studied in have agreed it's not

That's right.

The Shroud of Turin can be duplicated -- right down to the "cellulose degradation" -- using the following technique:

Carve a bas relief figure.

Mold a damp linen fabric carefully over the bas relief.

Let it dry, and gently remove it from its mold.

Gently powder the linen with ground red ocher and/or vermilion pigment, highlighting the raised features on the linen.

Is the result a "painting"? No. Should it have brushstrokes? No. Would this really work? Yes. Luigi Garlaschelli at the University of Pavia did just that.

Pfusand

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-07-05 13:38:47 +0000, AlwaysAskingQuestions said:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 08:19:34 -0400, raven1
> <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:52:10 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.
>>>
>>> So artists decide science now?
>>
>> Pretty much any artist
>
> IME "pretty much any" usually means "I don't actually know any"
>
>> could tell you that the Shroud is a fake
>> without even testing it.
>
> Hmm, I get worried about people who can determine things without
> testing them, not exactly what I would call scientific.

*
I would agree with you.

As I recall the scientific tests were made shortly after the shroud was
discovered. Small pieces were sent to three different independent
scientific test labs. All three agreed, based on the materials and the
pigments that the shroud was made in about the 12th (?) century.

This was published in NATURE, v. 337, No. 6208 pp 611-615, Feb 16, 1989.

Artists impression only reinforce the scientific tests.

For more, see:

https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

earle
*

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:41:35 -0700 (PDT), ann.br...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 4:24:03 PM UTC-4, Stargazer wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FRU92fJO_g&t=2012shttp:
>> >
>> //www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
>> >
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKfgfeZnJ5g
>
>So... The article claimed that tests were performed using infrared spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Those tests are used to determine atomic composition. I have never read of them used for dating purposes.
>
>A third set of tests were done involving "voltage". I have no idea how changes in voltage -- in linen threads, no less -- could be used for dating. I presume that it is intended to give the impression of being similar to luminescence dating. It fails there too.

Admitting you don't understand how something was done; guessing how it
might have been done and then dismissing it on the basis of that guess
is wandering well into straw man territory.

> Luminescence dating can only determine how long it has been since a ceramic (or similar) object was exposed to light. If you are not certain that an object has been buried, undisturbed, between the time that it was covered by events and centuries and now, then you cannot claim a valid result. I certainly don't imagine any better results with voltage.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, this 'new evidence' is garbage out.
>
>Let's talk about the linen.
>
>First, this piece of linen fabric was woven on a loom that had previously been used to weave a woolen fabric. This would not be considered kosher (Leviticus 19:19). It would never have been used as the burial shroud for a Jew.
>
>Second, this piece of linen fabric was woven in a twill weave pattern. No such funerary cloth has ever been associated with a burial in the first century Holy Land. Such fabric is either plain weave linen, or twill weave silk, and there has *never* been a twill linen hybrid.
>
>Third, the claim that, somehow, the very careful experts who removed the three tiny samples, using magnifying glasses and tiny, sharp scissors, took all the samples from mended areas, is a ludicrous claim. Here is a quote from the report: "The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas."
>
>The Shroud of Turin is medieval. But please do not call it a forgery. It was conceived of, and presented as, an homage, as the artist freely admitted.

So how did he create it and how come nobody even knew about the image
for 600 years?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:15:06 -0700 (PDT), Pfusand
<ann.br...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:28:59 PM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>
>blah, blah, blah.
>
>> >>>>>>>It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>So artists decide science now?
>
>Artists know art. You don't, as you have made clear.
>
>> >>But you can't even name one well known artist who has claimed the
>> >>shroud is a fake on the basis of the facial dimensions.
>
>Woosh! go the goalposts. No longer any artist will do; it has to be a"well known artist."

Well, sorry to tell you but "My friend who knows about these things
says that ... " tends not to get too much weight in scientific
discussion groups.

>
>Next thing you know, James Warhola (nephew of Andy Warhol), Bob Eggleton (Hugo Winner), and Rick Sternbach (Oscar Winner) won't be good enough. (Yes, I can contact each of them.)
>
>
>> >>Correct. Nobody is claiming the shroud was painted - all the experts
>> >>who studied in have agreed it's not
>
>That's right.
>
>The Shroud of Turin can be duplicated -- right down to the "cellulose degradation" -- using the following technique:
>
> Carve a bas relief figure.
>
> Mold a damp linen fabric carefully over the bas relief.
>
> Let it dry, and gently remove it from its mold.
>
> Gently powder the linen with ground red ocher and/or vermilion pigment, highlighting the raised features on the linen.
>
>Is the result a "painting"? No. Should it have brushstrokes? No. Would this really work? Yes. Luigi Garlaschelli at the University of Pavia did just that.
>

Nice piece of work, it's just a pity that the experts who actually
examined the shroud say that what he produced doesn't match the actual
shroud.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/experts_question_scientists_claim_of_reproducing_shroud_of_turin/

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

I don't think anybody is arguing about the accuracy of the dating on
the fragments tested; what is disputed is whether the pieces tested
were a good sample of the shroud or whether they had been possibly
contaminated by either the burning of the shroud or the repairs that
were made to it.

[Tim Norfolk]

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

"The history of the shroud from the 15th century is well recorded."

[raven1]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:11:32 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

>So how did he create it

There are several ways it could have been done, which others have
mentioned..

>and how come nobody even knew about the image
>for 600 years?

That's not correct. The image is visible on the shroud, it just
becomes much clearer as a negative.

[raven1]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 23:26:57 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions

I can't name any "well-known" artists who have commented on it one way
or another. Which is entirely irrelevant, and don't those goalposts
get heavy?

>> Hell, any
>>art student could.
>>
>>>> not that it's relevant in any way.
>>>
>>>Correct. Nobody is claiming the shroud was painted - all the experts
>>>who studied in have agreed it's not
>
>>
>>That's not actually true,
>
>The Sturp team - those who studied it in 1978 and dated it as only 700
>years old - found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in
>sufficient amounts to explain the image nor were there any signs of it
>being rendered in brush strokes.
>
>Feel free to cite any expert who claims it was painted.

Feel free to point out where I said it was painted.

>> although other artistic techniques are
>>currently thought to be more likely.
>>
>>> - so claims based on artist
>>>measures are totally irrelevant.
>>
>>That does not follow.
>
>Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

>You and passerby are arguing on the basis of artistic
>techniques;

Not quite. I'm arguing that any artist can point out that the image is
clearly not a genuine one. So can a non-artist for that matter, if
they think about it a bit.

> if there were no artistic techniques involved then your
>argument is totally irrelevant.

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

>>> But that doesn't stop passerby and
>>>you continuing to make them.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> could tell you that the Shroud is a fake
>>>>>>without even testing it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmm, I get worried about people who can determine things without
>>>>>testing them, not exactly what I would call scientific.
>>>>
>>>>I can tell that Monopoly money isn't real US currency without testing
>>>>it, as, I suspect, can you.
>>>
>>>I have some notes in my hand right now - can you tell me if they are
>>>monopoly or genuine US dollars or some other currency?
>>
>>No, I never claimed to be clairvoyant.
>
>So you can't tell whether or not my money is Monopoly money without
>testing it.

I can tell by simply looking at it. I don't have to analyze the paper
to tell the difference. Do you?

>
>>
>>>>How about addressing the actual substance
>>>>below?
>>>
>>>What substance?
>>
>>The substance of what I said earlier.
>>
>>>Who is claiming the image was painted?
>>
>>I don't know. I didn't, so why are you asking?
>
>Because you are arguing on the basis of techniques applicable to
>painting.

No, I'm arguing that an artist can tell you right away that its a
forgery. So can a non-artist if they consider it for a moment.

[Paul J Gans]

The image has been known since the middle ages. It was deemed a fake
back then by church authorities. Every test done since has confirmed
that the shroud's creation dates to medieval times and not earlier.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[eridanus]

evidence, for what definition of evidence?
there exist contradictory evidences.
eri

[Jimbo]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:52:25 -0400, raven1

Yes; one thing that seems off is the brain-case. It's too low. If this
is an image of Jesus, then he was microcephalic. This is even more
suspicious in light of the fact that works done in the Byzantine and
medieval Romanesque style often had unnaturally low hairlines, and
also the same nose and jaw-line. Here's a link to images of Byzantine
mosaics:

https://goo.gl/WhWP40

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/5/16 9:58 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:42:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/4/16 11:55 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:17:01 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bad geometry too. Wrap a linen around a face, it does not leave a drawing of a face shape.
>>>
>>> A suggestion as to how the face shape was actually formed would be
>>> useful.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And failed every scientific test.
>>>
>>> Failed *some* scientific tests - now under dispute - and passed others
>>> which I'm not aware of any other scientists disputing; feel free to
>>> enlighten me if I've missed any.
>>
>> And it has been considered a fraud by high-ranking church officials
>> pretty much from its appearance. (One bishop contemporary with the
>> Shroud's origin noted that the forger confessed.)
>
> Err, you said "high-ranking church officials" and then referred to one
> bishop. "High ranking" generally suggests a bit higher than bishop and
> "officials" is of course plural so would you care to expand upon that
> your assertion?

The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm)
adds also Pope Clement VII and "the immense preponderance of opinion
among learned Catholics."

> Also, the image, which is a negative, wasn't discovered until 1898
> when the first photo of it was taken and nobody knows *how* the image
> was actually created so apparently the forger confessed to an image
> that nobody knew about and he didn't tell anyone how he did it .

I don't know where you're getting your information. The image was known
from the start, and was described as vivid in the fifteenth century.
What happened in 1898 was that it was discovered that the negative of
the image appeared more lifelike.

But I must back off on one point, as other posters have pointed out.
There is a very good chance that the original shroud illustration was
not a fraud, but simply a depiction. The fraud is on the part of the
people who have promoted the Shroud as authentic.

[jillery]

I claim no particular expertise on this point, but my impression is
there exists contradictory interpretations of the same evidence, which
supports a shroud originating no earlier than the 1200s.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:52:25 -0400, raven1

Somebody should have told these guys they were wasting their time ...
but then again, they were only highly qualified scientists, they
couldn't be expected to know much about art.

http://shroud3d.com/home-page/introduction-3d-studies-of-the-shroud-of-turin-history#

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:41:35 -0700 (PDT), ann.br...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 4:24:03 PM UTC-4, Stargazer wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FRU92fJO_g&t=2012shttp:
>> >
>> //www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
>> >
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKfgfeZnJ5g
>
>So... The article claimed that tests were performed using infrared spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Those tests are used to determine atomic composition. I have never read of them used for dating purposes.
>
>A third set of tests were done involving "voltage". I have no idea how changes in voltage -- in linen threads, no less -- could be used for dating. I presume that it is intended to give the impression of being similar to luminescence dating. It fails there too. Luminescence dating can only determine how long it has been since a ceramic (or similar) object was exposed to light. If you are not certain that an object has been buried, undisturbed, between the time that it was covered by events and centuries and now, then you cannot claim a valid result. I certainly don't imagine any better results with voltage.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, this 'new evidence' is garbage out.
>
>Let's talk about the linen.
>
>First, this piece of linen fabric was woven on a loom that had previously been used to weave a woolen fabric. This would not be considered kosher (Leviticus 19:19). It would never have been used as the burial shroud for a Jew.
>
>Second, this piece of linen fabric was woven in a twill weave pattern. No such funerary cloth has ever been associated with a burial in the first century Holy Land. Such fabric is either plain weave linen, or twill weave silk, and there has *never* been a twill linen hybrid.

According to textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg of Hamburg, a seam
in the cloth corresponds to a fabric found at the fortress of Masada
near the Dead Sea, which dated to the 1st century. The weaving
pattern, 3:1 twill, is consistent with first-century Syrian design,
according to the appraisal of Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of
Textile Technology in Belgium. Flury-Lemberg stated: "The linen cloth
of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing
techniques which would speak against its origin as a high-quality
product of the textile workers of the first century."[99]

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

[Pfusand]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:13:58 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:41:35 -0700 (PDT), Pfusand
> wrote:
(snip)

> >
> >So... The article claimed that tests were performed using infrared spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Those tests are used to determine atomic composition. I have never read of them used for dating purposes.
> >
> >A third set of tests were done involving "voltage". I have no idea how changes in voltage -- in linen threads, no less -- could be used for dating. I presume that it is intended to give the impression of being similar to luminescence dating. It fails there too.
>
> Admitting you don't understand how something was done; guessing how it
> might have been done and then dismissing it on the basis of that guess
> is wandering well into straw man territory.

Let me be more clear: For decades, I have subscribed to, and thoroughly read, the magazines: "Archaeology", "Biblical Archaeology Review", and "Current Archaeology".

When I wrote, "I have never read of them used for dating purposes." I meant that *N*O*N*E* of these magazines had *E*V*E*R* mentioned, even in the tiniest squib in its pages, any one of these three supposed dating techniques.

They are not real.

That voltage thing? There is no breath of a trace of its existence in any issue of the three magazines, nor in my book on prehistoric textiles. It is not even described well enough for me to google it; all I could find were references to the electronic equipment used in radiocarbon dating.

It is a phantom.

Pfusand

[Pfusand]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:28:55 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:41:35 -0700 (PDT), Pfusand
> wrote:
(snip)

> >Let's talk about the linen.
> >
> >First, this piece of linen fabric was woven on a loom that had previously been used to weave a woolen fabric. This would not be considered kosher (Leviticus 19:19). It would never have been used as the burial shroud for a Jew.
> >
> >Second, this piece of linen fabric was woven in a twill weave pattern. No such funerary cloth has ever been associated with a burial in the first century Holy Land. Such fabric is either plain weave linen, or twill weave silk, and there has *never* been a twill linen hybrid.
>
> According to textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg of Hamburg, a seam
> in the cloth corresponds to a fabric found at the fortress of Masada
> near the Dead Sea, which dated to the 1st century. The weaving
> pattern, 3:1 twill, is consistent with first-century Syrian design,
> according to the appraisal of Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of
> Textile Technology in Belgium. Flury-Lemberg stated: "The linen cloth
> of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing
> techniques which would speak against its origin as a high-quality
> product of the textile workers of the first century."[99]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
>
> >

Did you even read what you posted? "[A] seam in the cloth corresponds to..." What does that even mean? A "seam" is the joining between two pieces of fabric; it is not itself fabric.

"[A] fabric found at the fortress of Masada..." Is it identified as a burial shroud? No. If it were a burial shroud, would the Shroud of Turin entry have written that it was a burial shroud? Yes. Could, in all the corrective editing of Wikipedia, this have been 100% overlooked? No. So this fabric is not a burial shroud. It is also not from the correct time period. Nor is it from Jerusalem.

"3:1 twill, is consistent with first-century Syrian design" Do you have any idea how UNimpressive this is? Our species learned to weave monochromatic plainweave 20,000 years ago, then we learned to dye the threads and had polychromatic plainweave, then we learned the twill weaving style (Evolution!) -- thousands of years earlier than "first-century Syrian design." And "Syrian"? What does that have to do with a tomb burial in Jerusalem?

Look, over 100 first century burial shrouds have been excavated in the immediate Jerusalem area, and NOT ONE was twill weave linen -- in any count ratio.

Pfusand

[eridanus]

this happens to you because your lack of faith. If you would had faith,
not only you would move mountains out thousands of miles, you would be able
as well to put the earth in the center of the damn planetary system with
the moon, the sun and all the fucking planets moving around the earth.
With faith nothing is impossible; not even to watch a whole division of
flying horses moving by the sky announcing the end of the world.
eri

[Pfusand]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:18:58 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
(snip)

> >
> >The Shroud of Turin can be duplicated -- right down to the "cellulose degradation" -- using the following technique:
> >
> > Carve a bas relief figure.
> >
> > Mold a damp linen fabric carefully over the bas relief.
> >
> > Let it dry, and gently remove it from its mold.
> >
> > Gently powder the linen with ground red ocher and/or vermilion pigment, highlighting the raised features on the linen.
> >
> >Is the result a "painting"? No. Should it have brushstrokes? No. Would this really work? Yes. Luigi Garlaschelli at the University of Pavia did just that.
> >
>
> Nice piece of work, it's just a pity that the experts who actually
> examined the shroud say that what he produced doesn't match the actual
> shroud.
>
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/experts_question_scientists_claim_of_reproducing_shroud_of_turin/

After all your hypocritical whining about how only careful, personal examination has AAAAAANNNNNNYYYY validity, you quote people who never saw Garlaschelli’s work:

"He explained to CNA that that based off the Reuters report as well as photos of Garlaschelli’s shroud on the internet, it appeared that it doesn’t exactly match the Shroud of Turin."

Ah, yes, we noticed that sleazy little phrase: "doesn’t exactly match..." didn't we? How "exactly" are we talking here?

And how honest are these people? Whose livelihoods all depend on the Shroud of Turin? You did notice that, didn't you?

All of them did vague, handwavy, ~oh, the proportions aren't, well, right, although I won't explain how, and, um, it's not really, really good art...~ We do get "the shroud is more than just the image" which is an... interesting argument. And I just can't figure out the incoherent claim that "we know that the blood contacted the shroud before the body “because there’s no image beneath the shroud.”" What is that even supposed to mean?

I did notice that all these shroud-related people are claiming that Garlaschelli's work will have to be judged against what THEY THEMSELVES claim is the already-known scientific information on the shroud.

I look on that with real suspicion, since they did make one flat out lie: "[A] team of 30 researchers in 1978 who determined that the shroud was not painted, dyed or stained..." One of them, Walter McCrone, a world-famous microchemist, did find dyes on the Shroud. He found iron oxide (red ocher), and mercury sulfide (vermilion). He found those particles on the colored parts of the Shroud, and he did not find them on the non-colored portions.

What other lies are they willing to promote?

Pfusand

[eridanus]

you are shouting in the desert, that said the gospel in some part.
eri

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:18:55 AM UTC-7, Pfusand wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:18:58 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> (snip)
> > >
> > >The Shroud of Turin can be duplicated -- right down to the "cellulose degradation" -- using the following technique:
> > >
> > > Carve a bas relief figure.
> > >
> > > Mold a damp linen fabric carefully over the bas relief.
> > >
> > > Let it dry, and gently remove it from its mold.
> > >
> > > Gently powder the linen with ground red ocher and/or vermilion pigment, highlighting the raised features on the linen.
> > >
> > >Is the result a "painting"? No. Should it have brushstrokes? No. Would this really work? Yes. Luigi Garlaschelli at the University of Pavia did just that.
> > >
> >
> > Nice piece of work, it's just a pity that the experts who actually
> > examined the shroud say that what he produced doesn't match the actual
> > shroud.
> >
> > http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/experts_question_scientists_claim_of_reproducing_shroud_of_turin/
>
> After all your hypocritical whining about how only careful, personal examination has AAAAAANNNNNNYYYY validity, you quote people who never saw Garlaschelli’s work:
>
> "He explained to CNA that that based off the Reuters report as well as photos of Garlaschelli’s shroud on the internet, it appeared that it doesn’t exactly match the Shroud of Turin."
>
> Ah, yes, we noticed that sleazy little phrase: "doesn’t exactly match..." didn't we? How "exactly" are we talking here?
>
> And how honest are these people? Whose livelihoods all depend on the Shroud of Turin? You did notice that, didn't you?
>

As if the livelihood of deniers isn't equally at stake, including the Atheism worldview.

> All of them did vague, handwavy, ~oh, the proportions aren't, well, right, although I won't explain how, and, um, it's not really, really good art...~ We do get "the shroud is more than just the image" which is an... interesting argument. And I just can't figure out the incoherent claim that "we know that the blood contacted the shroud before the body “because there’s no image beneath the shroud.”" What is that even supposed to mean?
>
> I did notice that all these shroud-related people are claiming that Garlaschelli's work will have to be judged against what THEY THEMSELVES claim is the already-known scientific information on the shroud.
>
> I look on that with real suspicion, since they did make one flat out lie: "[A] team of 30 researchers in 1978 who determined that the shroud was not painted, dyed or stained..." One of them, Walter McCrone, a world-famous microchemist, did find dyes on the Shroud. He found iron oxide (red ocher), and mercury sulfide (vermilion). He found those particles on the colored parts of the Shroud, and he did not find them on the non-colored portions.
>

We know the Shroud depicts a three-dimensional image of a man and this image was burned into or onto the fabric; any dyes found on the Shroud belong to a host of contaminants that have accumulated over the centuries. These contaminants are what produced the false Medieval date not to mention the fact that carbon dating is known not to work on ancient fabrics or linen. This fact, of course, works against the latest dating event. Carbon dating is unreliable, period, which leaves us with a three dimensional image of a man burned into or onto the fabric.

> What other lies are they willing to promote?
>
> Pfusand

You're guilty of omitting important facts, hardly a surprise.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

CORRECTION: Was attempting to convey that IF carbon dating were to produce a first century date, or close to it, then it still doesn't matter: said dating technique remains unreliable.

Ray

[Jimbo]

Apparently you realized after posting that carbon dating isn't used to
date inorganic pigments. Then, despite copious evidence that properly
done carbon dating gives accurate dates, you claimed the medieval date
is wrong anyway. You didn't bother to supply any evidence to support
that opinion.

[Jimbo]

Apparently you're claiming that cinnabar (mercury chloride), which was
used by medieval artists and craftsmen as a Vermillion pigment and red
ochre (iron oxide) somehow managed to selectively settle on the
reddish parts of the shroud and are mere contaminants that have
nothing to do with the reddish color. Naturally you're not going to
bother with attempts to support that claim. You'll also won't stoop to
explaining why you think cinnabar was in the atmosphere at all. You
seem not to believe that such details are important.

>Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 11:28:55 AM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:

It's also worth noting that the degree of contamination on the Shroud can never really be known. The handling of this iconic piece of linen, over a very long period of time that lacked modern hygiene and cleanliness standards, is most certainly underestimated and unaccounted for. I marvel as to the origin of spots and stains that appear on the face of my cell phone even when my hands are freshly washed. I think we all can understand this particular example. And when we consider what the Shroud has been through, including a unique reliquary fire, and centuries of environments contaminated by burning candle wax, I think it's safe to conclude that every area on the Shroud is hopelessly contaminated.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I'm talking to people who I assume have knowledge about these issues. Fact: We know carbon dating doesn't work on linen. For example: When archaeologists already knew how old certain Egyptian mummy linen was, carbon dating failed to confirm; hence the technique is unreliable. Unreliable means some times it works and some times it doesn't work. The latter becomes the controlling factor.

Ray

[Jimbo]

So, to disprove Walter McCrone's microchemical analysis, which
discovered cinnabar and red oxide pigments in the colored parts of the
shroud and none in the uncolored parts, you offer your grubby cell
phone as counter-evidence. You should have disproved carbon dating
with it too. Your nasty old phone also refutes all the tests and
observations supporting the theory of evolution. Good job, Ray.

>Ray

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:40:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Well, then, that's pretty impressive. Or at least it might be if you
had bothered to cite the particular test you're talking about. What
lab maybe the test? What mummy's linen was tested? What lab or labs
confirmed the results of the initial test? Do you know?

>Ray

[William Hyde]

On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 12:59:00 UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:42:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
> >On 7/4/16 11:55 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:17:01 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bad geometry too. Wrap a linen around a face, it does not leave a drawing of a face shape.
> >>
> >> A suggestion as to how the face shape was actually formed would be
> >> useful.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> And failed every scientific test.
> >>
> >> Failed *some* scientific tests - now under dispute - and passed others
> >> which I'm not aware of any other scientists disputing; feel free to
> >> enlighten me if I've missed any.
> >
> >And it has been considered a fraud by high-ranking church officials
> >pretty much from its appearance. (One bishop contemporary with the
> >Shroud's origin noted that the forger confessed.)
>
> Err, you said "high-ranking church officials" and then referred to one
> bishop. "High ranking" generally suggests a bit higher than bishop and
> "officials" is of course plural so would you care to expand upon that
> your assertion?
>

> Also, the image, which is a negative, wasn't discovered until 1898
> when the first photo of it was taken

You should have asked more questions.

William Hyde

[Pfusand]

(snip)

> > Pfusand
>
> you are shouting in the desert, that said the gospel in some part.
> eri

Oh, that's so last millennium. I am carving my information into this cliffside (free of petroglyphs) in the desert, using a laser. Passersby will see my words, and take heart from them.

Pfusand

[Pfusand]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> I'm talking to people who I assume have knowledge about these issues. Fact: We know carbon dating doesn't work on linen. For example: When archaeologists already knew how old certain Egyptian mummy linen was, carbon dating failed to confirm; hence the technique is unreliable. Unreliable means some times it works and some times it doesn't work. The latter becomes the controlling factor.
>
> Ray

Another unsubstantiated claim. Perhaps those Egyptologists were not following these instructions: http://www.catscientific.com/how-to-prepare-linen-for-radiocarbon-dating/

Pfusand

[Jimbo]

Oops. Rereading this, I notice that I wrote mercury chloride rather
than mercury sulfate. That was careless of me, but it doesn't change
the fact that you're making unsupportable assertion that it's present
as a contaminant rather than as a coloring agent. Why are the red
pigments only present in the colored areas?

>
>>Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Other than blind allegiance to the 1988 carbon dating event, you haven't addressed facts of known contamination that produced the Medieval date, and the fact that no competent archaeologist would accept the outcome of one dating event to settle a major historical claim. Moreover, all you're "request" amounts to is rhetorical dismissal of elementary, relevant, facts. If for some reason I have misjudged you, are you claiming not to have any knowledge about the failures of carbon dating ancient linens?

Ray

[Jimbo]

Well look at that! I made another careless error. I wrote mercury
sulfate rather than mercury sulfide. You know, Ray, I just don't know
what's the matter with me today. I keep making these careless errors.
But have you noticed that I'm correcting them as I go along? Even
though my brain is apparently out to lunch, if I admit the mistakes
then no harm is done. Couldn't you do that too? Either present
evidence supporting your claim about the red pigments being
environmental contaminants or admit that you're just expressing an
unsupported opinion that the pigments are contaminants. I can't make
you do that of course, but it's the only way you'll ever be able to
correct mistakes and go on to learn something new.

>
>>
>>>Ray

[Jimbo]

Ray, are you claiming that you do have knowledge of "known
contamination that produced the Medieval date"? Are you saying that
the cleaning procedure described in Pfusand's cited article was not
employed in this case? If so, why haven't you presented the evidence
supporting your claim?

When, and if, you get around to supplying evidence that your claim is
accurate, you should also explain how you know that red ochre and
cinnabar pigments could be "contaminants" that somehow accumulated
only on the colored parts of the shroud. How did they know to avoid
the uncolored parts? Or are you claiming that the image itself is
composed completely of atmospheric contaminants that somehow managed
to form an image of Jesus? Are you saying that the shroud is a
divinely ordained stain like putative images of Jesus or the Virgin
Mary formed by stains on walls or scorch marks on a piece of toast?

>Ray

[Ray Martinez]

What is your point or claim about said red pigments?

Ray

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:00:08 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

I haven't made any point or claim. I've merely asked you to support
your own claims that ".. any dyes found on the Shroud belong to a host

of contaminants that have accumulated over the centuries. These
contaminants are what produced the false Medieval date not to mention
the fact that carbon dating is known not to work on ancient fabrics or
linen."

Since Walter McCrone performed microchemical tests that detected these
pigments on the colored parts of the shroud but not on the uncolored
parts, your claim that they are contaminants seems very implausible.
How could contaminants find their way selectively to those sections
that comprise the image? You need to answer this question. Otherwise
you're just stating unsupported and unrealistic opinions.

Your second claim is that the medieval date was "produced" by the
putative contaminants. Pfusand provided you with a link to an article
describing how contaminants are removed from ancient linens. I asked
if you know of any evidence that this procedure wasn't applied in the
case of the shroud. Are you going to supply such evidence? That's what
I asked you. You need to support your claims by (1) providing evidence
that some kind of environmental process could selectively contaminate
the specific areas comprising the image and (2) that cleaning
procedures were not employed to remove contaminants and prepare the
samples for testing.

>Ray

[jillery]

It's obvious. Like how wine transubstantiates into Jesus' blood, the
iron from Jesus' blood transmuted into mercury. It's easy to accept
anything when you substitute reasoning with blind faith.

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 20:35:33 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Hah Hah! Scoffer! The laugh will surely be on you when Ray presents
his well reasoned and evidence-based proof that the Vermillion colored
mercury sulfide is just an environmental contaminant that somehow
wound up precisely in those reddish sections of the shroud where the
blood of Jesus seeped into it! Isn't that true Ray? You're gonna show
us the error of our ways! Right! You're going to do that, aren't you
Ray?

[jillery]

You and I have identified two different miracles which account for the
nonrandom distribution of red pigment on the Turin Shroud. Obviously
both of us can't be correct. Since God would never lie to me,
therefore you are wrong. You are scheduled to be stoned with the
other heretics; those guys know how to party!

[jillery]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 11:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Did you straighten out everybody over at Panda's Thumb, that Den of
Iniquity? Good for you, but remember, fighting the Enemy is a
neverending task.

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 21:36:56 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Hah hah! How do you know I'm not already stoned? Besides - I can prove
my miracle is the true one. Picture this: an invisible supernatural
force or being with the power to fashion random environmental
pollution into images of gods and saints! Since environmental
contaminants are everywhere, this invisible being must be omnipresent.
And since it brings order out of chaos, it must be an intelligent
designer. If you still doubt, I can cite numerous low-budget sci-fi
movies from the 1950's to back up my claim.

[Rolf]

"Jimbo" <ji...@abyz.com> wrote in message
news:gkrtnb9ruphci25ho...@4ax.com...

This discussion may last forever. Ray is incapable of understanding or
accepting science whenever science clashes with any of his idiosyncrasies.
Just lool at how he refuses to read anything that might contradict his
religious faith, like for instance the huge amound of evidence and data
about the Grand Canyon. A normal human being should be able to figure out
for himslef that a singular flood event never could create any canyon. That
is so obvious that you need to be deep in denial and religious mumbo-jumbo
to think otherwise.

It says a lot about Ray that among his idols we find idiots like Ayn Rand
and Immanuel Velikovsky.

Another telling fact is that he has given up his crusade against Darwin and
is wasting his time on trifles.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n9ttnb5j1escfncop...@4ax.com...

Ray Martinez is a world renowned expert on blind faith!

[Rolf]

"Pfusand" <ann.br...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:704f9bf5-61ea-491b...@googlegroups.com...

Oh come on! Ray is the foremost expert on all subjecst related to tthe
inerrancy of the Bible and of course Ray himself.
If you dont' believe me, ask Him. (Ray, that is).

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 09:28:09 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:41:35 -0700 (PDT), ann.br...@gmail.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 4:24:03 PM UTC-4, Stargazer wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FRU92fJO_g&t=2012shttp:
>>> >
>>> //www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
>>> >
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKfgfeZnJ5g
>>
>>So... The article claimed that tests were performed using infrared spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Those tests are used to determine atomic composition. I have never read of them used for dating purposes.
>>
>>A third set of tests were done involving "voltage". I have no idea how changes in voltage -- in linen threads, no less -- could be used for dating. I presume that it is intended to give the impression of being similar to luminescence dating. It fails there too. Luminescence dating can only determine how long it has been since a ceramic (or similar) object was exposed to light. If you are not certain that an object has been buried, undisturbed, between the time that it was covered by events and centuries and now, then you cannot claim a valid result. I certainly don't imagine any better results with voltage.
>>
>>As far as I'm concerned, this 'new evidence' is garbage out.
>>
>>Let's talk about the linen.
>>
>>First, this piece of linen fabric was woven on a loom that had previously been used to weave a woolen fabric. This would not be considered kosher (Leviticus 19:19). It would never have been used as the burial shroud for a Jew.
>>
>>Second, this piece of linen fabric was woven in a twill weave pattern. No such funerary cloth has ever been associated with a burial in the first century Holy Land. Such fabric is either plain weave linen, or twill weave silk, and there has *never* been a twill linen hybrid.
>
>According to textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg of Hamburg, a seam
>in the cloth corresponds to a fabric found at the fortress of Masada
>near the Dead Sea, which dated to the 1st century. The weaving
>pattern, 3:1 twill, is consistent with first-century Syrian design,
>according to the appraisal of Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of
>Textile Technology in Belgium. Flury-Lemberg stated: "The linen cloth
>of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing
>techniques which would speak against its origin as a high-quality
>product of the textile workers of the first century."[99]
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
>
>>
>>Third, the claim that, somehow, the very careful experts who removed the three tiny samples, using magnifying glasses and tiny, sharp scissors, took all the samples from mended areas, is a ludicrous claim. Here is a quote from the report: "The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas."
>>
>>The Shroud of Turin is medieval. But please do not call it a forgery. It was conceived of, and presented as, an homage, as the artist freely admitted.
>>
>>Pfusand

The usual performance by our creationist friends.

All argument and no demonstration.

Look, here's a golden opportunity for you: give us a practical,
scientific demonstration of your point of view.

The claim is that the image on the shroud is not distorted, as it
should be if it were placed on the face of the deceased and not laid
flat.

Here's a suggestion for Ray and Alwayaskingquestions:

Take a tube of tomato purée and a piece of linen. Besmear your face
with the purée, and the rest the linen on your bedaubed face for a
moment or two. Carefully remove the linen, lay it on the table,
smeared surface up, wash your face and then compare the image to a
recen t photo of yourself.

Is the image distorted or not? Report back to us as soon as possible.

This will be the first time, I believe, that our creationist friends
will have carried out a "scientific" experiment instead of the usual
quote-mining.

Go for it!!!

Joe Cummings

[Bill Rogers]

Why on earth does the Shroud of Turin matter to you, Ray? If it is not, in fact, Jesus' burial shroud, so what? Nothing in the Bible says the Shroud of Turin is genuine. Nothing in the Nicene Creed requires that you believe it to be genuine. There are vast numbers of claimed relics of the True Cross; whether they are or are not what they are claimed to be has no bearing at all on the truth of Christianity. The Shroud of Turin could be a deliberate fraud or a simple piece of art and it would not matter in the least to the truth of Christianity. Why do you care?

[eridanus]

sort of some people need some "superstitious" prove that Christianity is a
real thing, based on the words of Christ, and not in the words of the Koran.
Then, if they find a Polaroid photo of Jesus the Christ, it is like a
miracle and the faith in Jesus the Messiah increases and all that.
eri

[Pfusand]

Let's put the frantic claims of "contamination" of the radiocarbon samples to rest, shall we?

Have a thought experiment:

Here is a sample of fabric: It is an ordinary piece, one inch square (6.45 square cm.). It is claimed to be from the Year 0. (Thought experiment!)

It is tested in Year 2000, and is dated to Year 1500. (Still a thought experiment!)

There are claims of contamination.

Now, we are apparently looking at a balance of the original from Year 0 and added contamination from Year 2000. The balance is like that on a seesaw.

The person on the left on the seesaw must balance the person on the right. If their weights are different, their positions along the seesaw must be different to balance that. The equation is: weight1 x distance1 = weight2 x distance2. This makes sense: The heavier person always had to move closer to the middle to create a balance.

For dating, we can do something equivalent. (Yeah, yeah, there's a curve to C-14 dating. It's still a thought experiment; a straight line relationship is good enough.) We can use the equation:

years-to-final-date1 x weight-of-sample1 = years-to-final-date2 x weight-of-contaminents2

This gives us: 1500 x 1 = 500 x Contamination
and the solution is: Contamination = 3

In English, that means there must be THREE TIMES as much contamination as original sample. And that has to be CARBON-based contamination; iron oxide or mercury sulfide won't change anything.

It is very simple: Claims that a medieval date is the result of contamination depends on so much contaminant that you could barely see the original.

There is another implication to this. If the contamination is older than Year 2000, there has to be more of it! And ALL of the contamination would have to be from AFTER Year 1500; any contamination from before that date would 'pull' the date back towards Year 0.

Please use this example whenever someone shrieks "contamination" at you.

Pfusand

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/8/16 10:17 AM, Pfusand wrote:
> Let's put the frantic claims of "contamination" of the radiocarbon samples to rest, shall we?
>
> Have a thought experiment:
>
> Here is a sample of fabric: It is an ordinary piece, one inch
> square (6.45 square cm.). It is claimed to be from the Year 0.

Hypernitpick: In the Gregorian calendar, there was no year 0. The years
went directly from 1 BC to AD 1.

More to the point, creationists will never accept anything to do with
radiocarbon dating, because they know that it demolishes their
worldview. Instead, they claim that some sort of radiation during the
creation week invalidates the whole principle. Yes, some phenomenon in
6000 BC caused a cloth made in AD 20 to yield a date around 1350. See
how it all makes sense now?

And since radio-dating doesn't work, we must rely on historical records,
which say the Shroud appeared in -- um, around 1350.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Paul J Gans]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>On 7/8/16 10:17 AM, Pfusand wrote:
>> Let's put the frantic claims of "contamination" of the radiocarbon samples to rest, shall we?
>>
>> Have a thought experiment:
>>
>> Here is a sample of fabric: It is an ordinary piece, one inch
>> square (6.45 square cm.). It is claimed to be from the Year 0.

>Hypernitpick: In the Gregorian calendar, there was no year 0. The years
>went directly from 1 BC to AD 1.

>More to the point, creationists will never accept anything to do with
>radiocarbon dating, because they know that it demolishes their
>worldview. Instead, they claim that some sort of radiation during the
>creation week invalidates the whole principle. Yes, some phenomenon in
>6000 BC caused a cloth made in AD 20 to yield a date around 1350. See
>how it all makes sense now?

>And since radio-dating doesn't work, we must rely on historical records,
>which say the Shroud appeared in -- um, around 1350.

In which case historical records must be thrown out since 1350 isn't
biblical.

It must be that the shroud was in contact with our saviour who of course
would radiocarbon date to the time of the resurection which is
presumeably in the future.

So all is explained, the Bible wins again!

Of course this argument won't work with rational christians, but we
can ignore them, they are no fun at all.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Pfusand]

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 3:28:51 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
(snip)

> > Here is a sample of fabric: It is an ordinary piece, one inch
> > square (6.45 square cm.). It is claimed to be from the Year 0.
>
> Hypernitpick: In the Gregorian calendar, there was no year 0. The years
> went directly from 1 BC to AD 1.
>

Boo! Hiss! I wrote:

"Here is a sample of fabric: It is an ordinary piece, one inch square (6.45 square cm.). It is claimed to be from the Year 0. (Thought experiment!)"

The "(Thought experiment!)" is exactly a response to your hypernitpick. And you edited it out. Shame, Mark, shame.

Pretend we're dealing with some other world that isn't Earth at all. (Hence, obviously, my belief in getting a rational response. (Actually, I really just expect the Shroudies to try to shout and drown out this perfectly sensible point.))

Best wishes,
Pfusand

[Stargazer]

It shouldn't there were hundreds of millions of Christians who were
Christian today who know nothing about the Shroud.

[Ray Martinez]

> parts....

AGAIN, what's McCrone's point? You've should have answered this question immediately. He's your source, but for what?

> .... your claim that they are contaminants seems very implausible.

> How could contaminants find their way selectively to those sections
> that comprise the image? You need to answer this question. Otherwise
> you're just stating unsupported and unrealistic opinions.

I can't answer your question until you make a claim or point? Why are you stalling?

>
> Your second claim is that the medieval date was "produced" by the
> putative contaminants.

Anyone who has done even a modicum of research into the issue can find scholarly sources that effectively undermine the 1988 dating event. And I've added argumentation completely ignored by you and Pfusand. IF truth is on your side then both of you would have produced rebuttals immediately when the word "contamination" was brought up in conjunction with the 1988 dating event.

Moreover, this event was hardly scientific. It could not be reproduced by other scientists, and said event was not conducted openly in front of all persons involved. If you ask me to produce cites then you're denying well known facts rhetorically.

> Pfusand provided you with a link to an article
> describing how contaminants are removed from ancient linens.

Nobody asked how contaminants are removed OR were removed----said link is irrelevant. The point was: it's not possible that contaminants were removed from THIS linen. Again, you guys have evaded the argument made here.

> I asked
> if you know of any evidence that this procedure wasn't applied in the
> case of the shroud. Are you going to supply such evidence?

Of course! You never heard of William Meacham? Again, it appears you're denying evidence because it shoots down the 1988 dating event handily.

> That's what
> I asked you. You need to support your claims by (1) providing evidence
> that some kind of environmental process could selectively contaminate
> the specific areas comprising the image and (2) that cleaning
> procedures were not employed to remove contaminants and prepare the
> samples for testing.
>
> >Ray

Jimbo simply assumes his claim true: that the 1988 test event was professional at every stage.

Just the opposite is true. The fact that you don't know said event was horribly flawed indicates much. This is WHY I care about the Shroud: truth suppression. This is WHY UFO investigators pursue their object of interest: truth suppression by the government. Truth suppression, in the minds of objective people, indicates fear of something worth investigating.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The Shroud survived a reliquary fire: no one knows the effect of this unique contamination event on the linen. And it has been cared for by hand over the course of MANY CENTURIES in environments of candle wax air. During this time modern hygiene and cleanliness standards were non-existent. A plethora of contaminants have undoubtedly been ground into the fibers of the Shroud by the hands of Christians. I marvel how the face of my cell phone becomes spotted and stained even when my hands are freshly washed. One could only imagine what the Shroud has been through prior to the 20th century?

Ray

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aaee7c50-d0c2-4608...@googlegroups.com...

The only thing of interest in that shorud is the basic fact that it
obviously have nothing to do with the mythical character of Jesus.

We read in the Boible that in spite of the hulabaloo at his mythical birth,
his own family viewed him as an idiot. If that shouldn't be sufficient, the
ridiculous episode of his capture and arrest in Gethsemane shows how absurd
everything about Jesus is.

What did he need a traitor for? It had been decided that he should be
arrested, convicted and crucified. That had to happen just as we had to have
the German attack on Poland, Europe, Russia to have a WW2.

He might just as well have presented himself to the Romans for the rest of
the story to unfold. What was the purpose? If they knew the Romans was out
to get him, why not just let them have him without furter ado? Looks more
like a playwright made it up.

They had any number of older myths to crib from. Just like My Fair Lady from
Bernard Shaws Pygmalion, and many other such reworkings of older texts.

[Ray Martinez]

I didn't care until I became aware of the attempt to suppress the facts of the 1988 dating event. Secular people attempting to suppress the facts that expose said event to have been non-scientific sustains my interest. If it was any other object secularists wouldn't hesitate to reject the Medieval date. But because its the Shroud they accept said date without the slightest skepticism.

Moreover, the Shroud image is three-dimensional, burned into the cloth on one side only. How was this possible? All facts considered, the Shroud appears genuine. Jesus, of course, is the most famous person of all time. Almost all pictures of Christ today are based on the Shroud image. When photography technology did not exist, God found a way to give mankind a picture of His Son a split second before He raised Him from the dead.

I want to thank secular people for drawing attention to the Shroud. Without said attention most people, I think, would not have given the relic a second look. It was this attempted truth suppression that caused me to research the matter myself, just like government suppression of UFOs drives UFO research.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

There's no shortage of Atheist/non-believer scholars who admit Jesus lived.

Ray

[snip....]

[Jimbo]

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 14:16:36 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Okay, then; my point is that you were wrong to claim that
"contamination" caused an incorrect dating of the shroud. The red
ochre and cinnabar pigments are just that - pigments not environmental
contaminants. They constitute at least part of the coloration
comprising the image. Do you not understand the significance of the
fact that these pigments occur only on the colored parts of the
shroud. They are at least one of the reasons the shroud is colored in
those areas where they occur. If you deny this, then you might as well
also argue that the pigments in all other old images are environmental
contaminants. You are simply denying reality.

>> .... your claim that they are contaminants seems very implausible.
>> How could contaminants find their way selectively to those sections
>> that comprise the image? You need to answer this question. Otherwise
>> you're just stating unsupported and unrealistic opinions.
>
>I can't answer your question until you make a claim or point? Why are you stalling?

Once again - I didn't ask you a question. I asked you to support your
claim that the pigments detected by McCrone are environmental
contaminants. You still haven't done so. You are the one that is
stalling. You will continue to stall or simply to ignore the request
because your claim that the pigments are environmental contaminants is
simply incorrect. Environmental contamination couldn't possibly put
colored pigments precisely on the colored parts of the shroud.
Inorganic pigments couldn't possibly throw off the dating method used
to arrive at a medieval date for the shroud. There is no carbon in
either iron oxide or mercury sulfide. Do you understand now?

>> Your second claim is that the medieval date was "produced" by the
>> putative contaminants.
>
>Anyone who has done even a modicum of research into the issue can find scholarly sources that effectively undermine the 1988 dating event. And I've added argumentation completely ignored by you and Pfusand. IF truth is on your side then both of you would have produced rebuttals immediately when the word "contamination" was brought up in conjunction with the 1988 dating event.

You have already made that claim. You haven't supported it with the
evidence that you say undermines the medieval date. That is the
precise thing I was asking you to do. Provide the evidence. Cite the
studies. Show the tests that you claim invalidates the medieval date.
Are you ever going to do that? Are you ever going to support your
claims?

>Moreover, this event was hardly scientific. It could not be reproduced by other scientists, and said event was not conducted openly in front of all persons involved. If you ask me to produce cites then you're denying well known facts rhetorically.

What other scientists have duplicated the tests made by McCrone? If
you know of such tests being made and failing to duplicate his
results, then why haven't you posted links or references to those
tests? Why do you just make the claims and refuse to supply the
supporting evidence? Do it now. Provide citations to the tests that
you claim falsified McCrones results.

>> Pfusand provided you with a link to an article
>> describing how contaminants are removed from ancient linens.
>
>Nobody asked how contaminants are removed OR were removed----said link is irrelevant. The point was: it's not possible that contaminants were removed from THIS linen. Again, you guys have evaded the argument made here.

Your claim is so far totally unsupported. If you say it's possible
that contaminants were removed, then supply the evidence that no
appropriate preparation of the samples occurred. Will you do that or
will you just ignore the requests that you do so?

>> I asked
>> if you know of any evidence that this procedure wasn't applied in the
>> case of the shroud. Are you going to supply such evidence?
>
>Of course! You never heard of William Meacham? Again, it appears you're denying evidence because it shoots down the 1988 dating event handily.

I don't have time to look into whatever he did right now. How did he
prove that no adequate preparation of the samples took place?

[jillery]

Do you really have that much trouble cleaning your cell phone?

[passer...@gmail.com]

I never read segmented posts. Maybe we can communicate and maybe we can't.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:59:02 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:17:01 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >Bad geometry too. Wrap a linen around a face, it does not leave a drawing of a face shape.
>
> A suggestion as to how the face shape was actually formed would be
> useful.
>
> >
> >And failed every scientific test.
>
> Failed *some* scientific tests - now under dispute - and passed others
> which I'm not aware of any other scientists disputing; feel free to
> enlighten me if I've missed any.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Ever draw a face? Obviously not. If you know anyone that has, ask her if it's bad art.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:54:02 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >It's bad art. No artist considers it genuine.
>
> So artists decide science now? An indication would be useful about
> which artists you have such a high opinion of.

[passer...@gmail.com]

The Ark story has a lot of genuine ancient history and physics, but the shroud? Nothing ancient or special about it.

And it's really bad art. You wouldn't want to hang that on your living room wall.

[eridanus]

I am atheist and can believe that Jesus existed but not as the son of god.
But just some Jew involved in politics or Jewish politics, as to incommode
the main chiefs rabbis "that tried to live with the Romans" for they were
realist and knew quite well, how sons of a bitch could the Romans be.
eri

[passer...@gmail.com]

Yeah, it's something like that, except when Herod (who was marginally Jewish) was appointed King by the Romans, the first thing he did is kill 2/3 of the Sanhedrin and the High Priest. (Heck, he killed his royal blood Jewish wife and children.)

So, the Rabbis weren't just trying to avoid Roman wrath, they were appointed by the Romans.

[Pfusand]

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-4, Pfusand wrote:
> Let's put the frantic claims of "contamination" of the radiocarbon samples to rest, shall we?
>

(snip)

> In English, that means there must be THREE TIMES as much contamination as original sample. And that has to be CARBON-based contamination; iron oxide or mercury sulfide won't change anything.
>
> It is very simple: Claims that a medieval date is the result of contamination depends on so much contaminant that you could barely see the original.

(snip)

For those among us who are actually interested (unlike certain persons whom we can all name) in what the scientists who dated the Shroud of Turin really did, the "Science" article from February 16, 1989 is on-line at:

https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Were these scientists completely oblivious to the question of contamination? (Yes, it's a ludicrous question.) Here's a quote:

"Because it was not known to what degree dirt, smoke or other contaminants might affect the linen samples, all three laboratories subdivided the samples, and subjected the pieces to several different mechanical and chemical cleaning procedures."

Three different labs? Yes. Each sample was split up into multiple subsamples? Yes.

What sort of cleaning was done?

"All laboratories examined the textile samples microscopically to identify and remove any foreign material."

"[M]icroscopically"? Wow! Who would have guessed that scientists would be smart enough to use microscopes? Why, yes, all of us in the science-oriented world.

But what else did those [unsurprisingly] smart scientists do? Read on:

"The Oxford group cleaned the samples using a vacuum pipette, followed by cleaning in petroleum ether (40° C for 1 h) to remove lipids and candlewax"

"Zurich precleaned the sample in an ultrasonic bath."

"[The Arizona group]: One pair of subsamples from each textile was treated with dilute HCL, dilute NaOH and again in acid, with rinsing in between (method a)."

"[The Arizona group]: The second pair of subsamples was treated with a commercial detergent (1.5% SDS), distilled water, 0.1% HCL and another detergent (1.5% triton X-100); they were then submitted to a Soxhlet extraction with ethanol for 60 min and washed with distilled water at 70° C in an ultrasonic bath"

Remember that the Oxford group used carbon-based cleaners? Oooh, changing one carbon contaminant for another! Ah, but they're not bone stupid, remember? Here's what they did next:

"[The Oxford group]: Each subsample was treated with 1M HCL (80° C for 2h), 1M NaOH (80° C for 2 h) and again in acid, with rinsing in between."

"[The Oxford group]: Two of the three samples were then bleached in NaOCL (2.5% at pH-3 for 30 min)."

Oh! Dear, dear! Acids and bases must have eaten into the samples! Yup. The outer layer of fiber -- and any contaminants -- is gone. They'll test the 90+% that is left.

"The Zurich group [after ultrasonic cleaning and dividing their sample into two, then divided one subsample into three sub-subsamples]: One-third received no further treatment"

"[The Zurich group after ultrasonic cleaning and dividing their sample into two, then divided one subsample into three sub-subsamples]: one-third was submitted to a weak treatment with 0.5% HCL (room temperature), 0.25% NaOH (room temperature) and again in acid, with rinsing in between."

"[The Zurich group after ultrasonic cleaning and dividing their sample into two, then divided one subsample into three sub-subsamples]: The final third was given a strong treatment, using the same procedure except that hot (80° C) 5% HCL and 2.5% NaOH were used.

Of course we're curious: What were the results with the sub-subsample that "received no further treatment"?

"After the first set of measurements revealed no evidence of contamination, the second set was split into two portions, to which the weak and strong chemical treatments were applied."

So, although the lack of cleaning had no effect, they cleaned the second batch of sub-subsamples anyhow. Of course.

Pfusand

[eridanus]

even we could accept the carbon 14 measure was not good and thus the test
could be considered invalid. This does not prove the shroud was real,
and not a falsification. A falsification is the most logic assumption.
It does not make any sense such important piece of tissue were ignored for
so long. But it appeared at a time in which the relics from the holy-land
were being sold like popcorn.
eri

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 11:50:05 +0200, joecummin...@gmail.com
wrote:

I'm not a creationistand anyone who has spent even a modicum of time
here knows that.

Mind you, such a stupid opening remark is a good warning of the
stupidity of the rest of your post.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:49:43 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 7/5/16 9:58 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:42:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>>
>>> On 7/4/16 11:55 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:17:01 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bad geometry too. Wrap a linen around a face, it does not leave a drawing of a face shape.
>>>>
>>>> A suggestion as to how the face shape was actually formed would be
>>>> useful.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And failed every scientific test.
>>>>
>>>> Failed *some* scientific tests - now under dispute - and passed others
>>>> which I'm not aware of any other scientists disputing; feel free to
>>>> enlighten me if I've missed any.
>>>

>>> And it has been considered a fraud by high-ranking church officials
>>> pretty much from its appearance. (One bishop contemporary with the
>>> Shroud's origin noted that the forger confessed.)
>>
>> Err, you said "high-ranking church officials" and then referred to one
>> bishop. "High ranking" generally suggests a bit higher than bishop and
>> "officials" is of course plural so would you care to expand upon that
>> your assertion?
>
>The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm)
>adds also Pope Clement VII and "the immense preponderance of opinion
>among learned Catholics."

You mean the article that states "That the authenticity of the Shroud
of Turin is taken for granted, in various pronouncements of the Holy
See cannot be disputed"

I'll give you one point for identifying Pope Clement but no more than
that until you can pluralise high ranking Church officials -"learned
Catholics" is too vague to cut it.


>
>> Also, the image, which is a negative, wasn't discovered until 1898
>> when the first photo of it was taken and nobody knows *how* the image
>> was actually created so apparently the forger confessed to an image
>> that nobody knew about and he didn't tell anyone how he did it .
>
>I don't know where you're getting your information. The image was known
>from the start, and was described as vivid in the fifteenth century.
>What happened in 1898 was that it was discovered that the negative of
>the image appeared ".

"More facelike" is something of an understatement, in the words of the
article you cited "a sensation was caused by the discovery that the
image upon the linen was apparently a negative" and that is the key
point, up to that, nobody had a clue about it being a negative or just
how detailed an image in actually is when seen in negative. It was
that discovery that moved the shroud from being just another dubious
relic to an entirely new level that would challenge the best efforts
of science.

>
>But I must back off on one point, as other posters have pointed out.
>There is a very good chance that the original shroud illustration was
>not a fraud, but simply a depiction. The fraud is on the part of the
>people who have promoted the Shroud as authentic.

It fascinates me that somebody who has elsewhere attacked the Church's
dubious methods of obtaining confessions should in this instance take
as conclusive the word of a medieval bishop about the confession of an
unknown forger, with no corroborating evidence and no explanation of
how the forger actually did it.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:33:00 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:11:32 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
><alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So how did he create it
>
>There are several ways it could have been done, which others have
>mentioned..
>
>>and how come nobody even knew about the image
>>for 600 years?
>
>That's not correct. The image is visible on the shroud, it just
>becomes much clearer as a negative.

And nobody knew it was a negative - except, apparently, for some
forger 600 years previously who didn't feel it was worth his while to
let people know how incredibly clever and far ahead of his time he
was.

[jillery]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:28:24 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions

Since he didn't say you were a creationist, you really shouldn't wag
your jerky knees at others about stupid remarks. At worst, he
compared your performance from your post. Considering your willful
and deliberate use of a strawman to evade responding to his
substantive and relevant reply, still preserved below, my impression
is such a comparison is right on the money. For someone who says he's
not a creationist, you sure do act and sound like one.

>>All argument and no demonstration.
>>
>>Look, here's a golden opportunity for you: give us a practical,
>>scientific demonstration of your point of view.
>>
>>The claim is that the image on the shroud is not distorted, as it
>>should be if it were placed on the face of the deceased and not laid
>>flat.
>>
>>Here's a suggestion for Ray and Alwayaskingquestions:
>>
>>Take a tube of tomato purée and a piece of linen. Besmear your face
>>with the purée, and the rest the linen on your bedaubed face for a
>>moment or two. Carefully remove the linen, lay it on the table,
>>smeared surface up, wash your face and then compare the image to a
>>recen t photo of yourself.
>>
>>Is the image distorted or not? Report back to us as soon as possible.
>>
>>This will be the first time, I believe, that our creationist friends
>>will have carried out a "scientific" experiment instead of the usual
>>quote-mining.
>>
>>Go for it!!!
>>
>>Joe Cummings

[raven1]

LOL! OK, that's enough. You're pulling our legs, right?

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/13/16 4:49 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> [snip re Shroud of Turin]

> It fascinates me that somebody who has elsewhere attacked the Church's
> dubious methods of obtaining confessions should in this instance take
> as conclusive the word of a medieval bishop about the confession of an
> unknown forger, with no corroborating evidence and no explanation of
> how the forger actually did it.

Have you been asleep? There is near-conclusive objective forensic
testing which also places the origin of the Shroud around 1350. Plus
the comments about vivid colors shortly after that, which we would not
expect to be vivid 1300 years after they were applied. Plus the long
general culture of multiplying relics, oft noted by commenters. (Why
should we expect the Turin shroud to be genuine, as opposed to the
several others whose authenticity has been claimed at various times?)
Seriously, is there any reasonable doubt?

[Stargazer]

I came across a letter by Barrie Schwortz, the official photographer of
the Shroud of Turin project STURP, in response to critics of STURP
Read his response to One Mr. Kentgen on Walter McCrone, himself critic
test results.

file:///C:Users/Ron/Desktop/answering.pfdf

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 02:17:42 -0400, Stargazer <star...@att.net>
wrote:

That is alink to yor locsl copy on your hard disk; I presume you meant
this:

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

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:10:08 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 7/13/16 4:49 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> [snip re Shroud of Turin]

Restore snipped material
=====================

>On 7/5/16 9:58 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:42:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/4/16 11:55 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:17:01 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bad geometry too. Wrap a linen around a face, it does not leave a drawing of a face shape.
>>>>
>>>> A suggestion as to how the face shape was actually formed would be
>>>> useful.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And failed every scientific test.
>>>>
>>>> Failed *some* scientific tests - now under dispute - and passed others
>>>> which I'm not aware of any other scientists disputing; feel free to
>>>> enlighten me if I've missed any.
>>>
>>> And it has been considered a fraud by high-ranking church officials
>>> pretty much from its appearance. (One bishop contemporary with the
>>> Shroud's origin noted that the forger confessed.)
>>
>> Err, you said "high-ranking church officials" and then referred to one
>> bishop. "High ranking" generally suggests a bit higher than bishop and
>> "officials" is of course plural so would you care to expand upon that
>> your assertion?
>
>The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm)
>adds also Pope Clement VII and "the immense preponderance of opinion
>among learned Catholics."
>

>> Also, the image, which is a negative, wasn't discovered until 1898
>> when the first photo of it was taken and nobody knows *how* the image
>> was actually created so apparently the forger confessed to an image
>> that nobody knew about and he didn't tell anyone how he did it .
>
>I don't know where you're getting your information. The image was known
>from the start, and was described as vivid in the fifteenth century.
>What happened in 1898 was that it was discovered that the negative of

>the image appeared more lifelike.

>
>But I must back off on one point, as other posters have pointed out.
>There is a very good chance that the original shroud illustration was
>not a fraud, but simply a depiction. The fraud is on the part of the
>people who have promoted the Shroud as authentic.

=========================

I challenged your specific claim about the forger. Snipping the
relevant points and moving the goalposts is lame, not at all up to
your usual standards.

>
>> It fascinates me that somebody who has elsewhere attacked the Church's
>> dubious methods of obtaining confessions should in this instance take
>> as conclusive the word of a medieval bishop about the confession of an
>> unknown forger, with no corroborating evidence and no explanation of
>> how the forger actually did it.
>
>Have you been asleep? There is near-conclusive objective forensic
>testing which also places the origin of the Shroud around 1350. Plus
>the comments about vivid colors shortly after that, which we would not
>expect to be vivid 1300 years after they were applied. Plus the long
>general culture of multiplying relics, oft noted by commenters. (Why
>should we expect the Turin shroud to be genuine, as opposed to the
>several others whose authenticity has been claimed at various times?)

What makes it different is its apparent use of negative imagery which
wouldn't be known about for another 600 years or so plus the
anatomical detail involved which has been found since the discovery of
the image and again would not have been understood 700 years ago.

>Seriously, is there any reasonable doubt?

There will always be doubt until somebody comes up with a sustainable
explanation of how it was actually created.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 06:58:58 -0700 (PDT), Pfusand
<ann.br...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:13:58 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:41:35 -0700 (PDT), Pfusand
>> wrote:
>(snip)

>> >
>> >So... The article claimed that tests were performed using infrared spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Those tests are used to determine atomic composition. I have never read of them used for dating purposes.
>> >
>> >A third set of tests were done involving "voltage". I have no idea how changes in voltage -- in linen threads, no less -- could be used for dating. I presume that it is intended to give the impression of being similar to luminescence dating. It fails there too.
>>

>> Admitting you don't understand how something was done; guessing how it
>> might have been done and then dismissing it on the basis of that guess
>> is wandering well into straw man territory.
>
>Let me be more clear: For decades, I have subscribed to, and thoroughly read, the magazines: "Archaeology", "Biblical Archaeology Review", and "Current Archaeology".
>
>When I wrote, "I have never read of them used for dating purposes." I meant that *N*O*N*E* of these magazines had *E*V*E*R* mentioned, even in the tiniest squib in its pages, any one of these three supposed dating techniques.
>
>They are not real.
>
>That voltage thing? There is no breath of a trace of its existence in any issue of the three magazines, nor in my book on prehistoric textiles. It is not even described well enough for me to google it; all I could find were references to the electronic equipment used in radiocarbon dating.
>
>It is a phantom.

Sorry to disappoint you but the fact that you have never encountered
something does not mean it's not real.

The fact that you cannot cite any scientists rejecting those methods
is far more significant than your favourite journals not having
covered them; perhaps you might write to the editors of those journals
and ask them why they didn't.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 07:28:19 -0700 (PDT), Pfusand
<ann.br...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:28:55 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:41:35 -0700 (PDT), Pfusand
>> wrote:
>(snip)

>> >Let's talk about the linen.
>> >
>> >First, this piece of linen fabric was woven on a loom that had previously been used to weave a woolen fabric. This would not be considered kosher (Leviticus 19:19). It would never have been used as the burial shroud for a Jew.
>> >
>> >Second, this piece of linen fabric was woven in a twill weave pattern. No such funerary cloth has ever been associated with a burial in the first century Holy Land. Such fabric is either plain weave linen, or twill weave silk, and there has *never* been a twill linen hybrid.
>>
>> According to textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg of Hamburg, a seam
>> in the cloth corresponds to a fabric found at the fortress of Masada
>> near the Dead Sea, which dated to the 1st century. The weaving
>> pattern, 3:1 twill, is consistent with first-century Syrian design,
>> according to the appraisal of Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of
>> Textile Technology in Belgium. Flury-Lemberg stated: "The linen cloth
>> of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing
>> techniques which would speak against its origin as a high-quality
>> product of the textile workers of the first century."[99]
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
>>
>> >
>

>Did you even read what you posted? "[A] seam in the cloth corresponds to..." What does that even mean? A "seam" is the joining between two pieces of fabric; it is not itself fabric.
>
>"[A] fabric found at the fortress of Masada..." Is it identified as a burial shroud? No. If it were a burial shroud, would the Shroud of Turin entry have written that it was a burial shroud? Yes. Could, in all the corrective editing of Wikipedia, this have been 100% overlooked? No. So this fabric is not a burial shroud. It is also not from the correct time period. Nor is it from Jerusalem.
>
>"3:1 twill, is consistent with first-century Syrian design" Do you have any idea how UNimpressive this is?

Gilbert Raes thought it was significant. No offense, but I'm inclined
to put more weight on the opinion of a Professor of the Ghent
Institute of Textile Technology than that of an anonymous Usenet
poster with no declared qualifications in the subject.

>Our species learned to weave monochromatic plainweave 20,000 years ago, then we learned to dye the threads and had polychromatic plainweave, then we learned the twill weaving style (Evolution!) -- thousands of years earlier than "first-century Syrian design." And "Syrian"? What does that have to do with a tomb burial in Jerusalem?

Professor Gilbert Raes isn't making any judgment about burials
anywhere, he's simply stating that the particular weave was available
in the first century AD.

You don't know that there was trade between Jerusalem and Syria in
those days?.

>
>Look, over 100 first century burial shrouds have been excavated in the immediate Jerusalem area, and NOT ONE was twill weave linen -- in any count ratio.

I have seen hundreds of swans in my lifetime but I've never seen a
black one.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT), Pfusand
<ann.br...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:18:58 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>(snip)
>> >
>> >The Shroud of Turin can be duplicated -- right down to the "cellulose degradation" -- using the following technique:
>> >
>> > Carve a bas relief figure.
>> >
>> > Mold a damp linen fabric carefully over the bas relief.
>> >
>> > Let it dry, and gently remove it from its mold.
>> >
>> > Gently powder the linen with ground red ocher and/or vermilion pigment, highlighting the raised features on the linen.
>> >
>> >Is the result a "painting"? No. Should it have brushstrokes? No. Would this really work? Yes. Luigi Garlaschelli at the University of Pavia did just that.
>> >
>>
>> Nice piece of work, it's just a pity that the experts who actually
>> examined the shroud say that what he produced doesn't match the actual
>> shroud.
>>
>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/experts_question_scientists_claim_of_reproducing_shroud_of_turin/
>
>After all your hypocritical whining about how only careful, personal examination has AAAAAANNNNNNYYYY validity, you quote people who never saw Garlaschelli’s work:
>
>"He explained to CNA that that based off the Reuters report as well as photos of Garlaschelli’s shroud on the internet, it appeared that it doesn’t exactly match the Shroud of Turin."
>
>Ah, yes, we noticed that sleazy little phrase: "doesn’t exactly match..." didn't we? How "exactly" are we talking here?

Did you even bother to read the article. Many significant differences
are listed e.g. the method of adding blood after aging the cloth, it
misses out on the accuracy and subtleties that are in the actual
image, when taken from a 3-D perspective, “it’s really rather
grotesque.” “The hands are embedded into the body and the legs have
unnatural looking lumps and bumps,” the fact that the blood on the
shroud had the characteristics of blood flowing after death.

>
>And how honest are these people?

Gosh, there was me thinking that attacking people for their honesty
without any reason other than you don't like what they are saying was
the province of Ray Martinez.

>Whose livelihoods all depend on the Shroud of Turin? You did notice that, didn't you?
>

>All of them did vague, handwavy, ~oh, the proportions aren't, well, right, although I won't explain how, and, um, it's not really, really good art...~ We do get "the shroud is more than just the image" which is an... interesting argument. And I just can't figure out the incoherent claim that "we know that the blood contacted the shroud before the body “because there’s no image beneath the shroud.”" What is that even supposed to mean?
>
>I did notice that all these shroud-related people are claiming that Garlaschelli's work will have to be judged against what THEY THEMSELVES claim is the already-known scientific information on the shroud.
>
>I look on that with real suspicion, since they did make one flat out lie: "[A] team of 30 researchers in 1978 who determined that the shroud was not painted, dyed or stained..." One of them, Walter McCrone, a world-famous microchemist, did find dyes on the Shroud.

> He found iron oxide (red ocher), and mercury sulfide (vermilion). He found those particles on the colored parts of the Shroud, and he did not find them on the non-colored portions.

>What other lies are they willing to promote?

Walter McCrone was not a member of the STURP team; he was employed to
analyse tape samples and never even saw the shroud and the STURP team
found that the quantities of pigment were insufficient to support the
image having been painted.

So it's more a question of what other nonsense are you prepared to
believe?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:33:00 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:11:32 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
><alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So how did he create it
>
>There are several ways it could have been done, which others have
>mentioned..

Care to enlighten me as to which of those methods have stood up to
scrutiny?

[Ernest Major]

Can you cite any scientists rejecting the use of ouija boards to date
artefacts?

--
alias Ernest Major

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:28:24 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions

You were not the only one criticising the test on the Turin Shroud.
If, as you say , you are not a creationist, then my apologies.
However, you do seem to be inclined to accept the authenticity of the
Shroud or at the very least are prepared to defend the disputed
finding of a groupd of scientists who accepted the authenticity of the
Shroud.

>
>Mind you, such a stupid opening remark is a good warning of the
>stupidity of the rest of your post.
>
>>
>>All argument and no demonstration.
>>
>>Look, here's a golden opportunity for you: give us a practical,
>>scientific demonstration of your point of view.
>>
>>The claim is that the image on the shroud is not distorted, as it
>>should be if it were placed on the face of the deceased and not laid
>>flat.
>>
>>Here's a suggestion for Ray and Alwayaskingquestions:
>>
>>Take a tube of tomato purée and a piece of linen. Besmear your face
>>with the purée, and the rest the linen on your bedaubed face for a
>>moment or two. Carefully remove the linen, lay it on the table,
>>smeared surface up, wash your face and then compare the image to a
>>recen t photo of yourself.
>>
>>Is the image distorted or not? Report back to us as soon as possible.
>>
>>This will be the first time, I believe, that our creationist friends
>>will have carried out a "scientific" experiment instead of the usual
>>quote-mining.
>>
>>Go for it!!!
>>
>>Joe Cummings

Did you try the experiment I suggested? Or are you, like many
creationists, only prepared to argue to your heart's content or until
the cows come home? I gave you a splendid opportunity to do something
entirely practical for once, but you balked at it. That's par for the
course for anti-scientists.

Of course, the authenticity of any ancient relic is necessarily
susspect because it has survived through a period, the Medieval, where
forgeries abounded.

In Roger Peyrefitte's engaging book, "The Keys of St; Peter," there
is a list of some of the relics that were reverenced in France before
the Reformation. Among them we find

A sneeze of the Holy Ghost

A sigh utterd by St; Joseph as he sawed wood in Nazareth

A feather from the wing of the Archangel Gabriel.

A Great big woodpile of pieces of the True Cross (the very name
implies that there were fake pieces extant)

Many, many nails that were used tio crucify the Saviour.

I well remember an uncle, who was in Palestine as it then was during
WWII, sending my mam a religious postcard attached to which was a
piece of bark "from a tree against which the Holy Family rested on
their flight into Egypt."' I often wonder how much bark the trader
had. Evidently a nice little earner.

Now as far as I'm concerned, go ahead and believe whatever religion
you wish, and good luck to you. But try to do it without recourse to
questionable magic or the supernatural. Many atheissts and agnostics
lead remarkably good lives, whilst it has to be said that many people
who claim to be Christian do not.


Joe Cummings

[eridanus]

but because your incredulity you are unable to enjoy the bless of such
marvelous wonders, like worshiping the Shroud of Turin. Have even
figure how would you feel watching this holy clothe and thinking that
it once covered the body of dead body of Jesus, the son of god? Or just
figure you had inherited a nail use to crucify Jesus. This must be serious
stuff and not just a piece of rusted iron.
You see, to be an unbeliever is like to be child and you could not enjoy
those wonderful movies of Walt Disney and the fairy god mother making
miracles. So sad to live without believing in fairies or the flying
spaghetti monster.
eri

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:13:37 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 7/13/16 4:49 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> > [snip re Shroud of Turin]
>
> > It fascinates me that somebody who has elsewhere attacked the Church's
> > dubious methods of obtaining confessions should in this instance take
> > as conclusive the word of a medieval bishop about the confession of an
> > unknown forger, with no corroborating evidence and no explanation of
> > how the forger actually did it.
>
> Have you been asleep? There is near-conclusive objective forensic
> testing which also places the origin of the Shroud around 1350.

Apparently it's you who has been sleeping; review earlier posts in this thread that address irreversible contamination, secrecy when selecting where to cut test samples, and the secular cover-up/suppression attempt of these facts which awakened interest in the Shroud by religious persons like myself who otherwise would not have given the Shroud a second look.

> Plus
> the comments about vivid colors shortly after that, which we would not
> expect to be vivid 1300 years after they were applied.

What's the point?

> Plus the long
> general culture of multiplying relics, oft noted by commenters. (Why
> should we expect the Turin shroud to be genuine, as opposed to the
> several others whose authenticity has been claimed at various times?)
> Seriously, is there any reasonable doubt?

Of course reasonable doubt exists. Why do UFO-ologists exist? Answer: Because governments have spent a lot of time and money attempting to suppress what they know and what they possess. WHY are Atheists SO interested in the Shroud? Answer: Because the Shroud APPEARS genuine. Where's there's smoke there's fire. Where there's a hen house, there's wolves near by. You're an Atheist, Mark, and you're here because you see the Shroud as a credible piece of evidence that threatens the veracity of your worldview. WE KNOW FOR A FACT that the 1988 carbon dating event was horribly flawed. The fact that your kind attempt to suppress the facts of impropriety, like I said, drive renewed interest in the Shroud. This ancient piece of linen deserves better. If the facts of impropriety were in conjunction with any other object Atheists like yourself wouldn't hesitate to throw out said dating event. But because its THE SHROUD here you guys are acting like nothing was wrong, suppressing evidence, just like you do with the design of nature.

Go to hell.

Ray

[eridanus]

Then, Ray, you believe the government is hiding evidence about the UFOS?
Is it so difficult to think UFOs are ordinary hoaxes?

And what is the problem with the Shroud? It is so difficult to believe it
was a hoax? Is there any rational restriction to believe humans are can
be easily liars? There several reasons for people to lie.
eri