The folded, bent and twisted dead.
Bobbycindi
the man of the Shroud. As it turns out, this topic has apparently struck a
chord with Mr. Weaver. This is what he had to say: "I have sought long and
hard, and asked many, to show me some evidence, to name even one excavated
site, that proves that the Jews folded, bent and twisted their dead for burial
in the manner required by the stack of ad hoc rationalizations devised to
explain away the anatomical absurdities of the Shroud figure."
But it seems to me that this is a bit overstated. For a guy who died hanging
on a cross, I think the man of the Shroud looks pretty good. Perhaps even
better than might be expected. I do know that Jesus's muscles were likely very
badly cramped and locked in a state of rigor mortis- at least if what I read
from the pathologists is correct. I can see that his knees are slightly bent,
and that his feet are crossed one over the other and pointing slightly down.
(Perhaps in the position they were in on the cross.) I can see that his arms
were placed in such a way as to bring his hands over his pelvis- the exact
position seen on hundreds of mummies in museums. Perhaps this is all Weaver
means when he says folded bent and twisted. But again, it doesn't look
unrealistic to me.
It also strikes me that there are many artists, pathologists and professional
photographers who find no fault with the man Weaver describes as displaying
"anatomical absurdities". Perhaps there are those who disagree, but I am
unaware of any. Also, as I recall, John Jackson found only minor anomalies
when he conducted a statistical analysis of the body shape of the man of the
Shroud. (Thighs slightly too wide, and fingers and arms slightly too long to
be considered normal.) This, he explained, was consistent with optical
distortion created by slight cloth drape during the time when the image was
formed. (Again, there is no question that the face area of the Shroud had to
have been flattened during this projective process, whatever it was.)
Here are the references for the rigor-mortis evidence and also the issue of
optical distortion:
Bucklin, Robert, M.D., J.D. "The Shroud of Turin, a Pathologist's Viewpoint."
Legal Medicine Annual, 1981
Ercoline, W.R., J.P. Jackson, and R.C.Downs "Examination of the Turin Shroud
for Image Distortions." Proceedings of 1982 IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and
Society, pp. 576-579.
Bob Haroldsen
Trenton G. Twining
>
<SNIP>
>
> It also strikes me that there are many artists, pathologists and professional
> photographers who find no fault with the man Weaver describes as displaying
> "anatomical absurdities". Perhaps there are those who disagree, but I am
> unaware of any. Also, as I recall, John Jackson found only minor anomalies
> when he conducted a statistical analysis of the body shape of the man of the
> Shroud. (Thighs slightly too wide, and fingers and arms slightly too long to
> be considered normal.)
>
deviation for human proportions anyway. His arms are a touch longer,
proportionally, than mine. All the difference is in those long fingers
vs my medium ones. His thighs are thinner than mine. And I knew a
woman in college with thighs a good deal wider and all muscle. Those
who claim contortion assume an entirely relaxed corpse (post-rigor).
Since the body was wrapped and probably entombed, this is an unwarranted
assumption. This is really a strawman argument, not worthy of a flaxen
man argument.
Informed protests need to present positive facts; at least McCrone
understands this. His facts are disputed by scientists who did more
thorough testing than he; such was his prejudice against the Shroud. My
read of his methodology was a visual identification of vermilion and
Fe2O3 under low magnification. Both IDs would seem to be in error since
neither showed on X-rays. Particularly the vermilion. And the Center
for Advanced DNA Technology would be awfully surprised that their blind
(unaware of the source of the material) analysis was of vermilion when
they would have sworn it was blood from a human male.
I have heard of no explanation for painting linen but leaving no
particles of paint in the threads (the image as opposed to the wounds).
Some pretty feeble attempts have gotten press play. But the most
efective of those would definitely embed paint in the weave. I can
think of means available to Medieval Europeans to accomplish it. But
anybody with such a technique would have been using it more than once.
It would have to be perfected before the photo on the Shroud. Even if
the Shroud were his magnum opus and last work, some of his previous
efforts must have been known. It's possible, but not plauible that a
lot of work was invested in a secret technique; used only once to
preserve the mystique of the Shroud. On that thin thread of
possibility, plus pending indisputable C14 protocols, I preserve my
reserve.
--
Trenton G. Twining
Personal:
E-mail t...@usa.net
FAX 561-619-7942
URL: http://homes.acmecity.com/rosie/singing/181/
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the
people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some
rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of."
- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
"Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found
out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon
them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words
or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance
of those whom they oppress."
- Frederick Douglass
Frank Weaver
In article <3B0B458E...@usa.net>,
"Trenton G. Twining" <t...@usa.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Informed protests need to present positive facts; at least McCrone
>understands this. His facts are disputed by scientists who did more
>thorough testing than he; such was his prejudice against the Shroud. My
>read of his methodology was a visual identification of vermilion and
>Fe2O3 under low magnification. Both IDs would seem to be in error since
>neither showed on X-rays.
"Dr. McCrone determined this by polarized light microscopy in 1979.
This included ... characterization of the only colored image-forming
particles by color, refractive indices, polarized light microscopy, size,
shape, and microchemical tests for iron, mercury, and body fluids. ...
The Electron Optics Group at McCrone Associates ... in 1980 used
electron and x-ray diffraction and found red ochre (iron oxide,
hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); their electron microprobe
analyzer found iron, mercury, and sulfur on a dozen of the blood-image
area samples." [http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.htm]
Positive fact #1: McCrone and his institute conducted a barrage of
visual, X-ray, electron microscopy and microchemical tests that
identified several pigments on their samples .
>Particularly the vermilion. And the Center
>for Advanced DNA Technology would be awfully surprised that their blind
>(unaware of the source of the material) analysis was of vermilion when
>they would have sworn it was blood from a human male.
The 'blood' failed batteries of standard diagnostic tests for blood,
including all those conducted by Giorgio Frache (a forensic
serologist), as even Wilson admits. Claims by Heller and Adler that
various proteins and porphyrins could be signs of blood have been
shown by John F. Fischer (a forensic analyst who specializes in
identifying bloodstains) as equally proof of tempera paint medium.
It's slightly odd that Center could identify the blood type of
material that couldn't pass more basic tests. Identifying the SEX of
the blood is a bit beyond the pale, though.
Positive fact #2: The 'blood' failed batteries of tests routinely
used to detect blood.
Positive fact #3: Evidence used to adduce blood cannot refute the
assertion that it could instead be paint medium.
>I have heard of no explanation for painting linen but leaving no
>particles of paint in the threads (the image as opposed to the wounds).
>Some pretty feeble attempts have gotten press play. But the most
>efective of those would definitely embed paint in the weave.
What about that story I read a month ago about the shrouders who
unstitched the backing and found flow-through (billed as furter proof
of the shroud's authenticity, of course).
>I can
>think of means available to Medieval Europeans to accomplish it.
Try Nicholas P. L. Allen, "Verification of the Nature and Causes of
the Photo-negative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin
[http://www.unisa.ac.za/dept/press/dearte/51/dearturn.html]
>But
>anybody with such a technique would have been using it more than once.
>It would have to be perfected before the photo on the Shroud. Even if
>the Shroud were his magnum opus and last work, some of his previous
>efforts must have been known. It's possible, but not plauible that a
>lot of work was invested in a secret technique; used only once to
>preserve the mystique of the Shroud.
There's an entire lengthy tradition of portraits of Jesus 'not
made by human hand,' including a considerable number of shrouds and
even more 'Veronicas' (face-only images such as the legendary
Mandylion of Edessa).
Positive fact #4: There's a lot of other 'true shrouds' and other
miraculous holy cloths of medieval manufacture.
This is a combination hyberbole/personal incredulity argument.
Exaggerate the alleged oddity of the shroud and difficulty in
producing it, then maintain that you just can't believe those
medieval dolts had the grey matter to do something that advanced.
Allen makes a good case thart they did have the grey matter, two
centuries before the shroud appeared, to reinvent a technique known
to the Hellenics. But an even simpler method, trivial actually, was
demonstrated by Joe Nickell. Right now I'm looking at negative
photos of both the shroud (on one of Wilson's books) and a copy
on the cover of Nickell's. Total observable differences are two.
The beards/mustaches are slightly different in shape. The shroud
image is fainter in places, streaked and cracked.
Positive fact #5: Techniques available to medieval artists have been
demonstrated to be capable of duplicating the 'mysterious' features
of the shroud.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOxJ3eqyjdWYzk1A5AQHziwf+NgsRpBrk+vJ2ezWf4ekhR99CLfbojxJR
Ng+hLmstwStJiisxy63Z0lamcKymB1/Q+67F9jEnkmQ1MHVLZeGBUECBJzxFEIDN
vrtKWh6uwaHVtIey5rQBd6ORG8/EHX33v4Q6zSHT1p5HG5wyOw9a2O1Yr4pWzjq5
hlchpok5IpyQ2MfZ3PXNAKyoVHA2IUeAEiurtE6/UB9aHvVbUqnsz7mH2HfpJ01l
OuTrs+HF/tOh136QUZLQ872QzUJ6fCaS54CTEry0qmzVglFPmxhSIUBz484KYq1j
AdnFscQgOHjZtSC3pqlL3FFisQq09Q11FXpWSMzac2uJQedbn4RFKA==
=QwJ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20010522220920...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
[snip]
>But it seems to me that this is a bit overstated. For a guy who died hanging
>on a cross, I think the man of the Shroud looks pretty good. Perhaps even
>better than might be expected. I do know that Jesus's muscles were likely very
>badly cramped and locked in a state of rigor mortis- at least if what I read
>from the pathologists is correct.
Rigor mortis is caused by an internal chemical change in the muscle
tissue. You can no more detect RM on the shroud than you can measure
my BAC from a GIF. Oh, that's right -- you want a reference. Dr.
Michael Baden, a pathologist, cited in Nickell, "Inquest on the Shroud
of Turin" (1983), p. 69 & 75.
>I can see that his knees are slightly bent,
No, that is an assumption to correct anomalies in the figure
proportions. See below.
>and that his feet are crossed one over the other and pointing slightly down.
>(Perhaps in the position they were in on the cross.) I can see that his arms
>were placed in such a way as to bring his hands over his pelvis- the exact
>position seen on hundreds of mummies in museums.
Except that HIS arms are also widely akimbo, the elbows at just over
a 90 degree angle. The length of the arms, if they were straightened
out, has been calculated as stretching somewhat below his knees.
>Perhaps this is all Weaver
>means when he says folded bent and twisted. But again, it doesn't look
>unrealistic to me.
>
>It also strikes me that there are many artists, pathologists and professional
>photographers who find no fault with the man Weaver describes as displaying
>"anatomical absurdities".
I'm drawing directly from various assertions made by shrouders. One,
I don't know who, found the limbs so disproportionate that he scoured
the medical encyclopedias for some disfiguring disease that could do
account for it. I never did see an explanation of why, if Jesus had
such freakish proportions in life, none of his friends or foes ever
commented on it.
But mainly I'm drawing on the tissue of rationalizations that Isabel
Piczek advanced in "Is the Shroud a Painting?"
[http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm] and some secondary explanations.
They go something like this:
1. Problem: his arms are too long. They can't stick out at that
angle and still cover his genitals.
Answer: he was buried half-sitting with his knees propped up.
2. But one arm is longer than the other.
His shoulder was half-twisted to one side.
3. But he'd fall over in that position.
Well, there was a bolt of cloth holding him up. Or maybe it was
rigor mortis. Or his wrist had a special twist in it to hold him
up.
4. But his feet are nailed to the perch!
No they're not. He's just got a really strong grip, is all.
(Oops! wrong sketch).
Anyway, you get the pattern. Piczek devises a rationalization for
the odd proportions of the body, then invents more details as
necessary to patch the holes in her previous rationalizations.
When a well-known comedy troupe used this routine to pass off a
stuffed bird as a living pet, it was funny (IMHO). As an allegedly
serious scientific explanation, it's pathetic.
What is worse, there is a very simple way for Piczek and company to
turn her rantings from bad joke into legitimate possibility. That is
to do the most basic of scientific tasks: test your hypothesis
against the evidence.
Piczek is claiming that the bending, twisting, etc. necessary to
explain the image anatomy is nominal for Jewish burials. All she
or any other shrouder has to do is show, either by contemporary
records of Jewish funerary customs or archeological excavation of
Jewish grave sites, that it actually is a reasonable scenario of
Jewish burial.
I haven't found any that they've done that. As far I can tell, they
haven't even tried. Failure to even attempt the rudiments of
scientific method in this regard is ipso facto proof that its
'science' is a sham.
>Perhaps there are those who disagree, but I am
>unaware of any. Also, as I recall, John Jackson found only minor anomalies
>when he conducted a statistical analysis of the body shape of the man of the
>Shroud. (Thighs slightly too wide, and fingers and arms slightly too long to
>be considered normal.) This, he explained, was consistent with optical
>distortion created by slight cloth drape during the time when the image was
>formed.
Let's see if I've got this straight. The lens effect was highly
specific to the limbs and digits, bypassing nearby portions of the
torso. The distortion occurs over multiple planes, so that the legs
are refracted vertically, the upper arms diagonally outward and the
lower arms diagonally inward. It stretches out the fingers of one
hand more than the fingers of the other in the same location. In
theory, this may be possible, but technically it is difficult. For
instance, AFAIK lenses ground to correct visual astigmatism
differentiate between only two planes.
It also seems able to stretch the right arm more than the left and the
front of the legs more than the back (according to sindonologists
Pierre Barbet and Msgr. Giulio Ricci, respectively, as quoted by
Nickell, pp. 69-70).
What an interesting mechanism this is!
In fact, this optical distortion mechanism is so highly specific that
it coincidentally duplicates features typical of figures in Gothic art
circa 1200-1400. These distortions are every bit as diagnostic of
the Gothic style as, say, the 'Rubenesque' physiques of a certain
painter's models or the geometric forms used by the Cubists.
Jackson's optical distortion reminds me of something else from the
Great One-Eyed God: those badly written Star Trek episodes in which
the crew saves itself from the certain-death-of-the-week at the last
minute by repolarizing the deflector arrays to emit phased
bullshitonium particles.
This is such a popular tactic among pseudoscientists it can reduced
to a formula. Call it the Technobabble Solution.
(1) Joe Average doesn't grasp the details of <insert technical term
here>
(2) If Joe Average doesn't understand <insert technical term here>,
his eyes glaze over and he thinks "it must be reasonable because
it sounds so complicated."
(3) Therefore, whenever I'm in a jam, I'll just say that <insert
technical term here> solves the problem.
(4) Joe Average will think "Gee, it must be scientific because it
sounds so complicated."
Now *maybe* Jackson has an explanation for the extremely localized
and specific effects of his distortion. But can it make sense to
anyone who knows even a little bit about optics?
>(Again, there is no question that the face area of the Shroud had to
>have been flattened during this projective process, whatever it was.)
And lengthened -- another feature of Gothic art, btw.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOxJ5T6yjdWYzk1A5AQF3jQf/QHJsKfNlvDnya+3hrwYtmB4m4me4pcYn
bGJdzZZLouOR1Ifi0uTLG4kTuhuAyWE0Im9cgaOarrr+rP1kY3JBWUUY3/Hoh7MD
oermH+sX2lRbGPYJv2i8iiEkLm1zBazo2f7zE36Y0ahB1OVv2p2UX1oV6CviO9AZ
tf7gR4jN7S8B+zh7aQtz2T7uzFtZ4h9FX0jyb2GQSQCE2y8iOdwpVhEcMIlcnjGP
iQzGiR3U2DVg4GMvd+1VHiX2nNtKYqwx9YjHrieHwJzE38FrR7FRxeiJ8Arf3S6M
46cw3qbDYSIgY7dJXpryKcM9+cohIb98ElyXITGLZfWl+DT821sxAg==
=UjXh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
you dished out about Isabel Piczek. But people aren't as dumb as you think, and
can see with their own eyes how you misrepresented everything she said and then
tried to weasel out of it after I called your bluff.
I'm still waiting for you to engage that mind of yours "that has been trained
by long experience to apply the principles of critical thinking naturally" to
come up with a reason why the names you leveled at Ms. Piczek shouldn't more
appropriately be applied to you, and for that matter, why anyone should believe
a word you say.
Bob Haroldsen
Bobbycindi
to let everybody who hasn't seen what you said about Ms. Piczek, see how it
matches up with what she really said.
Here's you:
"One thing that makes pseudoscience 'pseudo', though, is that the ideas are not
reality tested. The only implication that matters is how to bend the evidence
to fit their a priori conclusions, even if it is otherwise absurd. Any evidence
that can't be explained away in this fashion is either ignored or denied."
As an example of a pseudoscientific approach to the evidence of paint on the
Shroud, take Isabel Piczek's ad hoc rationalization
(http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm). She claimed, without a bit of supporting
evidence, of course, that the paint comes from people who were allowed to
contaminate the holy relic by rubbing their painted copies against it."
Now, here's what Ms. Piczek had to say:
"From the excellent studies of Don Luigi Fossati, S.D.B. of Turin, we know that
the Shroud image, -through the centuries was copied many times by painters.
Fifty-two of these are known. These copies, according to the finds of Fossati,
were laid down on the Shroud for "authentification" of the copy."
Additionally:
"It took a professional artist such as myself to prove that this suggestion was
absolutely true. 3" x 3" test pieces were used made of home spun Belgian linen.
These test pieces were painted with art historic techniques used in early
Christian, Byzantine and medieval times, also some renaissance and baroque
techniques. The paints used were a yellow oxide, a calcined iron oxide, and
vermilion. The painted samples, after the paints dried well on them, were
touched to clean samples and were photomicrographed. The tests proved with
great precision what Don Fossati and Mr. Maloney suggested. Particles of paint
indeed were passed from the painted samples onto the clean samples, thus
lending to a reasonable proof that painted "true copies" of the Shroud are most
likely responsible for the paint particles on the Shroud."
Here's you explaining Isabel's idea of how the cloth was handled:
"She then has to make several additional ad hoc assumptions to cover the gaping
holes in this one. E,g. somehow they *always* managed to rub their copies so
that the painted image rubbed against the Shroud image, and painted blood
rubbed against the Shroud blood. That's necessary to keep the chemical
compositions of the samples distinct, as noted above. Then the Shroud had to
always be folded VE-R-R-R-Y CAREFULLY so that the flakes of paint that so
easily lept from the copies to the original didn't accidentally migrate to the
wrong part of the Shroud."
Here's what she really said:
"The Shroud was folded and refolded, rolled, exhibited, carried, exposed to sun
and handled. All medieval convertable mediums require the use of a rigid
support to paint on. The Shroud is not a rigid support. If a convertable paint
medium would have been used on it, it would have long ago lost it's binding
power, and the medium and pigment would have fallen off as dust, destroying the
image entirely. Whatever dust of either materials would have remained on it's
surface would have to be dispersed all over the cloth and would not have
accumulated logically in the image areas. This excludes that the red color,
making the wounds, is vermilion."
This was of course the posting in which you called Ms. Piczek a
"pseudoscientific crackpot" a "parodist" and a "buffoon." I'll let you now
demonstrate how you tried to weasel out of this starting with your explanation
of exactly why her experiments were deficient.
Bobbycindi
true.
It would be absolutely inconceivable that there would not be microscopic
particles of paint on the Shroud. As was pointed out, even during the 120 hour
STURP examination, particles could on occasion be seen floating down from the
ceiling where a huge freso was to be seen. Also, it is known that artists have
made many copies of the Shroud. As we have seen, Isabel Piczek has cited
evidence that paintings were perhaps even placed directly on the Shroud. Either
way, it is a moot point. STURP established beyond a shadow of a doubt that any
particulate matter on the cloth is far too dispersed to account for its image.
This is what optical physicist Samuel Pellicori from the Santa Barbara Research
Center had to say in a paper entitled "The Shroud Through the Microscope." The
publication is: Archaeology 1981/ Jan-Feb pages 32-43. Other papers by
Pellicori include "Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Turin" Applied Optics,
vol. 19 no. 12 15 June 1980, pp. 1913-1920. Also, "Potable Unit Permits UV/V
in Study of Shroud." Industrial Research and Development, Feb 1981, pp.
186-189
"A more serious challenge, if only for the amount of publicity it has
received, has been directed to our findings by Chicago photomicroscopist,
Walter McCrone of McCrone Associates. While not a participant at Turin, he
analyzed some of the fibrals pulled off the surface by adhesive tape. In brief,
McCrone says that he detected the presence of red orchre- a pigment containing
iron oxide and as with all paints, a binder- on tiny fibrials of the Shroud.
This would indicate that the image was painted on, and in other words, is a
deliberate forgery. Forewarned of these charges, the Turin research team made
extensive highly sophisticated microchemial tests conducted by Alan Adler of
Western Connecticut State college that has detected no pigments or binders for
pigments of any kind to a level of less than millionths of a gram; the traces
of iron ioxide that were found, on the other hand, were so slight, as to be
invisible to the naked eye. FURTHER, THEY WERE NO MORE ABUNDANT IN THE IMAGE
AREAS THAN IN THE NON-IMAGE AREAS. But McCrone insists that tiny colored
particles can be seen at magnifcations of several hundred. The argument is
almost besides the point. The particles can't be seen with the naked eye. But
the body image on the Shroud is visible to the naked eye AND PAINT PIGMENT IS
CLEARLY NOT THE REASON.
The Shroud image is far too subtle for such heavy-handed explanations as the
red-ochre or hot statue theories. When examined under a wide range of
wavelengths from the near ultraviolet or blue light to the red visible, the
Shroud body image consistently and exclusively reflects light of the same
distinctive straw-yellow tone, with reflectance diminishing toward the shorter
blue wavelengths. When subjected to ultravilolet radiation the body image
neither reflects nor fluoresces: in significant contrast to the scorch marks.
The resemblance of light scorches to the body image is therefore only
superficial. Pyrolysis or chemical decomposition by fire brought about the same
surface degradation of the cellulose, and left some by-products apart from the
burned and areas but these effects were undoubtedly the result of the 1532
fire.
THE SHROUD IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF A CLEVER MEDIAEVAL ARTIST. And now we have
some firm and generally agreed upon evidence about what caused this hauntingly
mysterious image- the accelerated structural degeneration of cellulose fibrals
as a result of natural, chemically induced molecular changes in the material."
I would point out here, that the chemical structure of the cellulose can also
be altered by the application radiation. The work of Dr. Kittle Little has
shown that the same straw-yellow color was produced when she irradiated piece
of linen at the Harwell Nuclear Facities in England. For infromation on this,
see www.shroud.com. (The British Newletter section.)
Bob Haroldsen
Bobbycindi
of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco byTW Case. Dr. Adler published the
following papers on the Shroud: "A Chemical Invetigation of the Shroud of
Turin," Canadian Society for Forensic Science Journal, vol. 14, No 3, 1981.
Also, "Blood on the Shroud of Turin" Applied Optics, vol. 19, no 16,14 August
1980, pp. 2742- 2744.
"We pointed out that yes, we saw what Walter claimed he saw. We saw iron oxide,
we saw one piece of vermillion, we saw protein. We also saw red particles that
weren't iron oxide. We might as well deal with that right now. The red we saw
was blood, and it was in the blood tape samples from Turin; the only places we
saw iron oxide was in the water stain areas and in blood scorch areas. And our
explanation is, when you burn blood you get iron oxide- it contains iron.
We gave a mechanism why the iron should be expected to be found in the water
stain areas. Because the iron is bound to this type of retted linen, and water
from the dousing the fre formed iron oxide by a series of simple reactions- and
we tested it by experiment, and found it was the only way to explain the
presence of iron inside the lumen of the fibers.
The vermillion is easily explained. We only saw it once; McCrone maybe saw it
once too. But we know that there were artists who painted reproductions of the
Shroud; we discovered, talking to Shroud scholars and in some books on the
Shroud, that very frequently these artists sanctified their paintings by
pressing them up against the original. And so we wouldn't be surprised to find
the artists pigments on the Shroud, which he claimed he saw, and we saw some
also. But that doesn't prove it's everywhere.
ON THE OTHER HAND, X-RAY RESULTS MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IN FACT THE BLOOD
CAN'T BE COMPOSED OF MECURIC SULFIDE. And the reason is very simple. If you've
ever seen an X-ray of tooth fillings, the mercury stands out. You can't "see"
the blood in the X-rays. If the blood were one third cinnabar like McCrone
claims, the mercuy would show up on the X-ray studies and it didn't.
As to the gelatin, we ran some very sensitive tests for proteins- and we found
out that we could not detect any proteins in the image area. The only place we
could detect protein was in the blood areas. McCrone claims it's in the image
area, on the basis of microscopic observations- and so it's not up to us to
answer him. It's up to him to answer us, in a certain sense. We simply asked
and tested more questions than he did.
If there were proteins in the image area- you can actally see amide 1,2,3 bands
in the infrared of the blood areas; you don't see the infrared of the image
area. And so while there are poor quality spectra, the macroscopic data is in
agreement with the microscopic data. Ours, not his.
Bobbycindi
cannot be maintained. It flies not only in the face of the evidence, but common
sense too. It is inconceivable to me that a team of scientists from the best
labs in the country, using every available means to image the Shroud and test
it chemically, would not have had the where-with-all to determine this.
It is known that the Shroud has been handled, mishandled, rolled and unrolled
countless time. It's been through fires, had water thrown on it and been
exposed to untold kinds of contamination. And yet its high-resolution
dimensionally-encoded photonegative image endures. No painting could do this.
As Piczek pointed out, binders wear out and pigments flake off as dust- even on
paintings which endure nothing of what the Shroud has been through.
How incredibly naive to pretend that of all the paintings in the world, one of
them would be impossible to duplicate. The skepitcs have strived mightily to
reproduce the Shroud, but their efforts only lend support to the fact that the
haunting image on this ancient blood-covered burial cloth is not man made, but
rather the anatomically perfect image of a real man. Some may capture one
aspect of the image (and always just the face), and yet invariably there are a
dozen others they cannot. Certainly none of them can begin to capture sheer
power and majesty of the face that is only seen in the negative.
Whereas any artistic work presents only a stylized rendering, the Shroud
appears to be a photograph of some kind- but not like one anybody as ever seen
before. There is absolutley no doubt in my mind that if the skeptics insist on
explaining the Shroud as a man made artifact, they would do well to concentrate
on the idea that we have with the Shroud evidence that an "early photographer"
was at work. Yet the problems here seem insurmountable too.
Bobbycindi
"positive facts" and covered some other things he said somewhere else. But your
questions are wholly valid so here you go.
Gove, as you know, is the invertor of the AMS (accelerator mass spectrometry)
radiocarbon-dating method that was used on the Shroud in 1988. He was all but
certain the carbon dating of the Shroud was accurate until Garza-Valdes came up
with the idea that the threads on the Shroud were heavily contaminated by the
so called bioplastic coating. Gove, who incidentally didn't care much for
STURP, is convinced that Garza-Valdes is on to something. If I'm not mistaken
he is even working in concert with Steven Mattingly on figureing out how to
separate the coating from original Shroud material.
I wasn't too sold myself on the idea of the coating, but Steven Mattingly has
made me think that there is something to it afterall. He points out that the
coatings are not something the physicists were aware of, and also that the
method used for cleaning the Shroud wouldn't begin to remove it. Also, he
points out that it can contribute to the mass of its host far more than people
realize- especially something as porous as linen. (We're talking 50-60 percent
or more)
As it turns out, the coating may in fact be responsible for other anomolus
carbon dating errors. In a pilot experiment using the mummy of an ancient
Egyptian ibis, Garza-Valdes first studied the microbiological film coating the
mummies wrappings. Noting that this was SIGNIFICANTLY thinner than that be
found on the Shroud, he predicted that in any radiocarbon dating the
discrepancy between the mummy body and its wrapping likely to be around five
hundred years. When the mummy and its wrappings were independantly radiocarbon
dated the reading for the wrapping proved to be 550 years younger than that for
the mummy. (I got this from Barrie Schwortz and Ian Wilson's new book The Turin
Shroud the Illustrated evidence.)
In the video I was referring to (called In Pursuit of the Shroud which you can
order from www.tlc.com) Gove can be heard saying that the bioplastic coating is
something the guys who did the dating were not aware of, nor would the cleaning
proceedures have "taken care of it" even had they been.
As for Mattingly, he's no "shroudie" like yours truly, but he insists that
based on his analysis of the threads from the Shroud, they are heavily
contaminated and that once the Shroud is dated properly its date will change
"dramatically." He does not say by exactly how much. Valdes seems to think it
will indeed go back to the first century.
As for me, I'm kind of hoping it doesn't! (I bet you never thought you'd hear
me say that!) I'm convinced the Shroud image came about due to a burst of
radiation. What's interesting is that if this is correct, there is every reason
to believe that such an event would have created more carbon 14 isotopes and
thereby caused the Shroud to look younger than it is when carbon dated.
Nuclear physics is a bit above my level, but Dr. Kitty Little, who irradiated
pieces of linen in a low power reactor and noticed the chemical changes it
brought about in the cellulose, explains exactly how and why this would happen.
You can find her ideas in Barrie's website in the British news letter section.
As for the distortion dilemma once again, I would point out that if one is to
go out on a limb and assume that the body of Christ generated a burst of
energy, accounting for the necessary flattened cloth is not the biggy. I truly
find it ironic that I actually wondered if maybe there were two individuals in
the tomb with Jesus (specifically to flatten the cloth) before I read that they
actually were. I know it's not "scientific" but it works.
As for the whole idea that miracles are not "allowed" to explain the Shroud, I
would say that the Shroud IN AND OF ITSELF pretty much constitues a miracle.
After all, it seems to have you pretty intrigued! Is there any other cloth in
the world that can do that?
Bob
Bobbycindi
from "no way" to maybe, or "absolutely positive" to "might change the date
dramatically." Gove used the term "no way." (As in no way they could have come
up with an accurate date.) Mattingly said, and I quote, "I promise you that
the presence of the biofilm (once removed) will dramatically change the date of
the radiocarbon date." Nobody is making any promises of just how much the date
will change.
As for your other points, I think the methodology you have purposed sounds
pretty good, but I don't know why either Gove or Mattingly would be against
getting to the truth. As I said earlier, I worry that if the biofilm takes the
Shroud back to the first century, then maybe the Shroud is too old! (For the
reason that I believe the date was already altered by a burst of radiation.)
I honestly don't know if folks can ever be sure they've come up with a
definitive date for the Shroud.
I have one more thought to leave you with and it's something I'm not sure
you've thought about. It's something on the order of what happened in the movie
"Oh God." It was when George Burns (God) walked up to the front of the court
room to take the stand, raised his hand and said "If it please the court, and
even if it doesn't please the court, I'm God your honor." What I'm suggesting
is the possiblity that, like it or not, the Shroud is real because Jesus was
exactly who he said he was.
Bob
Bobbycindi
with Bob Bucklin's. He's one of a number of pathologists who don't seem to
understand that they can't see that the man of the Shroud is in a state of
rigor mortis. Bucklin has perfomed autopsies on over 25,000 bodies and studied
the Shroud for about 40 years. Here's two paragraphs from his "An Autopsy on
the man of the Shroud.
"The full body imprint, front and back, together with the individual
characteristics of blood stains on the cloth, which represent specific types of
injury, make it quite feasible for an experienced forensic pathologist to
approach the examination of the Shroud image as would a medical examiner
performing an autopsy on a person who has died under unnatural circumstances.
It is the aim of this presentation to replicate such an autopsy examination
using the image on the Shroud to delineate truamatic findings and to interpret
the cause and the results of those injuries, as well as to present the most
reasonable and probable cause for the death of the individual whose image is on
the Shroud of Turin.
The first step in such an examination is to document physical features of the
victim as accurately as possible. In the case of the image on the Shroud, it
can be stated that the deceased person is an adult male measuring 71 from crown
to heel and weighing an estimated 175 pounds. THE BODY SRUCTURE IS ANATOMICALLY
NORMAL, representing a well-developed and well nourished individual with
clearly identified head, trunk and extemities. THE BODY APPEARS TO BE IN A
STATE RIGOR MORTIS WHICH IS EVIDENCED BY AN OVERALL STIFFNESS AS WELL AS
SPECIFIC ALTERATIONS IN THE APPEARANCE OF THE LOWER EXTEMITIES FROM THE
POSTERIOR ASPECT. The imprint of the right calf is much more distinct than that
of the left indicating that at the time of death the left leg was rotated in
such a way that the sole of the left foot rested on the ventral surface of the
right foot with resultant slight flexon of the left knee. THAT POSITION WAS
MAINTAINED AFTER THE RIGOR MORTIS HAD DEVELOPED."
Bucklin's autopsy continues for two pages, detailing every detail of the man
who was "folded bent and twisted." You can find this, along with other papers
by pathologists in Barrie's website.
As for Baden, I found this reference to him in William Meacham's paper "The
Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology."
(In his reply to the skeptics) "Cole and Mueller challenge my statement on the
unanimity of medical opinion.Obviously, this was not intended to include every
doctor or biologist who has seen a snapshot of the Shroud and formed an
opinion. Badnens' remarks are repeated in no fewer than four comments, but he
is a lone sniper laying siege to a fortified city. Regardless of his prestige,
his opinions appear off the cuff. He has not seen the Shroud, nor does he
appear to be familiar with vast medical literature or to have been in contact
with other scholars; he has not published on the subject; he is said to be
"something of an iconoclast" (Bucklin in Rhein 1980:50); his opinions were
given on the basis of magazine photographs; he cites the fact that linen sheets
in his morgue had never developed an imprint like the Shroud's which was termed
"too good to be true." This is not to say that Baden may not have something
useful to contribute to Shroud studies, BUT THE FACT THAT SKEPTICS QUOTE HIM AT
THIS STAGE DEMONSTRATES THEIR DESPERATION IN THE MEDICAL ARENA."
Bob Haroldsen
Bobbycindi
Turin, I would point out as did Barrie, that the place to turn is the
peer-reviewed papers which I've already listed. (Applied Optics and Canadian
Forensic Society Scientific Journal) But I did find a few interesting comments
from William Meacham that mention your mentor Joe Nickell.
The evidence for blood is a point of empirical data on which the skeptics
reveal the weakness of their position and methods. Nickell quotes the
unpublished opinion of "forensic expert"; Fisher to the effect that the
chemical tests were not specific for blood; McCrone claims that his work
(published in his own magazine) shows no blood. But according to the work of
Heller (Professor of Life Sciences at the New England Institute), Adler
(Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut) and Bollone (Professor of Legal
Medicine at Turin University) - all published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals- "there is NOTHING else on earth which could give this battery of
positive criteria other than blood." (Heller, personal communicaton, 1982.)
CLAIMS THAT FALSE POSITIVES COULD BE OBTAINED FROM A TEMPERA PAINT ARE
UNDEMONSTRATED AND INCORRECT. Nickell counterposes the Commission's "highly
sophisticated tests" - really quite standard forensic tests, apart from neutron
activation, which Nickell wrongly assumes to have a bearing on the
identification of blood. In his use of their data, Nickell ignores the
conclusions of the Commission experts that "generic and specific diagnoses of
blood on material of a very ancient date...can have a real probative value only
with a positve result" and that their negative finding "does NOT allow us to
make an ABSOLUTE judgement on the exclusion of haematic remains" (Frache,
Rizzatti, and Mari 1976:51, 54, emphisis in the original translation mine). In
view of the positive microchemical evidence for blood and the positive
identification of the blood as primate by both Bollone and Adler (personal
communication 1983) THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD TRACES ON THE SHROUD MUST BE
CONSIDERED AS PROVEN. And, as Maloney points out, there is now strong evidence
(Jumper et. al. 1983) that the bloodstains were on the cloth prior to the body
image. Finally, ultraviolet fluorescence and microchemical identification of
serum albumin in the clear areas within the blood flows provide conclusive
evidence that the bloodstains on the Shroud derive from direct contact with the
corpse and not from an artists brush.
Bob Haroldsen
Trenton G. Twining
>
> OK...we have now moved from "no way" to maybe this biofilm suff has
> merit and from "absolutely positive" to it might change the date
> "dramatically".
>
You don't "win" a real scientific discussion with [dubious] debate
techniques. The truth is not subject to a score. This approach of
shifting statements around to make it appear to those paying
insufficient attention, that Bob is changing his tune, may satisfy some
need in you. But it has no effect on the facts.
The people he quoted earlier gave the same data whether in Bob's quotes
or his earlier paraphrasing. There are three different people offering
data here; each at a different confidence level and precision. In the
typical inverse relationship: increasing confidence/decreasing
precision. Professor Gove, the most confident simply said "no way"
(high confidence) the date could be accurate (low precision). As the
originator of the dating technique, his conclusion bears a good deal
more weight than that of the populace a large. Professor Mattingly's
analysis was simply that after stripping the bioplastic film he was
confident (med. high confidence) the date would be much earlier (med.
low precision). Mattingly is the head of the UT San Antonio
microbiology dept., also pretty fair credentials. Only to Dr.
Garza-Valdez*1 have I heard attributed an estimated date that "could be
as early as 1st cent." (med. low confidence/med. high precision).
The bioplastic film is readily visible under magnification after
staining (a normal microscopic technique to provide contrast between
subjects w/differing composition). Prof. Grove was able to see it for
himself. This is what brought him from firmly convinced of the accuracy
of the C-14 test, to the declaration that those tests were not
accurate. And reportedly to trying to work out a reliable protocol for
eliminating error due to bioplastic films. Doing so would advance all
results based on his previous work. Shroud or no Shroud.
> McCrone, at least,
> presented a simple figure in his book that showed how much
> contamination would be required...and it was quite a bit! Do we even
> know what the composition of this putative "biofilm" is?
>
The bioplastic film formed by the dead husks of bacteria is a well
documented phenomenon. A similar process is in fact used industrially
to create biodegradable plastics. Objects which are perennially handled
by people, often get coated with such a film (sebum serves as food to
the bacteria). There exist other examples than the mummy linens already
offered by Bob. Rocks, and metallic objects that have no biological
component (therefor no means of acquiring C-14) have had recent C-14
dates ascribed to them due to the coating. It's one of the reasons that
places on old walls, hand rails, hand-tools and other points people
touch get shiny over time. Only partly is it polishing. The other part
is the fineness of the bacterial skeleton coating filling in surface
irregularities. There's no "putative" about it. What is subject to
determination is the degree of error imparted on C-14 dates of any item
with a bioplastic coating.
> Why didn't it
> interfere with any of these other super-sensitive techniques? Should
> it have? Can we test for blood through "tons" of boiofilm? If the
> Shroud was folded, was more "biofilm" added to the exposed area (the
> face you claim?)
>
If you're serious about asking this question, rather than making another
rhetorical point, I'll offer an explanation. But I'd like to know the
nature of your doctorate. The first half of my college training was
chemistry, so I may be better grounded than many PhDs of other
disciplines. But I do not expect to explain fractional concentrations
to an MD.
C-14 dating being based on precise determination of the concentration of
C-14, assumes that concentration in the terrestrial atmosphere has been
(relatively) constant throughout time. It is also based on another
assumption, one I find somewhat more reasonable. That being that
nuclear decay of Carbon (C-14 half-life) has been constant throughout
time. Having living carbon based life forms constantly added to a
sample will continuously add new C-14; moving the date ever later.
Since the C-14 concentration is/was derived by isolating the Carbon, and
obtaining an atomic mass for the aggregate of Carbon atoms, all Carbon
in the sample is included. If the sample includes bacteria that died
during combustion of the sample, their little contribution will have
C-14 dates of today. If the bacterial mass is as great as that of the
ancient, frozen and perfectly preserved dinosaur brain we're dating, the
result will be a date on the order of half its true age.
But testing simply for the presence of blood components is not
necessarily invalidated by the addition of contamination. Forensic
blood testing is normally conducted on media that _are_ contamination.
Clothing, hair, floors with dirt, dead skin cells, other body fluids,
etc. Not to mention that from the gross (large, not icky) sample taken
of blood, cellular components large enough to extract human, male DNA
were obtained (see previously offered cites for Center for Advanced DNA
Technology blood work).
> no "out on a limb" miracles allowed.
>
And just what entitles you to make this stipulation? Are you claiming
that you personally hold in low esteem, as pseudo-science, _all_
theories that require a miracle? If you do, you have very few left to
choose from. And you're in sparse company. Darwinian evolutionary
theory requires a few miracles for the initial generation of life and
the generation of each new species. Quantum mechanics has progressed
evidentially (to the satisfaction of myself and many others) beyond the
theory stage; but it not only still requires miracles, it predicts them
accurately. The predominant cosmological theories stipulate at least
one miracle. So science at large does not share your fastidiousness.
Again you seem to have a mistaken impression of scientific method.
Stipulating miracles is part and particle with scientific theories.
When Newton described gravitation, he didn't understand how it worked.
He observed that it did. But the how/why were observed miracles. Last
I knew, this is still the state of gravitational theory (although I'll
admit to being out of date by 18 years or so).
You seem skilled at debate. But before you can _contribute_ much to a
debate on the merits of Shroud theories, you need to be better
grounded. The bioplastic coating is an egregious example. And your
snide tone does you no credit nor credibility. You appear to dismiss,
without investigating the merits of, any theory that includes
authenticity. The true scientific approach is to discard only theories
which are repudiated by facts. Not those for which some set of facts
are unexplained. So far, the only popular artifact theory that appears
to hold a scintilla of water, is the early photography sheaf of
theories. I'm also trying out some wrinkles on the old "hot statue"*
sheaf of theories. However implausible, however many facts they leave
unexplained, and miraculous assumptions they make; they are not
exploded. Nor are some of the authenticity theories. The painting
theories are.
*1 fuzzy recollection. Dr. G-Z did say something very much like "it
could be as early as 1st century" didn't he? I cannot recover the cite
and it may have been on a video taped interview that I saw/heard this.
*2 wouldn't be a statue; more like a bas relief on a column, heated and
rolled over the linen. Rolling instead of wrapping is why image density
varies; only portions getting the full weight of the roller get the full
brunt of the heat treat (nose, beard, etc.). All the images, including
flowers, etc. would be on the relief. The blood stains protect the
linen from imaging. The linen, being the real Mandylion, would have the
real Blood (which is why it matches the Sudarium) soaking it; real
Jerusalem granite embedded in it; and real Jerusalem pollen in it. This
idea occurred to me when I read the BEPO experimental results. They
seem a lot like polymerization under heat to me. And the image would
have been put there not to fool anybody, but to label the cloth for what
it was believed to be.
Trenton G. Twining
>
> But you must concede
> that the miracle of having two angels holding flat half of a piece of
> linen for the purpose of avoiding distortion while waiting for an
> image to be "photographed" is not in the usual scientific method.
>
Yes, I'll concede that. However, that doesn't thereby make the
proposition false.
> This
> flattening is the problem. This problem disappears when an artist
> rendering is considered as a possibility, even if it takes a miracle
> to understand how the artist did it, ala your Newtonian analogy.
>
Again we agree here. All I've been saying is that the Shroud, whether
divinely or humanly constructed, is miraculous. Perhaps I've misread
you when I took you to be contesting that stance. If so, my apologies.
> The
> fact remains that there has been no scientific explanation from the
> scientists who have studied this thing for how this linen could have
> been flattened were it the burial cloth of anyone, Jesus or otherwise.
>
The flattening isn't hard; it need not have been entirely flat. Just
mostly flat. And again, if the imaging agent were coherent rather than
radiant, I don't think it need be any flatter than it would be draped
over the body, and weighted at the corners (the Jackson Drape). The
assumption made in saying the image was made on a flat cloth assumes a
radiant imaging agent. But a coherent imaging agent would shave off on
the order of .5cm from the width of the image as compared to the model.
Even the head and legs (the areas most strongly affected by this
distortion) would bear that without appearing abnormal.
And I've thought of an experiment to prove it. Here it is: get a Ken
doll. Place Ken on his back on a glass topped table. Place a lamp
under the table. Place a thin linen cloth (large handkerchief will do)
over Ken, then weight all four corners well enough that the cloth is
taut. Turn on the lamp. Ken's shadow image will be only slightly
narrowed in relationship to Ken's actual form. After just conducting
this experiment, using a posable Spiderman figurine that was handy, I
find that even without pulling the cloth taut, very little distortion is
introduced. The transmitted shadow, as you'll see no later than while
conducting this little experiment, is exactly analogous to the image
formed by a coherent imaging agent.
The gross distortion you're missing, assumes the body is the source of a
radiant imaging agent. If the body is not the source of the imaging
agent, or if the imaging agent is very directional (coherent) no gross
distortion is to be expected; only a fairly subtle distortion. Subtle
enough that one would require biometric techniques to distinguish a
distorted from undistorted images.
BTW: Although I have taught at two colleges, and was offered employment
in teaching capacities at one of those and a third, I was not offered a
professorship. And in any case did not accept (I would love to when I
retire, can't afford to now). I didn't want the attribution to stand
w/out registering my protest.
BTW2: I must compliment you on an improvement in the tone of this
latest post (professorship granting aside).
Bobbycindi
just the required "optical flattening" such as: if the man's legs were bent
(and clearly they are) then how on earth did the cloth he was lying on manage
to soak up blood from the backs of his legs? That is to say, the back of the
man's legs weren't in contact with the cloth, and yet one can see blood on the
cloth corresponding to just this area.
One possible answer to this can be found in a book called The Resurrection of
the Shroud by Mark Antonacci. It's referred to as the "Historically Consistent
Method" and you'l be happy to hear that it involves no angels. But it's not in
any peer-reviewed papers (that I know about) just so you know!
It involves the idea that radioactive "illumination" is combined with
"cloth-collapse" from the dematerialization of the body. Here's what Antonacci
says about this notion.
"Further, if this radioactive illumination is combined with the cloth-colapse
theory, it would explain all the body and other secondary image features
encoded on the Shroud. It would also account for marks which have never been
adequately or completely explained before."
Antonicci goes on to explain how as the atomic structure of the atoms of the
body came apart, particles are released marking the cloth as it falls through
the body.
"The parts of the draped cloth that were closest to the body would have been
the locations over the highest parts of the supine body. They would have fallen
through the radiating body region longer than the other parts of the cloth. The
next closest parts of the cloth would have recieved not quite so much radiation
as the closest parts, and so on. Yet even parts of the cloth that were not
origianlly touching the body would have fallen into the radiating body region
and recieved some radiation. Thus, a perfectly encoded, three dimensional
frontal body image would have developed.
The directionality of the image would have been a straight-line vertical
direction from each point of the draped cloth to each part of the body
immediately below it. Gravity would naturally encode this feature of the
frontal body image."
He goes on to explain that the blood would have been "captured" (my word) in
the cloth in such a way as to be embeded in the fibrals and yet also be a
perfect mirror image of the wounds, which is what is seen on the Shroud. He
also claims that this method gives rise to the straw-yellow markings due to
radiation released, and in addition, explain subtle image "blurring" due to
motion of the cloth as it fell through the body and a bunch of other things.
If this sounds more "scientific" than my angels, and is something you'd be
interested in learning more about, then you might want to see if you can get a
copy of his book. I tend to think it sounds better too, and have decided that
perhaps the angels being in the tomb for the sole purpose of flattening the
cloth may not be the case.( As you'l recall, I have stated before that my
"angel" theory might well be wrong.)
My guess is, however, that the individuals reported in the tomb were still
there to serve some purpose, and I still think it was no coincidence that they
were at the foot and head of "where the body of Jesus had lain."
Bob
Bobbycindi
the Shroud is what it looks like (a cloth bearing the actual image of Jesus as
he lay in his tomb- and I think it is) then, ultimately, trying to explain it
would perhaps be about as easy as coming up with a scientific explanation of
how Jesus walked on water or raised the dead. That is to say, we may never know
the answer. I realize this may not be acceptable scientifically, but as I said
before, we may have no choice in the matter.
That doesn't mean for one minute we shouldn't try to solve the mystery, and you
are to be commended for working to this end. I for one will likely study the
Shroud for the rest of my life. I agree with Trenton that if it should ever be
shown that this most amazing artifact was made by the hand of man and not
divinely wrought, I could only conclude that, whoever he was, he worked a
miracle.
Bob
Chris Cunningham
Bobbycindi wrote:
[snip]
>
> In the video I was referring to (called In Pursuit of the Shroud which you can
> order from www.tlc.com) Gove can be heard saying that the bioplastic coating is
> something the guys who did the dating were not aware of, nor would the cleaning
> proceedures have "taken care of it" even had they been.
>
Ugh, Bob! Bob, Bob, Bob... The Learning Channel? I thought I'd
seen you mention this before, but didn't think this was one of your
sources. I have no problem accepting stuff from Ian Wilson, just as I
use stuff from Nickell...at least they're serious about their work. All
TLC and any other cable channel want are to make ratings. Let me pop
onto
my Dish Network and see what else is coming up on that scion of
intellectual
programming (I have watched that show, BTW):
"Street Hypnotist - A hypnotists unleashes his powers on an unsuspecting
public"
"Ghost Harbor - Apparition haunts Boston harbor; ghost lover; ghost
doctor"
Hmmm, not too bad. Only a couple of idiotic shows being passed off
as "educational." Ironically enough, they also have a show about
Houdini
exposing psychics. Nothing about UFOs tonight, though that's usually a
weeknight thing. Though I notice their sister station, Discovery, is
having an "Inside Area 51" show tonight.
Just a word of advice...let's _not_ use TV as a source of anything.
Gove may well have said "No way," but how do we know what else he said?
Sound biting and "choice" editing are infamous in shows like this. When
a producer wants to make something particularly juicy, he or she can
snip
out key parts to at least imply one thing when the person meant
something
entirely different.
--
Chris Cunningham
><NOTE: Remove the last 'o' from my e-mail to reply><
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"The best defense is to keep your conscience clean....
If you don't lose your integrity, you can't be had and you
can't be hurt"
--VADM James B. Stockdale, USN (ret.)
/|\ "Y GWIR YN ERBYN Y BYD"
Chris Cunningham
Bobbycindi wrote:
>
> Dr. Towe, as I'm sure you know, there are more problems with the Shroud than
> just the required "optical flattening" such as: if the man's legs were bent
> (and clearly they are) then how on earth did the cloth he was lying on manage
> to soak up blood from the backs of his legs? That is to say, the back of the
> man's legs weren't in contact with the cloth, and yet one can see blood on the
> cloth corresponding to just this area.
>
> One possible answer to this can be found in a book called The Resurrection of
> the Shroud by Mark Antonacci. It's referred to as the "Historically Consistent
> Method" and you'l be happy to hear that it involves no angels. But it's not in
> any peer-reviewed papers (that I know about) just so you know!
>
> It involves the idea that radioactive "illumination" is combined with
> "cloth-collapse" from the dematerialization of the body. Here's what Antonacci
> says about this notion.
>
> "Further, if this radioactive illumination is combined with the cloth-colapse
> theory, it would explain all the body and other secondary image features
> encoded on the Shroud. It would also account for marks which have never been
> adequately or completely explained before."
>
> Antonicci goes on to explain how as the atomic structure of the atoms of the
> body came apart, particles are released marking the cloth as it falls through
> the body.
>
Nah, I think I like the angels miracle better that this atomic
dissolution
miracle. But thanks to you and Antonacci, I'm now going to be picturing
Jesus
lying on the floor of a cave, covered in a cloth, saying "Beam me up,
God!"
And judging by where his hands were when it happened, I really don't
want to
think about where he kept his communicator.
Chris Cunningham
Bobbycindi wrote:
[snip]
> conclusions of the Commission experts that "generic and specific diagnoses of
> blood on material of a very ancient date...can have a real probative value only
> with a positve result" and that their negative finding "does NOT allow us to
> make an ABSOLUTE judgement on the exclusion of haematic remains" (Frache,
> Rizzatti, and Mari 1976:51, 54, emphisis in the original translation mine).
[snip]
In translation: No matter how many times tests say there's no blood,
you can't trust them because you can't absolutely prove a negative. But
if
we get even one hit, then it's absolute proof of the presence of blood.
Is
that about the sum of it?
Where was this quoted? I'd love to see the reference that says
that Nickell and his tests were wrong, and that you actually cannot get
a
positive hit for the tests Heller and Adler did in the presence of
artists
pigments and bases.
Bobbycindi
The Lysergic acid diethylamide Channel! That's right, old Gove was tripping out
pretty good. Barrie was too from what I could tell!
Bobbycindi
I'm still waiting to hop that plane to Houston to buy you that- sparkling water
sound ok? coke? root beer? Shirley Temple?
Bobbycindi
By the way, Weaver has now apparently concluded that the Shroud is both a
painting AND a photograph! Notice that when Trenton Twining pointed out that
there were to be found no particles of paint in the threads, Weaver referred
him to Nicholas Allen- the guy who claims the Shroud is a photograph!
When all else fails, and you can't explain the Shroud or duplicate it, there
remains only one thing to be done- simply claim otherwise! And point out too
that the Shroud's "oddity" has been exaggerated. Ask the reader to simply know
that there existed many other "true" shrouds- all apparently more or less equal
to the one in Turin. But he's not to ask to see any evidence of this because
they all mysteriously vanished and aren't avalible for inspection.
Above all, the reader is asked to pay no attention whatsoever to the huge
amount of peer-reviewd scientific evidence (the sort of thing the skeptics
normally believe in) but rather take a momentary glance at Nickell's "shroud"
(face only of course) and see how "trivial actually" making one really is.
That's right- it's actually trivial!!
Never mind that Nickell's "shroud" is made WITH the use of an added substance,
doesn't encode relief information, is not a high-resolution photo-negative
image but rather an incredibly stupid looking thing (makes me laugh ever time I
look at it) that displays all the characteristics of a hand-painted work of
art- one that ignores completely any pathological considerations such as
anatomically perfect bloody wounds. No, stage magician Joe Nickell has done it!
It must be a bummer that he has competition from such folks as Walter Sanford,
Emily Craig and Nicholas Allen. They all seem to have done it too!
Bob Haroldsen
Chris Cunningham
then. You weren't watching it while smoking that stash I
sent over, where you? That gives you an entirely different viewpoint
than what they intend...you've got to use what they're on to translate
it!
Ok, we're beginning to sound like a raver newsgroup, now. Do
ravers actually have newsgroups, I wonder?
--
Chris Cunningham
How about cream soda? Haven't had one of those in a while...
IBC, of course. I've first got to track down that reference Nickell
used. Hopefully today I'll take some time to look for it...spent
yesterday evening cheering on a friend of mine who was doing her first
solo bellydance routine. Being a bachelor, I'm afraid there are some
things that take precedence over even Shrouding :)
--
Bobbycindi
In fact I'd better go pay some attention to my wife before I find out she's the
belly dancer you went to see!!!
Bob
J. Swica
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010603104946...@ng-mc1.aol.com...
> With Weaver's "positive facts" #4 and #5, we see the smoke getting really
thin.
> By the way, Weaver has now apparently concluded that the Shroud is both a
> painting AND a photograph! Notice that when Trenton Twining pointed out
that
> there were to be found no particles of paint in the threads,
There should be little to no paint between the threads.McCrone's theory
allows only 2-3 Ugrams/Square. I posted this photo once before, so I'll post
it again. This is a somewhat dark image by the way. Fainter images are
still possible.Remember,this is a fresh image. I'm sure thru the course of
time particles would fall off producing an even fainter one.
Photo of a commercial iron oxide:
http://imagesoncloth.homestead.com/files/IronOXZide40X.jpg
This of course does not explain the yellow fibers,but atleast 'solves' the
iron oxide particle mystery...
Jerry
J. Swica
Found another photo.These were taken thru an eyepiece of a microscope at
40X..............
http://imagesoncloth.homestead.com/files/lightstain.jpg
The above photo was from a pseudo-hand image that was clearly visible to the
naked eye.
http://imagesoncloth.homestead.com/files/imagedry.jpg
I'm sure an artist out there would do much better.
Jerry
Bobbycindi
indeed interesting and similar to what's seen on the Shroud at first glance. I
don't "see" the Shroud image as a work of art for a number of reasons, but one
of them is that the image on the Shroud has actually been burned through in
areas with virtually no effect to the adjacent image. Also, it's had water
thrown on it with no sign of smearing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the image
you have provided is iron oxide in an organic vehicle of some type? If so, the
1532 fire likely would have caused it to discolor dramatically.
In addition, a work of art is "stylized." That is to say, as one looks closely,
he sees the hand of the artist at work- the image reveals a style. This is
abundantly clear with any and all efforts to duplicate the Shroud save for
Nicholas's effort. Here, one can see that the image is a high-resolution
photo-negative image. No style is revealed the closer one looks. I don't know
if Nicholas's image does this, but in the case of the Shroud, the image seems
to disappear all together when one gets within a few feet. I'd be willing to
bet Nicholas's doesn't.
Barrie posted an article by a guy who worked with Giuseppe (the 1931 Shroud
photographer) and has studied the image on the Shroud extensively. His name is
Guerreschi and he has stumbled across yet another thing the Shroud image will
do. It will, if both the negative and positive images are superimposed and
slightly off set from each other, generatate relief infromation similar to the
VP-8. In addition, it will actually generate new information as well. For
example one can see that the hair on the back of the man's head was not bound
in a pony tail afterall, but rather more loosely flowing. The image is also far
more beautiful than the VP-8 image. Superimposing two normal photorgraphs will
not do this.
I told a friend about this who didn't believe me. He went home and on his
computer gave it a try and said that sure enough, it worked. He seemed most
amazed. Maybe you could try it and let us know. I don't think my computer is up
to it.
Guerreschi makes some rather remarkable statements about the Shroud such as:
"I therefore had the good fortune to see the Shroud in close up for the whole
day; I can assure you that it was a very emotional experience and one which I
will try to transmit to you.
When this sheet was unrolled on a long table, all of the folds, scorch marks,
holes and patching emerged together with that almost imperceptible impression
and I realised that everything I had learned up to that point was worth nothing
or practically nothing; the image I thought I knew was not that one.
While photography has the advantage of fixing an image in time and of
concentrating it so that whichever angle you look at it from it remains the
same, with the Shroud itself that is not the case.
Moving around the table from a central angle I saw this image so faded as if to
practically disappear, while from others it seemed as if the figure were almost
outside the sheet, it was, I repeat, an incredible emotion. At that moment, I
knew that this image was unique. Let me tell you more...." (But you have to go
to www.Shroud.com to read the rest!)
Anyway, it's nice to hear from you. Bob
Bobbycindi
the Shroud and the "flow through." It was a test carried out by the Paolo
Soardo of the Galileo Ferraris Italian Institue last November in which a
scanner was introduced between the Shroud and it's linen lining.
What these "shrouders" wanted to see is if either image or blood could be seen
on the back side of the cloth. Of course, if the Shroud were a painting of some
kind one might expect to see image penetrate to the back side in places. And
this, of course, is NOT what they found. Instead, it was only the blood areas
that had penetrated through to the back side- exactly what STURP had conclued
in 1978.
This was a News Brief from Turin issued May 10, 2001. One can find it at
(http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0105/ZE010510.htm)
Bob Haroldsen
Bobbycindi
interesting, in light of the recent scanning of the back side of the cloth, to
note the following; (assuming he is still using a "powdered bas-relief
technique" this is one of the points about Nickell's attempt that Antonacci
makes in his book The Resurrecion of the Shroud.)
"Nickell contends that his powder-rubbing method produces a superficial image.
However, when STURP reproduced his experiment using linen with a herringbone
weave that simulates the Shroud's weave, LARGE QUANTITIES OF POWDER FELL
THROUGH THE WEAVE OF THE CLOTH AND ACCUMULATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE. Shroud
researcher and archeologist Paul Maloney even tried using a piece of linen with
a box weave, which is the tightest linen weave known, Maloney fouud that
powdered particles still penetrated through to the back of the cloth.
Obviously, Nickell's fails to meet the requirement of image superficiality."
Incidentally, in the Turin release about the scanning of the back side of the
Shroud, it said that both color and black and white photos will be made
available to researches and the public. I don't know when this will happen, but
if I find out I'll post it.
Bob Haroldsen
J. Swica
> "Nickell contends that his powder-rubbing method produces a superficial
image.
> However, when STURP reproduced his experiment using linen with a
herringbone
> weave that simulates the Shroud's weave, LARGE QUANTITIES OF POWDER FELL
> THROUGH THE WEAVE OF THE CLOTH AND ACCUMULATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE. Shroud
> researcher and archeologist Paul Maloney even tried using a piece of linen
with
> a box weave, which is the tightest linen weave known, Maloney fouud that
> powdered particles still penetrated through to the back of the cloth.
> Obviously, Nickell's fails to meet the requirement of image
superficiality."
Oh yes!!!That's why a water-based solution works much better. Did my photos
pass this test?????The image indeed penetrates no deeper than the first
fibril or two...Only if you try to douse the image with a thicker solution
would it penetrate deep into the threads.
Also each fibril is thinner than the hair on my head.
Jerry
J. Swica
> I
> don't "see" the Shroud image as a work of art for a number of reasons, but
one
> of them is that the image on the Shroud has actually been burned through
in
> areas with virtually no effect to the adjacent image. Also, it's had water
> thrown on it with no sign of smearing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the
image
> you have provided is iron oxide in an organic vehicle of some type? If
so, the
> 1532 fire likely would have caused it to discolor dramatically.
No binding agent was used in either sample. It only demonstrates the
distrubtion of fine iron oxide particles necessary to produce a very
superficial image. Notice how even in the first sample little to no bridging
of the tiny particles occur between fibrils.
I'm not sure what a fire would do to destroy(or enhance?) the image. I
have attempted to wash/scrub the image out. It works, but still leaves
behind the original, with no noticeable smearing. The image just gets
fainter.
I'd be interested myself in seeing some low-magnification(20X-50X) of the
shroud 'blood' areas surrounding the burn sections.Perhaps there is some
noticeable(expected) discoloring in those areas.
>
> In addition, a work of art is "stylized." That is to say, as one looks
closely,
> he sees the hand of the artist at work- the image reveals a style. This
is
> abundantly clear with any and all efforts to duplicate the Shroud save for
> Nicholas's effort. Here, one can see that the image is a high-resolution
> photo-negative image. No style is revealed the closer one looks. I don't
know
> if Nicholas's image does this, but in the case of the Shroud, the image
seems
> to disappear all together when one gets within a few feet. I'd be willing
to
> bet Nicholas's doesn't.
Images done in this 'style' appear more distinct the further you distance
yourself from them. Also direct lighting tends to hide the image.
As to what style category the shroud belongs to? Perhaps the artists can
argue amongst themselves on that one. This issue should have no bearing on
whether the shroud could be done as a painting or not.
Keep up the good work Bob......I continue to enjoy reading your
posts......
Jerry
Bobbycindi
concluded that the yellowing of the fibrals was not due to iron oxide but a
change in the structure of the cellulose. Adler and Heller found out after two
years of testing that diimide, a potent reducing agent, turned yellowed image
fibrals pure white. They concluded from this that what they had done was
essentially the reverse of whatever caused the fibrals to yellow in the first
place. I'm not a chemist so let me quote Adler during a discussion with Tom
Case. (The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco)
(First, let me state that they too found iron oxide on the Shroud, but
determined that it was concentrated in areas near the water stains and
determined that it had come from the rhetting process in producing the linen.)
(talking about the color of the fibrals) "When we say this yellow color is due
to a particular kind of chemical structure, we're not talking about a single
chemical compound. Cellulose is a polymer. And so we're saying that there are a
variety of chemical structures there, and there are several chemical paths that
produce the structure that we claim leads to the color. Now, the only thing
they've got all in common is, it's a whole series of different oxidative type
reactions. When you eventually oxidize cellulose you produce an acidic
structure. So, it's very logical that after the reaction goes for a bit, it's
going to be acid catalyzed. The reason we think it's oxidation is, no matter
how you get there, a reduction will reverse all of them."
Again, what is being said here is that the image on the Shroud seems to be
comprised of thousands of fibrals having undergone some kind of chemical
change.
The thing I think is important to realize is that people have figured out over
the years how to duplicate SOME of the characteristics of the Shroud but not
all. For example Emily Craig encoded her image with relief information by
copying what she saw on the Shroud, and then it was through a trail and error
effort and, I assume, with the use of a VP-8 image analyzer. But her image was
not a high-resolution photo-negative image. Rather, it was a powder-burnishing
that looked just like an artists rendering of a face that had been transfered
to a second cloth. In other words it looked exactly like what it was.
I think the image you have shown us is interesting. But the real trick is to
explain and duplicate ALL the features found on the Shroud, not just one. For
me, the single most spectacular thing about the image (aside from it's sheer
beauty) is the fact that it functions so beautifully as a photo negative. This
really stood out to me when I stood fifteen feet from the Shroud trying to
comprehend the significance of what I was looking at. The question is, how and
WHY would someone create a spectacular image in the negative when he had no way
of checking his work? It is a question that will not go away, and minimizing it
or ignoring it is not the way to proceed. (I'm not saying you're doing that by
the way!)
Anyway, I better tear myself loose as I have to get studied up for a test. Let
me know what you think!
Bob Haroldsen
Frank Weaver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <20010601075333...@ng-mc1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>"Positive fact #1" (McCrone identifies several pigments on his samples) This is
>true.
>
>It would be absolutely inconceivable that there would not be microscopic
>particles of paint on the Shroud. As was pointed out, even during the 120 hour
>STURP examination, particles could on occasion be seen floating down from the
>ceiling where a huge freso was to be seen.
Once again you failed to mention the inconvenient part: while a
number of pigments were found in very low concentration seemingly at
random, the more common ones were distributed in a highly regular way
around the shroud: vermilion ONLY on the 'blood' samples; iron ocher on
both 'blood' and image but concentrated on the latter; insignificant
amounts of any pigment on the blank areas.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how this magic pixie dust just
happened to float down to distribute its dust specks that way.
>Also, it is known that artists have
>made many copies of the Shroud. As we have seen, Isabel Piczek has cited
>evidence that paintings were perhaps even placed directly on the Shroud.
You did not address any of the reasons I gave why this scenario is
(a) pure speculation; (b) untenable; and (c) requires absurd behavior
on the part of medieval caretakers.
>Either way, it is a moot point.
>
>STURP established beyond a shadow of a doubt that any
>particulate matter on the cloth is far too dispersed to account for its image.
STURP 'determined' this from exactly the same tapes that McCrone
analyzed. However, as we both know, STURP 'determined' this only
AFTER refusing to allow McCrone to publish his findings because
they did not conform with their declarations of authenticity and AFTER
they booted McCrone for having the temerity to publish them anyway.
For a time STURP tried to maintain that there was no pigment on the
shroud. That so obviously wouldn't wash that we've got not one, but
two ridiculous excuses to explain it away.
Here's a question for you, Bob. Did the paint come from drifting
pixie dust or from flaky picture rubbing? Wouldn't there be WAY more
paint if both happened? Why or why not? How would you measure the
buildup in each case?
STURP and Piczek haven't bothered doing any of this. That's proof
positive that they're not doing anything that seriously resembles
science. They're making 'patter,' excuses for brushing inconvenient
evidence under the rug.
[snip]
>This would indicate that the image was painted on, and in other words, is a
>deliberate forgery. Forewarned of these charges, the Turin research team made
'Charges!' This is an open admission that STURP saw ANY evidence
of forgery as an attack on their cherished beliefs and ipso facto
unacceptable. If the evidence contradicts our miracle, the evidence
has to be 'adjusted', ehh?
[snip]
>I would point out here, that the chemical structure of the cellulose can also
>be altered by the application radiation. The work of Dr. Kittle Little has
>shown that the same straw-yellow color was produced when she irradiated piece
>of linen at the Harwell Nuclear Facities in England. For infromation on this,
>see www.shroud.com. (The British Newletter section.)
Has it occurred to you that a lot of things can degrade cellulose?
Does that matter? Why not?
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOxxqcKyjdWYzk1A5AQF2yAf/TLG3r2Fn2WNIFmhqG6iSc8WGUqFOZOcM
rWVQFpd5HTO8hXUhdrBzxlRPbuWGc9P9eUvDqnFjK5SOsSNAnKqbe1S7sDgwDVc9
Fe+xFrYbKLDVDC7TecaFk2vJMhuu1QaiglLLdKv2A2KdwdvxsC99LhCrfjOoQz5F
spLWNaITOQ1tDKx6Qu/tUh9G7U8SouqClvrwMXhptU1EeAjrlt6wr+YwKhX114Qd
4zMrqIUVu7wmAmK/KlNDo2hbk6obDLPSx41Hovm7gVHFbVkgn87eQH+X1Q3mrDp3
HGhnAuqhmCE24mUclRIPM+mPTyx1Z3Z7w/uIGlwZnTXukAlp4bnLzg==
=HAqx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20010601234348...@ng-ma1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Mr. Weaver, I think your "autopsy" of the man of the Shroud contrasts nicely
>with Bob Bucklin's. He's one of a number of pathologists who don't seem to
>understand that they can't see that the man of the Shroud is in a state of
>rigor mortis. Bucklin has perfomed autopsies on over 25,000 bodies and studied
>the Shroud for about 40 years. Here's two paragraphs from his "An Autopsy on
>the man of the Shroud.
"I totally agree with Dr. Baden that one can't see rigor mortis per
se. But you can see postural changes that are consistent with rigor."
-- Bucklin's direct response to Dr. Baden, Medical World News, Dec.
22 1980, (quoted from Nickell, p.69).
Since, in fact, a body can be locked in *any position* in rigor,
doesn't he mean that *any posture* is consistent with rigor mortis?
And if any posture is consistent with rigor, no posture is indicative
of rigor.
Methinks that Mr. Bucklin was caught saying things he may want to
believe but knows he cannot possibly defend in front of an audience
that knows better. He backpedaled.
[snip]
>STATE RIGOR MORTIS WHICH IS EVIDENCED BY AN OVERALL STIFFNESS AS WELL AS
As noted above, Bucklin admits that "stiffness" is not detectable by
an image alone.
>SPECIFIC ALTERATIONS IN THE APPEARANCE OF THE LOWER EXTEMITIES FROM THE
>POSTERIOR ASPECT.
Translation: reconstructions of the art work on the assumption that
it was a real body.
>The imprint of the right calf is much more distinct than that
>of the left indicating that at the time of death the left leg was rotated in
>such a way that the sole of the left foot rested on the ventral surface of the
>right foot with resultant slight flexon of the left knee. THAT POSITION WAS
>MAINTAINED AFTER THE RIGOR MORTIS HAD DEVELOPED."
The foot position is a conventional one in portrayals of the crucified
Christ.
[snip]
>As for Baden, I found this reference to him in William Meacham's paper "The
>Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology."
It comes as no surprise that ad hominem is Meacham's choice of rebuttal.
Dr. Baden, as a pathologist and medical examiner, clearly knows a
great deal more about bodies the he.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOxzLWayjdWYzk1A5AQG3bgf/Vipy/c+1YbgXLIGY76pCmsi7ryVk9/Jp
QiLVZKl3vkqbF1oLFxBUX8gZ4ben0LPKu1CdkwgBAIwPXh4GLz4yUmA4f1Je63md
g8Q2jBxAYdzzs/NnsQf577nbceWf1Pkx6IPw61wB3SUbr1ghlPia0NZoMv4Qwyz2
/f4I77dYFVzqYm2IMzBU93eBLO9mVUt98nTkxQlDxuItEt+DVRlPo21dqrT9LJEj
76sPb2NovGJyTv5PlL6iqCNqxHJpYzxzQI+nEVBvN3wXkJKNom9h/4q9HuqaJaP1
TN16zr6c5FWEUekB8Fd+EyuEf6QR2o3pVZsLXrNROro0VLs5+k8RRA==
=IKn9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <20010602002825...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>As for "positive fact's" # 2 and #3, which deal with the blood on the Shroud of
>Turin, I would point out as did Barrie, that the place to turn is the
>peer-reviewed papers which I've already listed. (Applied Optics and Canadian
>Forensic Society Scientific Journal)
These have been discredited.
>But I did find a few interesting comments
>from William Meacham that mention your mentor Joe Nickell.
>
>The evidence for blood is a point of empirical data on which the skeptics
>reveal the weakness of their position and methods. Nickell quotes the
>unpublished opinion of "forensic expert"; Fisher to the effect that the
>chemical tests were not specific for blood;
Here Meacham descends to blatant lying. John F. Fischer's paper was
presented to the International Society of Investigation Conference
1983. Conferences of thattype are as peer-reviewed and
peer-critiqued as one may wish, with an immediacy that print lacks.
>McCrone claims that his work
>(published in his own magazine) shows no blood. But according to the work of
>Heller (Professor of Life Sciences at the New England Institute), Adler
>(Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut) and Bollone (Professor of Legal
>Medicine at Turin University) - all published in peer-reviewed scientific
>journals- "there is NOTHING else on earth which could give this battery of
>positive criteria other than blood." (Heller, personal communicaton, 1982.)
Heller and Adler conducted some tests, collected some data, then ...
then they jumped to the conclusions they wanted. They ran some tests
for protein, then jumped to the conclusion it was blood protein.
They did some rather controversial tests for albumin, then refused to
consider the possibility that the albumin was from anything other than
serum, such as, oh, egg-based tempera. Some fluorescence spectra gave
signs of the presence of porphyrin, but ignored the fact that
porphyrins are found in everything from plant leaves to animal flesh.
What they did NOT do is one single test that is diagnostic of blood.
When their papers were published, they were quickly discredited for
three reasons. One was that leap of illogic. Another was making
failing to consider alternative interpretations supported by their
evidence, specifically tempera paint solution. The third was
deliberately ignoring evidence that contradicted their desired
conclusion.
Now, under the rules of of scientific engagement, Heller and Adler
were entitled to respond to their critics by defending their
deductions, or presenting new evidence to buttress them. Especially
effective would have been showing that some of the same blood-specific
tests conducted by Frache, Mari, Rizzati, Brandone, and Filogamo,
gave positive results.
They did none of that. Neither has any other shroud 'scientist.'
Propaganda from an apologist like Meacham -- especially one that
tells lies in the process -- is no substitute. In fact, it's proof
that their papers have become the chief apologies for the blood
doctrine.
You should perhaps review my answer to Barrie Schwortz concerning the
cold fusion chemists. Remember that they also published their paper
in peer-reviewed journals. Compared to Heller's and Adler's work,
it's actually more scientifically competent. At least they stuck to
the evidence they had, instead of fudging to get the answer they
wanted. Their paper was shot down only because they were slovenly
housekeepers. Heller and Adler were discredited for violating basic
standards of scientific honesty.
Oh, and Bollone? He claims to have identified antibodies specific to
blood (Shroud Spectrum International 6, March 1983). But he STILL
has not shown positive results in basic tests for blood. Assuming
discredited data to be true and failing to do the basics wouldn't pass
peer review in a legitimate scientific publication. Obviously, shroud
advocacy journals use a different standard.
>CLAIMS THAT FALSE POSITIVES COULD BE OBTAINED FROM A TEMPERA PAINT ARE
>UNDEMONSTRATED AND INCORRECT.
This is typical of why Meacham's propaganda is of no account. Be
it noted that John Fischer, as a professional expert in the
identification of bloodstains, is far more qualified on this question
than Heller, Adler, and Meacham combined.
>Nickell counterposes the Commission's "highly
>sophisticated tests" - really quite standard forensic tests, apart from neutron
>activation, which Nickell wrongly assumes to have a bearing on the
>identification of blood.
Be it noted that Professor Brandone disagrees. Be it further noted
that Nickell cites a forensic textbook (F. Lundquist, Methods of
Forensic Science, Vol 1" 1962). Meacham cites only his faith in the
miracle of the shroud.
[snip]
>with a positve result" and that their negative finding "does NOT allow us to
>make an ABSOLUTE judgement on the exclusion of haematic remains" (Frache,
>Rizzatti, and Mari 1976:51, 54, emphisis in the original translation mine).
Of course. This makes Heller's and Adler's unwillingness to
replicate these tests all the more suspicious.
Another line of evidence quite deliberately ignored by shroud
apologists is the highly unnatural ways the 'blood' flows. My God!
the gyrations Barbet goes through o try to explain away the way the
'blood' defies gravity! He has Jesus doing pullups on the cross!
If the blood on the arms dried in those odd directions, how did it
get transferred to the cloth? If it didn't dry, how could it flow
'uphill?'
That's just the beginning. There's a most artistic little filigree
of intertwined 'blood' flows in the small of the back. It's exactly
where body weight would smear it down into the cloth in a blotch. How
the 'blood' managed to flow *on top of* the hair without soaking
in or matting surely demands explanation. In fact, none of the
'blood' seems to have smeared, or blotched or spread into the cloth
through capillary action, as it would if it were wet. It didn't
blotch or smear, as it would if it were semi-dry. Instead, the
'blood' sweeps around with all the drama and graphic detail
typical of medieval depictions of the crucified Christ.
I think we're owed an explanation why shroud 'scientists' will not
conduct basic diagnostic tests for blood on shroud 'blood.' I think
we're owed an explanation why the 'blood' flows with the exaggerated
drama of an overwrought artist. In keeping with the scientific
pretensions of shroud 'science', perhaps you or Barrie can find find
some article in a legitimate science or technical journal, rather
than pure polemic like Meacham's, or a charade of science served up
in advocacy publications, that addresses these issues.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOxzFl6yjdWYzk1A5AQHC2Af+MM2NmOgN/pBJZQe+GjNQnyfpy5lQvEU4
SI73VEvaPvfEdQz+L7Lx5WlY7meSpyfKANxojfN6/HpM90SZ3jc60bwDbd4+FPTf
XVWDiThedpT2yVYFPYCGXSHojFLa2zVTDQVVOzhQnwHR6AAkcWeaCknjOYjp28pQ
Ya/RxDsXnBBcbqejvsgFVzwIol36vCM82FqWEh2D7YZ02VookfFMcgkiaEbtK2PH
59W+ddPAlMy1lBF80FZfx1OETXCrvBG/6yOx64z4NuUddBh73Bp4bvNPlWe/y3BF
CeRdIlNuGcy5aSCt3UTxc+Bz9HdjsisEMj3V9Nbf3ysPtSpJF2rD8A==
=Z+8M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
J. Swica
> concluded that the yellowing of the fibrals was not due to iron oxide but a
> change in the structure of the cellulose. Adler and Heller found out after two
> years of testing that diimide, a potent reducing agent, turned yellowed image
> fibrals pure white.
> determined that it was concentrated in areas near the water stains and
> determined that it had come from the rhetting process in producing the linen.)
Not true. I recall Heller's book where Jumper found iron oxide in the image areas in all but four tapes. The four tapes I believe McCrone had trouble himself with identifying the pigments. It turns out that they were from extremely faint regions of the shroud. See link below.
> (When you eventually oxidize cellulose you produce an acidic
> structure. So, it's very logical that after the reaction goes for a bit, it's
> going to be acid catalyzed. The reason we think it's oxidation is, no matter
> how you get there, a reduction will reverse all of them."
> the years how to duplicate SOME of the characteristics of the Shroud but not
> all. For example Emily Craig encoded her image with relief information by
> copying what she saw on the Shroud, and then it was through a trail and error
> effort and, I assume, with the use of a VP-8 image analyzer.
Jerry
Bobbycindi
just iron oxide powder? If so, the likely reason it was found on the Shroud in
any and all areas is that, in addition to such things as the retting process,
the cloth has been exposed to paintings for centuries and is covered in the
stuff. (In fact I think Adler mentions this in the interview he did with Tom
Case.) I want to hear more about what you are saying because it is interesting.
But again, in considering the coloration of linen you (or someone else) has
achieved using a dilute solution of iron oxide, we're talking about one
characteristic of many.
I simply can't imagine how on earth, or why on earth, an artist could paint a
blotchy and diffuse looking visage with no outlines, that when photographed,
yields a spectacular high-resolution positive image of a man anatomically
accurate enough to be autopsied by some of the most experienced pathologists in
the world. I can't imagine him using real blood and getting the wounds so
convincing that he even thought to include an invisible ring of serum around
each and every one.
I can't image that this "painting" would generate accurate three dimensional
information when no photograph or work of art ever has unless, as in the case
of Emily Craig, the artist has worked for years through trial and error to
deliberately achieve such an effect.
It seems to me that by claiming that you have the capability to color linen
with iron oxide you are on your way to solving the mystery of the Shroud
doesn't give the discerning eye enough credit. One doesn't need to be a trained
artist or pathologist to see that the man on the Shroud is a real man. One
needs only to look very long and hard and ask himself- is this a painting of a
man, or a real man? Take any work or art and try it. Look at the Mona Lisa. Do
you see the actual face of a woman or an artistic rendition? You see a
rendition of course. Walter Sanford's image, while resembling the face of the
Shroud, can be seen to be an artistic rendering in about a tenth of a second.
It's not that hard.
One can look at a photo-negative of the Shroud and study for hours every detail
of a body clearly locked in a state of rigor mortis. You could look through all
the art in the history of the world and never find anything like it. The
closest you'l come is a photograph.
As for the dilute iron oxide in water you mentioned, are you sure it lies only
on the very top of the threads? How can you know that it hasn't soaked in? I
realize that water has surface tension but would this preclude it from
transporting the iron oxide to the back side of the cloth? Maybe it does but I
don't see how unless the artist paints very very carefully using just the
tiniest amounts of water. And why would he do this? So the image wouldn't show
up in an X-ray 700 years later?
I think it's neat that you that you have experimented yourself on trying to
duplicate the image on the Shroud, but I think you need to come far closer to
duplicating the really amazing things about this fantastic enigma before I'll
get too excited. But keep trying. It's how we learn and you're to be
commended. If you ever do succeed, I'll buy you a cream soda too. I'll just ask
for a shot glass and the biggest bottle of whiskey in the joint!
Bob
Trenton G. Twining
>
> Hi Jerry, I'm away from home and don't have my references, but isn't vermilion
> just iron oxide powder?
>
Vermilion is a color. But it usually refers to a pigment (cinnabar)
derived from a reaction product of heating mercury and sulfur to form
mercuric sulfide (HgS). Its presence in any quantity on the Shroud can
be dismissed by the lack of any X-ray shadow. Mercury, as you might
guess, is very reflective of X-rays. And vermilion based pigments
usually have lead added for brilliance and to create flesh tones. Lead
is also very reflective of X-rays.
This is why I can't see how McCrone gets any play. His assessment of
the blood-stains as vermilion, seems categorically dismissed by the
X-ray evidence. But I guess I'll have to read more of his explanation
to see how/if he accounts for the contradiction of his theory by the
X-ray evidence.
Bobbycindi
not Vermilion. Red Ochre is made out of iron oxide. It's also called Venetian
red according to John Heller. Perhaps there are other certain additives to
these pigments of which I am unaware.
The bottom line is that STURP concluded that yes, there was iron oxide found on
the Shroud, but no, it didn't correlate in any way with the image. At least not
according to Sam Pellicori whose thinking when he heard McCrone's explaination
that the image was of red ochre was along the lines of "I don't believe this.
I've measured the spectrum of iron oxide dozens of times. The color's totally
wrong for what he's claiming. Based on spectrophotometry and the X-ray
fluroescence findings, there's no way that the Shroud images are composed of
iron oxide." (From Report on the Shroud of Turin by John Heller)
Again, my thinking is that some traces of iron oxide might have gotten on the
Shroud by way of having painted copies laid on the original- copies which were
painted in red ochre.
Jerry, from what I can see, the colors in the images you provided DO seem to
look similar to what is seen on the Shroud, but do you have a side by side
comparison or have you seen one? As I'm sure you know, Emily Craig's effort is
done with iron oxide too, but as Barrie points out in his book, it is too red.
I am curious so let me know.
Bob
J. Swica
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote in message > Jerry, from what I can
see, the colors in the images you provided DO seem to
> look similar to what is seen on the Shroud, but do you have a side by side
> comparison or have you seen one? As I'm sure you know, Emily Craig's
effort is
> done with iron oxide too, but as Barrie points out in his book, it is too
red.
> I am curious so let me know.
>
> Bob
Bob:
What I was trying to show in the second sample from the pseudo-hand, is
that you would not see the paint at that low of a magnfication. Only, and
only under high magnification would individual particles be identified.
In other words, the iron oxide is hidden on the upper crowns of the fibrils.
Only when you start to break past a certain threshold, do the paint
particle accumulate and the spectrum shifts ever deeper red(brown?) in
color.
The color on the shroud is of a yellow type color(tempera?). The only
picture I have is from Lavoie's book,"Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud".
(page 53)
See page 54, blood, page 55,image. Notice the yellow discolortion is more
prominent in the blood region along with the particles.
Let me know if you have it or not....else I'll scan it for you...
Jerry
BTW: The first sample where you see evidence of color is from a darker
sample. It too is superficial,but shows a few segments of where the paint
would distrubute on the upper fibrils.
J. Swica
J. Swica
> just iron oxide powder?
> achieved using a dilute solution of iron oxide, we're talking about one
> characteristic of many.
Yes, still need yellow fibers....etc...
> I can't image that this "painting" would generate accurate three dimensional
> information when no photograph or work of art ever has unless, as in the case
> of Emily Craig, the artist has worked for years through trial and error to
> deliberately achieve such an effect.
>
> Take any work or art and try it. Look at the Mona Lisa. Do
> you see the actual face of a woman or an artistic rendition? You see a
> rendition of course. Walter Sanford's image, while resembling the face of the
> Shroud, can be seen to be an artistic rendering in about a tenth of a second.
> As for the dilute iron oxide in water you mentioned, are you sure it lies only
> on the very top of the threads?
> realize that water has surface tension but would this preclude it from
> transporting the iron oxide to the back side of the cloth? Maybe it does but I
> don't see how unless the artist paints very very carefully using just the
> tiniest amounts of water. And why would he do this? So the image wouldn't show
> up in an X-ray 700 years later?
But keep trying. It's how we learn and you're to be
> commended. If you ever do succeed, I'll buy you a cream soda too. I'll just ask
> for a shot glass and the biggest bottle of whiskey in the joint!
>
> Bob
Bobbycindi
you were talking about in order to participate in an experiment that Joe Marino
was conducting. Did you see get that message from him? He was trying to see if
people could recognize Shroud fibrals as opposed to experimentally made ones.
(I probably flunked the test)
As for the images you have previously shown me, I must admit they are quite
good. The fibrals seem to have the somewhat shining appearence the Shroud
fibrals do, but did I see a tinge of redishness that is not in the Shroud? It
was very hard to tell- it was that good. As for the hand image, it was quite
good too.
Now, if can show me how to paint an anatomically perfect body front and back in
negative (you can't check your work with a camera) that when photographed will
convince the pathologists who study the negative that it is the image of an
actual man, I'll be really impressed. But you have to also get the blood wounds
perfect using real blood. In addition, it has to pass the test for
directionality. The imaging techniques used by STURP indicated that the image
was directionless- something they maintain would be impossible with a hand made
image. (I need to find out more about this test, but I think it was something
Don Lynn from NASA determined.) The image must be encoded three dimensionally-
something I don't think is possible with McCrones "drip technique."
You must make it convincing enough to fool researchers in every field including
artists who pretty much see the Shroud as any thing BUT a work of art. It has
to be subjected to all the fancy testing STURP did on the Shroud and not reveal
that the image is actually made from iron oxide. It then needs to be aged six
or seven hundred years, go through a few fires, have water thrown on it and be
folded and unfolded a few thousand times. You need to have planted on your
cloth all the subtle items like limestone and pollen from the Middle East.
Also, the blood type and patterns need to match perfectly the Sudarium in Spain
(if you really want to impress me) and no fair looking at the cloth when you do
it.
I can think of some more things, but if you can do that, I'll by you not only a
coke, but a cherry coke!!!!! And we all love cherry coke right? Well, maybe
not. Anyway I'd say you have your work cut out. Good luck! And again, you are
to be commended for your efforts.
Bob
Bobbycindi
been done on the Shroud, here's a listing of the papers that came about as a
result of the 1978 STURP effort.
Accetta, J. S., and J. Stephen Baumgart. "Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy
and Thermographic Investigations of the Shroud of Turin." Applied Optics, vol.
19, no. 12, 15 June 1980, pp. 1921-1929.
Avis, C., D. Lynn, J. Lorre, S. Lavoie, J. Clark, E. Armstrong, and J.
Addington. "Image Processing of the Shroud of Turin." Proceedings of the 1982
IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Society, pp. 554-558.
Buklin, Robert, M.D., J.D. "The Shroud of Turin: a Pathologis's Viewpoint."
Legal Medicine Annual, 1981.
Devan, D., and V. Miller. "Quantitative Photography of the Shroud of Turin."
Proceedings of the 1982 IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Society, pp.
548-553.
Erconline, W.R., J.P. Jackson, and R.C. Downs. "Examination of the Turin
Shroud for Image Distortions." Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Cybernetics and Society, pp. 576- 579.
Gilbert, Roger, Jr., and Marion M. Gilbert. "Ultraviolet- Visible Reflectance
and Fluorescence Spectra on the Shroud of Turin." Applied Optics, vol. 19, no.
12, 15 June 1980, pp. 1930-1936
Heller, John H., and Alan D. Adler. "Blood on the Shroud of Turin." Applied
Optics, vol. 19, no. 16, 14 August 1980, pp. 2742-2744.
Heller J. H., and A.D. Adler "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin."
Canadian Forensic Society Scientific Journal, vol. 14, no. 3, 1981 pp.
81-103.
Jackson J.P., E.J. Jumper, and R.C. Ercoline. "Three-Dimensional
Characteristics of the Shroud Image." Proceedings of the 1982 IEEE Conference
on Society and Cybernetics, pp. 559-575.
Jumper, E, "An Overview of the Testing Performed by the Shroud of Turin
Research Project with a Summery of Results." "Proceedings of the 1982 IEEE
Conference on Cybernetics and Society, pp. 535- 537.
Jumper, E.J., A.D. Adler, J.P. Jackson, S.F. Pellicori, J.H. Heller, J.R.
Druzik. "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the
Shroud of Turin." Presented at the September 1982 meeting of the American
Chemical Society, Kansas City. To be published in Advances in Archeological
Chemistry 1983.
Jumper, Eric J. and Robert W. Mottern. "Scientific Investigation of the Shroud
of Turin." Applied Optics. vol. 19 no. 12, 15 June 1980, pp. 1909-1912.
Miller, V.D., and S.F. Pellicori. "Ultraviolet Fluorescence Photography of the
Shroud of Turin." Journal of Biological Photography, vol. 19, no. 3, July
1981 pp. 71-85.
Morris R.A., L.A. Schwalbe, and R.J. London. "X-ray Fluorescence Investigation
of the Shroud of Turin." X- Ray Spectrometry, vol. 9, no.2, 1980 pp. 42-47.
Mottern, R. W., R.J. London and R.A. Morris. ""Radiographic Examination of the
Shroud of Truin- a Preliminary Report." Materials Evaluation, vol. 38, no. 12,
1979, pp. 102-125.
Pellicori, S.F., "Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Tuirn." Applied Optics
vol. 19 no. 12, 15 June 1980, pp. 1913-1920.
Pellicori, S.F., and R.A. Chandos. "Portable Unit Permits UV/V in Study of
Shroud." Industrial Research and Development, February 1981 pp. 186-189.
Pellicori, Samuel, and Mark S. Evans. "The Shroud of Turin Through the
Microscope." Archeology, Jan-Feb 1981, pp. 32-43.
Schwalbe, L.A., and R.N. Rogers. "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of
Turin." A Summery of the 1978 Investigation." Analytica Chimica Acta, vol.
135, 1982, pp. 3-49.
Schwortz, B. "Mapping of Research Test Point Areas on the Shroud of Turin."
Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Cybernetics and Society, pp. 538-547.
J. Swica
> Jerry, I have Lavoie's book and believe it or not was just studying the
photos
> you were talking about in order to participate in an experiment that Joe
Marino
> was conducting.
>Did you see get that message from him?
No. Please post or send it to me.
> He was trying to see if
> people could recognize Shroud fibrals as opposed to experimentally >made
ones.
Has anyone ever posted side-by-side comparisons of artificial shroud
fibers? I understand the STURP scientists have, and even Nicholas Allen
claims his fibers are the same as those on the shroud. I have never seen any
low to high magnfication of anything to compare with.
I'd like to see age'd tempera that has yellowed on cloth, but Sanfords
dilute paint is probably too young.
> As for the images you have previously shown me, I must admit they are
quite
> good. The fibrals seem to have the somewhat shining appearence the Shroud
> fibrals do, but did I see a tinge of redishness that is not in the Shroud?
In the photograph of the Shroud in Time magazine which I know you have is
probably the best photo I have ever seen of the head. What color does it
look to you? More yellow...or reddish brown in color.
It
> was very hard to tell- it was that good. As for the hand image, it was
quite
> good too.
Sorry to say it took only a few minutes to make.There would be no
possibility of shading(3D coding) it to be approximate the shrouds finely
tuned features. I'm sure an artist could however.
>In addition, it has to pass the test for
> directionality. The imaging techniques used by STURP indicated that the
image
> was directionless- something they maintain would be impossible with a hand
made
> image. (I need to find out more about this test, but I think it was
something
> Don Lynn from NASA determined.) The image must be encoded three
dimensionally-
> something I don't think is possible with McCrones "drip technique."
Bob, Emily Craigs painting passed this test. It's the same thing but using a
normal paint brush. Do you see any directionality in my sample? How could
you? Even if I attempted bloodstains, the solution is still too dilute to
indicate that feature.
I should also clarify McCrone is using the iron drip to demonstrate the
amounts necessary to impress a visible image. As you can tell, it was
extremely low.
> Also, the blood type and patterns need to match perfectly the Sudarium in
Spain
> (if you really want to impress me) and no fair looking at the cloth when
you do
> it.
I'd love to see some low resolution and high magnification fibril shots of
the Sudarium. Where the hell do you get them from? Do the stains optically
look similar to those found on the Shroud?Perhaps Barrie could dig up some
for his website.
but if you can do that, I'll by you not only a
> coke, but a cherry coke!!!!! And we all love cherry coke right?
Sounds even better than my suggestion!..................
Jerry
Frank Weaver
Missing References: reinserted
In article <20010603104946...@ng-mc1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>With Weaver's "positive facts" #4 and #5, we see the smoke getting really thin.
>By the way, Weaver has now apparently concluded that the Shroud is both a
>painting AND a photograph! Notice that when Trenton Twining pointed out that
>there were to be found no particles of paint in the threads, Weaver referred
>him to Nicholas Allen- the guy who claims the Shroud is a photograph!
And also to Joe Nickell. Both duplicated many of the shroud features
by techniques that do not use painting and would not be expected to
leave any paint behind. Nickell's method used pigments, but these
are not paint.
Actually, the pigments he used were well-chosen. They are among a
number of pigments found on the shroud. The medieval manner of making
them produces residues that dehydrate cellulose. That effect is
precisely what is found on the shroud today.
>When all else fails, and you can't explain the Shroud or duplicate it, there
>remains only one thing to be done- simply claim otherwise! And point out too
>that the Shroud's "oddity" has been exaggerated. Ask the reader to simply know
>that there existed many other "true" shrouds- all apparently more or less equal
>to the one in Turin. But he's not to ask to see any evidence of this because
>they all mysteriously vanished and aren't avalible for inspection.
Like the Mandylion? Even Wilson is left scrambling by it's recorded
destruction in 1204.
In fact, a number of "true shrouds" are well documented historically.
Even Wilson slyly hinted at one time that the shrouds of Besançon,
Compiègne, or both, were the Turin Shroud in disguise, before it
surfaced in Lirey. That would have been remarkable, as all three
were known to exist at the same time. More recently, Wilson has taken
to calling them 'rivals.'
Incidentally, the fates of the Besançon and Cadouin shrouds are well
documented.
However, that's enough to establish that holy shrouds were nearly a
common a relic as the infamous sixteen foreskins of Christ.
By the time an artist in Lirey decided (was commissioned?) to make
one, he knew he'd have to do better than the competition to
get the pilgrims' coin. To do that, he seems to have combined three
existing religious traditions.
First, scenes of Christ's burial (called Deposition and Lamentation
scenes) had standardized around a single double-length burial cloth
around the 11th century, so that choice was obvious. Putting an image
on this cloth would make it stand out from its non-imaged rivals. The
obvious image to choose was the supine Christ, hands crossed over his
loins, a motif found on altar cloths as early as the twelfth century.
Adding the dorsal view was a genuine innovation, though. Finally,
the artist adopted the red-brown monochrome that had become standard
for miraculous face images of the Mandylion/Veronica tradition. This
was obviously to evoke the same not-by-human-hands aspect as the
Veronicas.
>Above all, the reader is asked to pay no attention whatsoever to the huge
>amount of peer-reviewd scientific evidence (the sort of thing the skeptics
>normally believe in) but rather take a momentary glance at Nickell's "shroud"
>(face only of course) and see how "trivial actually" making one really is.
>That's right- it's actually trivial!!
That's right. It's so trivial that the assertion that the shroud
*can't* be duplicated is a particular load of bluster.
Between myself and other people, you've been given a number of
ironclad reasons why there is no rational way to explain the image
EXCEPT as the work of an artist. Between you and Trenton Twining,
you've blustered endlessly about how an artist just couldn't do it.
So, why don't you list each of the physical characteristics of the
shroud image, all of them? Surely, some one of the shroud tracts you
keep reciting verbatim has such a list. Or do they rely solely on
bombast?
If you do have the gumption to post such a list, I will do my best
to show, one by one, how each characteristic can be duplicated.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOyA3yayjdWYzk1A5AQEnbAf+IBbhGYmoHp9ue24hJmTYl3CHT6+FCYB3
bJf8AuU0Brgp9D46x6kT5SEEWCjRw8iHS5jSwjFNJTigxPDtSK/qUbboNpwKAeL3
eQDSlt54+OQB15hJrvlnZn/OqznaCGah1VPUPfmtODEuvhnM211ZcRAwvsFF+IOA
W5/6I4GtPBDQwtDXpvAN8L6CR7IkWI+gWcsCUgkX7qbJUemBJjftErSmlrxKnTY4
F2IDVP/VkDCogb35MXraWKiZclNohC3aHeW07XEqudzDIb1EjN8QHMuZPNoidvU0
Y90ODiRtEpSecSPKJdJV4b+OpRqKPfp8fdhDVTKDP5IplNkgLvqOiQ==
=Q3ak
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <3B183F92...@accucomm.net>,
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
[snip]
>for them (Dr. Gove, at least) to present a theoretical graph that would
>simulate the C-14 results expected from an integrated amount of contamination
>over the years versus little or none for the Shroud linen,
Shucks, Ken, that's way too easy. It's a straight line through '1300
years error' for any amount of contamination from 0% to 100%.
>as well as a
>similar figure for the integrated amount of biofilm contamination that
>would be expected over the later repaired places on the Shroud.
[snip]
>other super-sensitive techniques? Should it have? Can we test for blood
>through "tons" of boiofilm?
Just a thought: why isn't the 'blood' and alleged DNA attributed to
one of those hundreds and hundreds of people who so heavily
contaminated the edges that it f**ed up the C14 dating by millenia?
Just FWIW, but I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of a biofilm out
of hand. It's plausible. It may even have shifted the C14-measured
age by a century or two (though I doubt it, given the accumulated
historical, artistic and iconographic evidence that places the
shroud's manufacture somewhere within 1260-1356). The idea that
there could be enough biofilm to cause 13 centuries of error out of
20, though, strains credulity.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOyBG1KyjdWYzk1A5AQHZ2Qf9HAIp52vj3WmzmZ308F5k6lGert768c2h
f6ReKhjS1j6jJESPYx+2mtNM2u/a+6gJ1hv+awOe7tpgjuD187WNcsa4wn6+9q7a
vPo9oY1t5FxBVK21kyoHF+wXGIS2mpMpTa8UY+lUU2g0Z34D3GWNcx8WE2quSrgH
GtBjwZrZHOVDyPELM31wCXCdwrG3wGDID+/qDIay2fsbVgk5EhAd2iZWMM9xl8Zc
UxSa9l63xpVV3R41skonQvXHEP6lnw35LPuloVgaPSZx9uA7L79BpiT9msOqDnZ2
j1qLd7H+fPn0WOOQjUBUgU0oD5FXGyouwtsycVwEj40vM8G8KTgflA==
=bcJU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20010604132220...@ng-ma1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Concerning specifically Joe Nickell's attempt at making a shroud I think it's
>interesting, in light of the recent scanning of the back side of the cloth, to
>note the following; (assuming he is still using a "powdered bas-relief
>technique" this is one of the points about Nickell's attempt that Antonacci
>makes in his book The Resurrecion of the Shroud.)
Nickell started using semi-solid cakes and pastes about 17 years ago.
The standard of 'replication' is to do *exactly* what the claimant is
doing. To do otherwise and falsely claim a 'failed' replication is
not honest.
I note that a similar dishonesty infests the claim to have 'analyzed'
a half-tone of one of Nickell's images on the VP-8 nd using the
rtesults to charge that the *original* was deficient.
>"Nickell contends that his powder-rubbing method produces a superficial image.
>However, when STURP reproduced his experiment using linen with a herringbone
>weave that simulates the Shroud's weave, LARGE QUANTITIES OF POWDER FELL
>THROUGH THE WEAVE OF THE CLOTH AND ACCUMULATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE. Shroud
It should be obvious that the powder size can be chosen to give the
desired result.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOyA6K6yjdWYzk1A5AQHusgf/TuX9S4QFnbhjfbY8vBJKbI7CLtsrMrGj
XBV5SXCWSl5YLOYfjfcsgTuYEbkNGCuUPaLwlmB2svmqeGhVVL+xEtQp/cBeeNku
hXOJDYCiHwRopKsLQa/b7my9FKrSi8lXc0zkVegWxR4pdWrGtL/E73+xLjnMWCv1
fodPUYCC+dmr/i05Df1ITtw4bj01XykWIeLcIh7hy8//ntuxR2F7vkv+zxjCNpyt
1fpJoZAU+v+07tS/FpqmYueai1GgUucilJccls7cutZx8LHRPmA/kin2FLH28Wuy
3MuTKa5G8qU0G6g5cuZokITlIdDs0ugtDU64fvLyGnPQz0OI7wGKUA==
=MWZA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <3B18EE7B...@usa.net>,
"Trenton G. Twining" <t...@usa.net> wrote:
[snip]
>And I've thought of an experiment to prove it. Here it is: get a Ken
>doll. Place Ken on his back on a glass topped table. Place a lamp
>under the table. Place a thin linen cloth (large handkerchief will do)
>over Ken, then weight all four corners well enough that the cloth is
>taut. Turn on the lamp. Ken's shadow image will be only slightly
>narrowed in relationship to Ken's actual form. After just conducting
>this experiment, using a posable Spiderman figurine that was handy, I
>find that even without pulling the cloth taut, very little distortion is
>introduced. The transmitted shadow, as you'll see no later than while
>conducting this little experiment, is exactly analogous to the image
>formed by a coherent imaging agent.
Congratulations. Yuo've just discovered the principal behind shadow
puppets.
True, you can create relatively undistorted. proper-sized shadow
images. They are merely outlines, however, that do not contain any
details internal to Ken's or Spidey's form, like, say, the face.
>The gross distortion you're missing, assumes the body is the source of a
>radiant imaging agent. If the body is not the source of the imaging
>agent, or if the imaging agent is very directional (coherent) no gross
>distortion is to be expected; only a fairly subtle distortion. Subtle
>enough that one would require biometric techniques to distinguish a
>distorted from undistorted images.
Unless the imaging agent is penetrative, you will only get a body
outline, not a detailed image. If it is penetrative and external to
the body, it will superimpose both front and back images on the same
section of cloth, along with assorted icky internal details.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOyBJpKyjdWYzk1A5AQHDXAf/WQno1vb7jGkxNDFUPlMDQ/wK8w4ehC+2
qF8We5b0movCYAn37dajx+04VTt6RARy6aMNtuHBZpvZcTDSAR3PhgARViNu3UNk
HZZOxSCyYQ4yYhPtdDSFDnDU+rL6nYP9nSPRUJjKn4ZgF8WWU8cstxEEdQ4JWaRu
SyxEH8vg1Px3pJ1UP5RAcOMp93BOS4EACqer1Hbx9afWOqwoQEGt8QpdNdyul+0q
ZDxauXCeVsJvUgAfwOepHOOUEO+uZLfdG9x17A0Q5hXuSfHn9v2Ub3zdA4FEx0Ux
aEmsfHHvBrPgVCGEujwjdDNmKV73xxI7Aw/Xx9GLb6sY+QfOcrEuzA==
=6ojQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <thr1md7...@corp.supernews.com>,
"J. Swica" <jer...@hvi.net> wrote:
[snip]
>The iron oxide particles would not be responsible for the yellowing of =
>the fibers,agreed. I do believe Nickell toyed with this idea with his =
>powdered pigment formula however. The particles are way too dispersed in =
>the faintest areas and would leave behind only potholes of =
>discoloration(if that is possible at all). (see link below,picture 28)
Nickell did, however, come up with another interesting suggestion.
I'd be interested in your opinion of it, Jerry.
It's funny that Heller and Adler had so many problems finding
some substance to discolor linen. They must not have looked very
hard. Even air exposure yellows linen in time, due to the effects of
sunlight and oxidation.
Or maybe Adler and Heller worked *very* hard, but to avoid finding
any substance that might get in the way of their authenticity
beliefs.
Nickell actually did some some research, some of which he repeats in
his book, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin." As he describes,
iron-containing compounds of all sorts are known to discolor flax,
mainly by catalyzing acidic degradation (i.e., pitting and eating
away at the fibrils, as shown on photomicrographs of shroud fibrils).
Now, McCrone believes that the iron oxide particles on his tapes are
closest to the type of particles in jeweller's rouge or Venetian Red
(red ocher). Nickell found a medieval recipe for making Venetian Red
by calcining (oxidating) green vitriol (aka ferrous sulfate).
In a move I'm sure is foreign to shroud 'scientists,' Nickell
actually tried the recipe. He got Venetian Red, all right. Even
after washing, though, it was contaminated with substantial quantities
of leftover ferrous sulfate. With even a touch of added moisture,
that pigment would be loaded with sulfuric acid. And sulfuric acid
eats through cellulose.
Now we have a strong candidate for how the shroud image was created.
We know from contemporaneous copies and reports that the shroud image
was once a good deal more vivid than it is now. We also know that it
was folded, rolled, and handled over the years. There is even one
report that it was boiled in water and oil, then scraped. These
actions would tend to remove the pigment or reduce it to a trace.
But the image, chemically 'burned' into the cloth in yellowed,
dehydrated linen where the red ocher formerly was, would remain
behind.
AFAIK, Nickell hasn't performed the final experiment necessary to
test this scenario. It's obvious to me that no pro-authenticty
'scientist' would dare try. That would be to artificially age a
rubbing made with Venetian Red, then boil and scrape it. I predict
that the directionless, substanceless image remaining would destroy
the last two objections advanced against Nickell's copies.
Do you know of any experiments in this regard, Jerry?
[snip]
>Not true. I recall Heller's book where Jumper found iron oxide in the =
>image areas in all but four tapes. The four tapes I believe McCrone had =
>trouble himself with identifying the pigments. It turns out that they =
>were from extremely faint regions of the shroud. See link below.
Remarkable! Someone remaining in STURP backs McCrone up!
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOyWZt6yjdWYzk1A5AQH2tQf+K0a9HljMpBuEq2OJ4gg4yoZ6Q3zt4HLh
O5hkzW381ShbubGaILWfrUXy8lhmrr0Z03hDjrGrhpg+6RsqaQ938zafHfRyEkrl
pD67GrN6HuZtBaSOPIT0XAm+ahe8mbS7aHMJoqVooH9HBLEzUVWkRi37UsYf8XMk
Jkl34FvSqBJwKV4sNAmI8FA0WhdEAnCX+bN5Emj3hCa0Abbb/g2hQI1sa1MSd8Sv
sM6FyhoJUNhwDB+fj60hg6CgcK37ElsVOHaSnMdeWb/JQPCW6fqHGWoPbNIwbHi7
QynQrGkhZw57SywXzR8CcRbqWCYGgPFV26ugKIq8e6iXjBFv/2L4gw==
=6PS2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20010602110714...@ng-mb1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Dr. Towe, as I'm sure you know, there are more problems with the Shroud than
>just the required "optical flattening" such as: if the man's legs were bent
>(and clearly they are) then how on earth did the cloth he was lying on manage
>to soak up blood from the backs of his legs? That is to say, the back of the
>man's legs weren't in contact with the cloth, and yet one can see blood on the
>cloth corresponding to just this area.
Let's stick with the blood on the back of the leg for a minute. How
does Antonacci's 'historically consistent' method address these issues?
1. Why didn't the blood dematerialize along with the rest of the
body, it being divine and all?
2. Did the blood on the back of the legs remain liquid the entire
three days? How?
3. Assuming the blood was liquid when the leg attached to it
dematerialized, how did the liquid remain cohesive as it fell?
4. Why didn't it spatter when it struck the bottom cloth, as liquids
normally do?
5. Assuming the blood did dry on the back of the leg, why didn't the
dried blood crumble on it's way down?
6. What kept the dried blood from falling off or blowing away?
7. If the blood did dry, did it reliquefy during dematerialization?
If so, how?
8. Assuming the premise of question #7 is correct, please answer
questions 3 and 4 for the reliquefied blood.
Now, on to some other issues.
9. Antonacci relies on the cloth collapsing through the body to
properly encode 3-D information. Does this mean that the dorsal
image was formed by the bottom of the cloth levitating upward?
10. If not, how did the 3-D information of the sdorsal image get
encoded onto the part of the cloth below the body?
11. According to Antonacci, radiation 'encoded' the image onto the
cloth as the cloth passed through the dematerializing body, with
more intense images corresponding to parts of the cloth that were
'inside' the radiation zone longer. Shouldn't those parts of the
cloth have images of subsurface parts of the body on them as well?
12. If the radiation did not continue to act on cloth that had
fallen 'inside' the body region, how did it continue to intensify
images of body parts that those portions of the cloth had already
collapsed through?
>One possible answer to this can be found in a book called The Resurrection of
>the Shroud by Mark Antonacci. It's referred to as the "Historically Consistent
>Method" and you'l be happy to hear that it involves no angels. But it's not in
>any peer-reviewed papers (that I know about) just so you know!
[snip]
>If this sounds more "scientific" than my angels, and is something you'd be
>interested in learning more about, then you might want to see if you can get a
>copy of his book. I tend to think it sounds better too, and have decided that
Until Antonacci can give reasonably sensible answers to the above
questions, I think his reconstruction can more accurately be referred
to as the 'hysterically incoherent method.'
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOyWBf6yjdWYzk1A5AQHEggf6AvLOcoxni/ocwzuWKU7ovXEyW1e+nART
ZPHZzTydQ+LOo8eR6ZY3hGNdLQr/AcoPCGe0p9GkWaeccdThE2Bza374O/R9Ouge
Dz7xu1kr6vd2/j1A35m/TwEg+gWAZgQHNqr61Hdw5UbzcfZi5Ziz6aSbFpJg5GCq
xohWuC1LN5k0Z2ZxtPKZARon2WBnqfdDpFc/ihpLv4Rlc1HogP5b5PxNZMudej+V
QbIVA3w91IpC6Ga2KeSiwyodeUk2kKEIUEusaXqRtiZYCAuA6YY+7BD5gI0KalDA
gJNlxtbZ5jJ0e4Kf/vbuwUd6xs3/+W7Q+kNtvUtt2NiKxiuL7q6uEw==
=Deo/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
J. Swica
"> Do you know of any experiments in this regard, Jerry?
Frank: The only thing I found other than what Nickell wrote was from a Giles
F. Carter in response to Gary Vikans article in BAR. Here's what I lifted
from this site:
Giles F. Carter:
3) McCrone believes that the image of the body is primarily iron oxide in a
collagen tempera medium. Adler and others have shown that at least 90
percent of the iron present on the shroud is bonded to cellulose and is not
present as colored iron oxide. Further, Adler has explained the coloration
of the body image as due to dehydrative oxidation of cellulose. If even very
low concentrations of iron are present in water that is used to ret linen
(soaking to decompose the nonfibrous materials), linen will react chemically
with this iron, and the iron will be bound to the cellulose. Other
scientists and I have found that iron catalyzes the dehydrative oxidation of
cellulose, producing a coloration similar to that found on the shroud.
Certain highly colored threads, and in particular one outstanding dark
thread, run vertically in the shroud and are colored much darker than
surrounding threads. The obvious explanation is that these threads probably
contain relatively high concentrations of iron (this could be tested easily)
compared with their neighbors, and iron caused these threads to darken more
when the image was formed. Certainly these dark threads were not painted by
an artist. Also the body image penetrates only a minute distance into the
linen. It seems impossible that a painter could reproduce this, particularly
because the image is fuzzy and vague and can only be recognized from a
distance of several feet.
Not exactly support for Nickell is it? Not to misquote the gentleman.Here's
the link for those articles:
http://www.bib-arch.org/barma99/bardept9903.html
Bobbycindi
Antonacci's book. Here's a thought, maybe you should try reading it for
yourself rather than just criticizing him.
Bob Haroldsen
Frank Weaver
In article <3B240EEC...@accucomm.net>,
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
>Mr. Weaver wrote: "<b>Unless the imaging agent is penetrative, you will
>only get a body outline, not a detailed image. If it is penetrative
>and external to</b>
><br><b>the body, it will superimpose both front and back images on the
>same</b>
><br><b>section of cloth, along with assorted icky internal details.</b>"
><p>Hey, Frank...don't you understand the Shroud image and the flattened
>cloth dilemma is a MIRACLE. Any awkward details will be taken care of in
>miraculous fashion, while all of the other scientific facts that fit the
>theory will prove it's a miracle.
Oh, I see. And all this time I mistakenly thought we were talking
about serious scientific hypotheses <g>! What's the point if you
can invoke a miracle to bail your sorry ass out every time your
'hypothesis' goes SPLAT! against the evidence?
I think your count is off, though. It requires a miracle to produce
the collimated radiation beam that scorched the image into the cloth.
But it takes another miracle to project the 3-D image so that it
shows none of the distortion that is required by the laws of geometry
once the cloth is unwrapped and flattened. A third miracle is
required to make the carbon dating results look medieval.
According to image analyst Marvin Mueller, scorches on linen
fluoresce strongly red under UV light. But STURP researchers found
that the shroud fluoresces ONLY where it was burned in 1532, not on
the image. That means there would have to be a fourth miracle to make
the radiation scorch look like it wasn't a scorch.
The interesting thing about these four required miracles is that
at least three of them seem to have no other purpose except to
deceive us into thinking that the shroud is exactly what it seems to
be -- a medieval forgery by a clever artist.
These divine deceptions have some pretty major theological
implications. Someone should call the Pope, the Archbishop of
Canterbury and the Patriarch of Constantinople! They might like to
know that if the shroud is authentic, God (or Jesus) would have to be
a systematic liar.
Maybe Bob's and Trenton's God is a liar. Mine isn't.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOyuVY6yjdWYzk1A5AQG9Hgf/TdXdiWbbqv8Kg24BhZ/X6iBuUJZ7dnVZ
HobX7+2dDu5afbbVW7qGVbmhs1uxcmYOBMB1OZSJlEAzBEHNCvdx27r18InD6Z0j
hgt2i0abDPPJEiuI2HREyCm/1ZX7y8/3L3dbnC4zMRIy8spDIKI8yVu7elUF8xnv
dMwGAe6PfGUhvaE2RljPLoS+XdhL7VqAbFDg6Abbe/06AcLS+z46Y0wEJzIrwCW+
LQouBuZrfnHGia9ZYlugx/V4wcwzDevy1ZQZM/Y7qWMjs/UQlDUKnKYI+Kq3sDLX
3+NhhL2CO0lVt7CAdqZPkHHQfeZ1BDvjt8BJNSNAalKbkg/m5JLNqQ==
=PyAr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
J. Swica
> It's funny that Heller and Adler had so many problems finding
> some substance to discolor linen. They must not have looked very
> hard. Even air exposure yellows linen in time, due to the effects of
> sunlight and oxidation.
I found an article on the web dealing with flax manufacturing. In this
article are natural(not old) flax fibers showing yellow, and brown(black)
discolorations....Also the retting process is explained.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~belghist/Flanders/Pages/flaxLinen.htm
Jerry
Bobbycindi
looks like, it actually IS a miracle and could therefore be expected to be just
as difficult to explain as Jesus's ability to walk on water. And sure enough.
The Shroud does indeed seem impossible to explain. Certainly, no one can
duplicate it. This doesn't make God a liar. It means He's in a league of His
own.
One may choose to believe anything he wants about the Shroud. But to ignore the
legitimate science that has been done on it, and turn instead to the likes of
stage magician Joe Nickell, is to effectively embrace pseudo science.
Personally, I hold with the philosophy that the truth will set you free. You
guys can have the pseudo science.
Bob Haroldsen
Frank Weaver
In article <20010615231506...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>As a matter of fact Mr. Weaver, ALL of the issues you raised are addressed in
>Antonacci's book.
They aren't.
>Here's a thought, maybe you should try reading it for
>yourself
Did that. AAMOF, Antonacci barely mentioned only 2 out of 12, at
best. They were such unmitigated drivel they inspired:
TWELVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE HYSTERICALLY INCOHERENT METHOD
13. Wouldn't the same partial vacuum that you depend on to suck the
bottom of the cloth into the image zone also suck the top image
down through the zone even more quickly?
14. That being the case, shouldn't the top half of the cloth spend
less time in the zone (i.e. have a dimmer image) than the bottom
half? Why or why not?
15. The force created by the difference in pressure between the
outside of the cloth and the partial vacuum inside is highly
dependent on surface area. Given that fact of physics, and the
fact that more cloth is required to cover elevated portions of
the body than shallow portions, shouldn't the higher parts of the
cloth be pushed down through the image zone harder and faster
than the lower-lying areas -- precisely the opposite of what
is claimed?
16. Explain how, in light of the answer to question #15, the cloth
remains totally flat as it collapses, as required by the image
properties and as this method is supposed to produce.
17. Since nature abhors a vacuum, the dematerialization of the
body will be immediately followed by a sudden inrush of air to
fill the vacated space. Doesn't this inrush push the bottom of
the cloth downward, preventing it from rising at all. as required?
18. Wouldn't the same inrush of air push the top of the cloth
upward? Would it be pushed out of the image zone? Why or why
not?
19. Reevaluate the response to questions #15, this time taking
into account the sudden implosion of air.
20. Explain in detail, with appropriate mathematics, how the cloth
remains flat under the dual influences of differential external
pressure and turbulent inrush of air.
21. Demonstrate that all answers for questions 13-19 are consistent
with the known principles of fluid dynamics and pneumatics. Show
all the math.
There are still other problems with Antonacci's twaddle.
22. Inasmuch as Antonacci's states his method includes a small
explosion with sufficient outward force to move large boulders,
explain why the cloth was not blown completely out of the image
zone by the explosion.
23. Explain how the cloth imploded on itself in exactly the opposite
direction to the explosive force applied to it.
24. Provide magnitudes and directions of ALL the forces on the cloth
-- the force of the explosion, the partial pressure differential
due to vacuum, and the air inrush. Show how they balance to
produce the movement of the cloth over time that Antonacci's method
requires.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOzK/EqyjdWYzk1A5AQGy7wf7Bac6fNQkS3tZ0gGKTQjhmDHQe8QFBZ8s
UTDHDlCwtluVBOVYOMnZ7red5aumUmjyinZQ/oWFyBg+9ia999MLhja/NzkdbZy4
YKDsrkF+LB1DFZVmOF95NBTW49MtOpew4D5gmEhe7BrQ+ioGlBBhFryHb+dtwG7n
bAgDv6/2y92Qwe6YjHg2nTElKQhpmt9g65yLG+5aRe/g4IIBfS626Z8eGY24TnMY
wbnEXJO2HxR66RXZoA5gRPv7iMeMnamquCd4Fiw7L3rR1pDtrLk/g7XcgrtUw6ld
ptTNKIXEJbWO5WwTcX9giI3+AsRZb3O9YW/tS0qQamcRieDETI6fgA==
=evbd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
page 222. He describes how Jesus spoke of his blood and his body as two
separate things- an answer to one of your questions. He describes why faint
bone and teeth sturcture ARE in evidence on the Shroud, how the encoding of the
dorsal image came to be, how blood ended up on the Shroud even in areas that
weren't originally in contact with the cloth. He explains the straw-yellow
color of the image and so forth. I would point out that anyone can buy
Antonacci's book and read it for himself.
That said, I'll be the first to admit that as much as this theory explains, it
seems to have problems, and some are indeed the very things you mentioned. (For
example, I'm not sure either how dried blood ended up staying within the weave
of the fabric- unless perhaps a radiant burst fused it in some fashion to the
material.)
But as you'll recall, when I mentioned the "Historically Consistent Method", I
stated then that it seemed a bit "contrived" to me. That's NOT to say, however,
that much of what it describes isn't necessarily exactly what happened.
But to me, much about the Shroud simply defies explanation. For example the
distortion dilema Dr. Towe keeps bringing up. One can assume all kinds of
things- like collimated radiation, flattened cloth etc. But nobody really
knows. The STURP scientists themselves concluded their extensive investigation
by stating that they had no idea how the image of a real crucified man got on a
gravecloth- that it remained a "mystery." All they could ultimately say was
that the high-resolution photo-negative dimensionally encoded image was that of
a real man who appeared to have been crucified, that the image was comprised of
a chemical change in the linen itself and that the blood was real blood.
To me, the fact that no one can explain the haunting image on this ancient
piece of linen is exactly what one would expect if the Shroud of Turin is what
it looks like- a gravecloth bearing the actual image of Jesus as he lay in his
tomb. It would be like trying to explain how Jesus walked on water. I can't
begin to explain or duplicate the Shroud, and almost certainly never will. But
neither can you.
Bob Haroldsen
Frank Weaver
In article <20010622181344...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Mr. Weaver, the answers to your questions ARE in Antonacci's book starting on
>page 222.
Is that why you're unable to provide them, point by point?
For the second time, I've seen what crap Antonacci is slinging. Of
course his hand-waving horse manure doesn't address any of the
specifics I asked about. My point is that it's not meant to. It's
meant to, as the saying goes, 'baffle 'em with bull.'
>He describes how Jesus spoke of his blood and his body as two
>separate things- an answer to one of your questions.
If this is supposed to address question #1 (why the blood didn't
dematerialize), then it reflects the intellectual and linguistic
level of a four-year-old child. Much beyond that age, and they begin
to realize that the expression 'an arm and a leg' may not *literally*
mean leaving detached limbs on the shop counter.
>He describes why faint
>bone and teeth sturcture ARE in evidence on the Shroud,
The evidence for these structures is hardly clear. Actually, they're
more a matter of fertile imagination than anything. And his waving
away of why the rest of the skeleton is missing is , shall we say,
unconvincing?
>how the encoding of the
>dorsal image came to be,
That is particularly vapid trash, as questions 13-21 point out.
>how blood ended up on the Shroud even in areas that
>weren't originally in contact with the cloth.
Ahh, I considered taking Antonacci to task for this, but it is really
more Gilbert Lavoie's little charade, isn't it? Well, I've been
itching for an opportunity to pick this little silliness apart.
Let's start by explaining what Lavoie is up to. It's damned
inconvenient the way the 'blood' floats on top of the hair instead of
matting into it, the way real blood would (especially blood that
supposedly flowed up through the hair from scalp wounds). Hell, it
looks exactly as if some artist daubed red paint on top of the
'hair!'
Lavoie's rationalization for this inconvenient bit of evidence is
the suggestion that the 'blood' flows on the face got 'shifted' onto
the hair as the cloth collapsed. This cretinous scheme requires the
cloth to zig one way to catch the blood, than to suddenly zag in the
reverse direction to get the hair image burned in, with great
precision, all in the fraction of a second of dematerialization.
Don't forget that the cloth had to remain absolutely flat all
during this hyperspeed hokey-pokey.
But we're not done with Lavoie yet. Don't forget that the 'blood' on
the hair HAS been traced to scalp wounds from the crown (or helmet)
of thorns. Either Lavoie's spinning cloth managed by sheer
coincidence to line up with the otherwise bloodless scalp wounds or
he is carrying on the shroudie tradition -- already very well
illustrated by e.g., the radiation re-dated, bio-contaminated
medieval patch, or the pollen rubbed into lower portions of the cloth
that the rubbers didn't know exist -- of not caring whether they
contradict themselves while squriming away from inconvenient bits of
evidence.
Not even idiocy is the limit to Lavoie's sins. He's disingenuous as
well. Numerous bleeding scalp wounds just like the ones Lavoie has
tried to explain away have been documented on the back side of the
head as well, all with 'blood' floating on top of the hair. Lavoie
pointedly ignores them, knowing that his dishonest 'explanation'
can't account for them. Antonacci admits to at least twenty such
bleeding wounds on the back. To accept Lavoie's gibberish, Antonacci
must be either an idiot himself, or a liar.
>He explains the straw-yellow
>color of the image and so forth. I would point out that anyone can buy
>Antonacci's book and read it for himself.
Cellulose dehydration. That's been known for years. And there are
perfectly reasonable explanations that don't depend on special shroud
physics.
>That said, I'll be the first to admit that as much as this theory explains, it
>seems to have problems, and some are indeed the very things you mentioned. (For
>example, I'm not sure either how dried blood ended up staying within the weave
>of the fabric- unless perhaps a radiant burst fused it in some fashion to the
>material.)
Here's a real simple explanation, Bob, one that fits all the evidence.
The artist painted the 'blood' on, and some dried within the fibers.
Much was later scraped or boiled out, but enough remnants remain to be
detectable.
>But as you'll recall, when I mentioned the "Historically Consistent Method", I
>stated then that it seemed a bit "contrived" to me. That's NOT to say, however,
>that much of what it describes isn't necessarily exactly what happened.
Here's a very simple idea, Bob. Apply what's variously called the
law of parsimony, Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor, or the KISS principle.
Loads of bullshit with loads of special rules, never-yet-invented
special physics, high-speed zig-zagging cloth, etc. ad nauseum are
for the truly desperate, the truly moronic, or the truly deceitful.
Simple explanations are best. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
And sometimes a fake shroud relic is exactly what it appears to be: a
fake.
>But to me, much about the Shroud simply defies explanation. For example the
>distortion dilema Dr. Towe keeps bringing up. One can assume all kinds of
>things- like collimated radiation, flattened cloth etc. But nobody really
>knows.
Here's a real simple explanation, Bob, one that fits all the evidence.
The artist painted it that way because any other way would have made
it incomprehensible.
>The STURP scientists themselves concluded their extensive investigation
>by stating that they had no idea how the image of a real crucified man got on a
>gravecloth- that it remained a "mystery."
They took great pains to avoid considering any realistic possibilities
because they WANTED to create a mystery. If they were intellectually
honest they ran the risk of stumbling on a non-miraculous explanation.
T'wouldn't be prudent to look too close.
[snip]
>To me, the fact that no one can explain the haunting image on this ancient
>piece of linen is exactly what one would expect if the Shroud of Turin is what
>it looks like- a gravecloth bearing the actual image of Jesus as he lay in his
>tomb. It would be like trying to explain how Jesus walked on water. I can't
>begin to explain or duplicate the Shroud, and almost certainly never will. But
>neither can you.
I can damned well explain the shroud. In fact, I've challenged you
repeatedly to come up with the things that 'can't be duplicated' with
a pledge to show how it could have been (and sometimes HAS been) done.
You haven't. You are a coward AND a fraud. Haven't you even
guts enough to parrot the swill spewed by such an abject liar as
Antonacci?
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOzgjHayjdWYzk1A5AQHMRwf+KQr5O5fZUEeIH6869mX8rHEn7Ykme8LE
5eu32FkWvDwk1A4xm4kvy+Q1pIz9f1z+Ag7DH7qt+JpvxtQnXB4RSd8aJNZuq7oq
5BVu7x4H1hKkdwwz7Yj1loTcrUNOru0g4IMpVTSol9gmCdcEr5tSvLtRoAQe7z7g
fkyawDnRoPw5uCajtaTqf0VJcQn9rZwdO5n8iVrVm/GldRS/CtEgZoZv5mktKVY2
g6MFizdGV90x61yCFrGT88CYXYonnnW8/32uWvV093Wub7IsANuUGp7HxvCN+Q3O
JDx4MyhtTkqSS0yVYCyTbNYsXhR/s9saiVlB/MqrCc1qTgJWn04aXw==
=Fz/k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
day! And if you really want to impress me, duplicate it. Should I hold my
breath? As for your ranting and raving and calling me names, I could swear
there must be something about the Shroud that frightens you. (Usually when
people turn vicious it's out of fear.) Are you frightened by the Shroud Mr.
Weaver?
Bob
Bobbycindi
what most skeptics do when it comes to the Shroud; invoke Occam's Razor. The
problem is, by automatically assuming the Shroud can't be what it looks like,
you end up turning poor old Occam on his head.
Why? Because we have on the Shroud what appears to be the image of a man; an
inexplicable high-resolution photo-negative imprint that image specialists
insist is not just a representation, but the real thing. It's an image that
even the pathologists are convinced is real. If anyone should know, it's them.
Professional artists agree and point out that in addition, the Shroud is
anything BUT a painting- for one thing, raw linen makes for a terrible painting
surface, binders wear out and pigments flake off. Physicists and chemists
alike are convinced it's a real man too. Likewise archeologists,
anthropologists, historians, theologians, surgeons, textile experts,
palynologists, botanists, microanalyists, engineers, art historians, anatomy
professors, you name it.
You guys, on the other hand, cling to poor old Walter McCrone who's never
actually seen the Shroud, and 'smoke and mirrors' Joe Nickell who would have us
believe that the image is NOT that of a real man. Never mind that they, nor
anyone else, can begin to explain or duplicate it. (Simply CLAIMING that you
can doesn't cut it by the way- no matter how hard you thump your chest.)
And so who really has Occam's Razor on their side. STURP, after hundreds of
thousands of hours of investigation came to the same conclusion that so many
others have both before and after them; THE IMAGE ON THE SHROUD IS EXACTLY WHAT
IT APPEARS TO BE- THAT OF REAL MAN WHO APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED.
What could be more in keeping with Occum's Razor than that- that it is what it
looks like? The fact that the image defies explanation means only that- it
defies explanation. The thing is, so do a lot of things. I could image even
Isaac Newton having difficulty understanding how a star could suddenly, for a
few brief moments, outshine all the other stars in the heavens turning night
into day. He might even call it a miracle.
Bob Haroldsen
Bobbycindi
that of all the paintings of the world, one of them would be impossible to
duplicate? Especially when virtually all the evidence points away from the
Shroud being a man-made artifact, and instead to the fact that it is exactly
what it looks like- a cloth bearing the image of a crucifed man.
Frank Weaver
In article <20010627133027...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
What a silly idea! Rather, I get exasperated at people who
persistently make grandiose, bombastic assertions and lack either
the intellectual capacity or intellectual honesty to back them up
with evidence.
Obviously, I can't be very frightened by anything about the shroud if
I'm willing to take on any and every bit of such evidence tendered.
Oh, I could do your work for you; I already know what pro-shroud
propagandists have to say. That's why it's silly to think I'm scared.
The burden, however, is on you to make a positive case of properties
that "can't be duplicated." I won't have you making any disingenuous
after-remarks about my not considering your best evidence. If You
present your best evidence, you are assured that I'm taking on the
very best case you can make.
In article <20010627180931...@ng-ma1.aol.com>
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
[snip]
>Physicists and chemists
>alike are convinced it's a real man too. Likewise archeologists,
>anthropologists, historians, theologians, surgeons, textile experts,
>palynologists, botanists, microanalyists, engineers, art historians, anatomy
>professors, you name it.
[snip]
If the very best case you can make consists of bombast like this that
says, in effect, "lots of pro-shroud propagandists think it's
authentic" then don't waste my time.
The idea that they are foolish, incompetent, self-deluded or
deceptive is one that would not occur to you.
There are, as much as you try to deny it, artists, archeologists,
chemists, pathologists, historians, forensics experts, etc. etc. who
equally strongly refute each and every claim your selected group of
pro-shroud scientist/sorceror/priests makes.
You don't get to pick and choose who the real experts are based on
whether they say what you want to hear or not. The real expertise
belongs to those with the better fit to the evidence. That requires
you to actually be able to cite some evidence. That you've resorted
to simple-minded ipse dixit arguments instead leaves me wondering
whether you have even a clue what your own propagandists have to say
on why the shroud (allegedly) can't be duplicated. That leaves your
repeated ranting that it can't even more transparent. Need to
convince yourself?
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOz///qyjdWYzk1A5AQF1lAf/QslYGZ3MiH7O1GkaOADr8FfmG3VVCyY8
L2nCTruLu+qVP8Hq5Ix53v/X7eBWAAm4KlyotZbpHGSWzSjfOMTIob9unWiJOXn6
59meyzJdHpW4YySzM9ne3Ky4C6qQWg9fGuJK+vHQcVWHSOeZys5yg4/MOfBiaQPO
S0dET5FMFo2S8NyOQRGR8zltSpbiamgGHvyNG1WbNYRswR7cFBdVCOS1eIRcrHXy
sBNnZP7y6sF9hXeW0nCGNQpfHeAzmQgZ6DjwB11wpHdlBuC4iOk6lpqR+3WogV8Q
XFgIoabn0s0zylGACcMOOC/Ao7XnuVbFBuOkewRTzr3eTQ04+ZrGkg==
=RoKR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
Shroud can be duplicated. So where is it Frank? Have you made a Shroud? Have
you explained it? Of course not! What is obvious, Mr. Weaver, is that you are
full of shit.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20010702025409...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>The burden is on me? I don't think so Mr. Weaver. You're the one who claims the
>Shroud can be duplicated. So where is it Frank?
Very well, Bob. I've already pointed to the duplicate shrouds made
decades ago by Joe Nickell. I've also described how they duplicate
many of the features on the shroud, from their automatic production of
a topographically negaitve 3-D image to the obviously painted-on
'blood.' I've pointed out how they duplicate many of the chemical,
microscopic and spectral properties of the shroud, and also how they
could, given sufficient time, duplicate the apparent cellulose
degradation. I've also pointed out how a few remaining features
could be duplicated by making a few trivial changes to the method.
Likewise, we've been discussing how Nicholas P. L. Allen's solar
chemical alterations, based on the classical camera obscura, can
duplicate the shroud.
I've also pointed to the mass of irrefutable evidence that the shroud
is the work of an artist. There is the the total lack of wraparound
distortion, the obviously painted-on nature of the 'blood,' the way
the 'blood' floats on top of the hair instead of matting in. There
is also the large mass of historical, artistic and iconographic
evidence that points to medieval artistry, all of which is
corroborated by radiocarbon dating of the cloth itself.
We have (a) irrefutable evidence of artistry; and (b) at least two
plausible methods by which that artistry could have been
accomplished. It seems to me that the only item of discussion left
is which method BEST duplicates the features of the shroud.
You, by contrast, either will not or can not describe any featues
that have not been duplicated, much less features that *can not* be
duplicated. Oh, you keep saying, vwery repetitively, that it can't,
and keep insisting that none of the duplicates really are, but you
have never offered a single, solitary reason why. IOW, it's
completely hollow BS.
Now, one reason someone 'will not' name unduplicable features is
because of the very substantial risk of being refuted. Someone 'can
not' name such features just in case there are none or he is entirely
clueless about his own case.
Regardless of which reason applies to you, your inability or
unwillingness to support your bombast demonstrates, I think, how
disingenuous it is.
>Have you made a Shroud? Have
>you explained it? Of course not! What is obvious, Mr. Weaver, is that you are
>full of shit.
To quote a certain prominent Shroudie, ""I leave it to the reader to
decide whether this type of rhetoric is usually associated with a
carefully reasoned argument, not to mention a 'powerful case.' "
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO0Wn3ayjdWYzk1A5AQHAKgf9H7H5pJp7wLkqs4C4po02+F6Z1x3EKJa5
mBWQDZp854qBJifDN9f5JrmkJ25bNY3MsQPlhhEqrJX3YW5KzhVM9pIuEHzQgsXS
syWKrVvQ1g1SJSK2IKwHCOmms72GBrzdKeOYyUMfeXoQedBZFraIovfvrbYOPBiV
R5ZJd0nIWuWAIf2+5nUnIrIFqYLXmgQa8J4BhfVCm682VBAb4vuHNxe204DjAZAl
iBl8xZwbWV3pHVtQpsjUNN1/wh/1dYcQZ89WwdDAlt79NQZYd1GdaBBCyoeARddI
EQbrOWoYI5GDAFkpoES8xgQGAB8NU55ewSAIhk2DlxkNfoUV/B73KA==
=UUCd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
that the real thing can be duplicated. I knew you'd make my day! Out of
curiosity, did you do it with a straight face? If that's honestly the best you
can come up with, then we 'shroudies' really are in better shape than even I
would have thought!
As for listing the many characteristics no one can duplicate (especially Joe
Nickell), I'll do it for you tomorrow if I feel like it. (I went over them once
already if you'll recall- it was on the occasion when I also mentioned that
Nickell's 'shroud' never fails to make me laugh.) For now, I'd just point out
again that the harder the skeptics try to duplicate the Shroud, the more
desperate they look and the more they prove how impossible it is. As you sound
pretty desperate Mr. Weaver, why don't you give it a try? You could make my day
again!!
In the mean time, if you want to continue to ignore what scientists and
professional artists alike have to say about the Shroud, and turn instead to
the smoke and mirrors of Joe Nickell, be my guest.
Finally, about my comment that caused you to repeat back my words to me about a
'carefully reasoned argument.' That was fair enough and I deserved it-
swilling beer tends to make me a bit blunt. And while I'm at it, I should
apologize to John Boatwright who I once accused of using heavy-handed rhetoric.
Truth be told, I've lately gotten way worse that he ever did! So John if you
read this, I'm sorry my man. I'll try to tone myself down. Now, I guess I'll
have another beer. Why don't you do the same, Frank, and maybe we can meet
somewhere and get in a fist fight over the Shroud. (Just kidding! I think..)
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20010706173439...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>So Mr. Weaver, you would actually point to Joe Nickell's 'shroud' as evidence
>that the real thing can be duplicated. I knew you'd make my day! Out of
>curiosity, did you do it with a straight face? If that's honestly the best you
>can come up with, then we 'shroudies' really are in better shape than even I
>would have thought!
Less bluster, more substance, please.
>As for listing the many characteristics no one can duplicate (especially Joe
>Nickell), I'll do it for you tomorrow if I feel like it. (I went over them once
>already if you'll recall- it was on the occasion when I also mentioned that
>Nickell's 'shroud' never fails to make me laugh.)
That was the same stream of uninterrupted ad hominem you recycled
above, wasn't it?
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO0xQyKyjdWYzk1A5AQFmkQf+Ll06T9ZC/JBssHFbTzkIjc3maz03HFXm
PtH10pPj1PeSDRjrxlkHTAIeJktXQ7//zUVkyx7hdvzdHXfijtN6UoeG+6l9iQZi
EOKZEJm7bK95NHXO9rD0dkoMUd43ID57xURyY1pwE8pCZdD0ToJS5Sr9SjRgn+AG
Y4jeygaZgChSz57Fif9ZUWnfCyihn6JbmGpCEf9etUR8OEwRH+OEVaHHEnaNklqd
zyutjAQp29V7mLRm5OlwESGl2+U6UPDjmTVMRLDqrWDKor2WoVhsUfJM7uY0EwVQ
zO2J4Y/ZxaKIwoFUfBqVHpGNeAoP6hICs7N/z+4ZGtSimPjCiKugEw==
=uGM6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
image on a linen grave cloth of a man that is anatomically perfect. The most
experienced pathologists in the world can, and have, even 'autopsied' the man
of the Shroud and been able to determine his cause of death. The blood on the
Shroud is real blood (has been found to contain DNA) and soaks through the
cloth to the other side whereas the image does not. There is no image under the
blood stains indicating that the blood soaked into the cloth before the image
was formed. The image is comprised not of added pigments or dusts or coloring
agents of any kind, but is a chemical change in the cellulose of the linen
itself and exists only on the millions of fibrals of the linen threads. The
chemical change is known as dehydrated oxidation and gives rise to the
straw-yellow color of the Shroud image. The image is built up in what is called
a random pixle format and is similar to the way a newspaper image is made. It
is encoded with cloth to body distance information making it totally unique.
Artists attempting to duplicate such accurate relief information can only do it
by copying what they see on the Shroud, and then by checking and adusting their
results with the aid of a VP-8 image analyzer. The image has been determined to
be directionless which also indicates that it is not the work of an artist. It
is also indestructable (relatively speaking) and has survived fires, water,
countless foldings and unfoldings etc. Artists will tell you that no painting
could survive this. Artists will also tell you that the image displays optical
foreshortening which wasn't practiced until relatively recently. They will also
tell you that the image has no distinct outlines which is completely foreign to
any known artistic style. The image can, when superimposed over it's own
slightly offset negative image generate accurate relief information which is
something no other image can do. Scientists and researchers from across the
board who have studied the image agree that the image is that of a real
crucified man. The cloth itself displays numerous subtle clues that take it
right back to the tme and place of Jesus. In fact, aside from the carbon
dating, which is now in serious doubt, there is nothing about the Shroud that
is not consistent with authenticity. Also, the image on the Shroud looks
exactly like the images found on 6th and 7th coins and icons depicting Jesus.
The blood type and patterns also match the Sudarium of Oviedo which was known
to have been the 'napkin' that went around Jesus's head. This cloth has been
under lock and key since the 7th century.
So there you go Frank. Do you want to brush aside the whole thing in one fell
swoop with a few big words, or take each item one at a time and tell me why the
dozens of researchers who determined these things and had their work
peer-reviewed were wrong? Or do you want to simply point to Joe Nickell's
'shroud' and hope for the best? (That somebody out there might actually buy
it?)
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20010712025112...@ng-df1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>So there you go Frank. Do you want to brush aside the whole thing in one fell
>swoop with a few big words, or take each item one at a time and tell me why the
>dozens of researchers who determined these things and had their work
>peer-reviewed were wrong?
Definitely the latter. But I'm going to do it in stages. Also, as
you might have noticed, I'm going to rearrange things pretty freely
to group similarly problematic claims together. This is to minimize
the length and repetitiveness of my responses.
STEP 1. TAKING OUT THE GARBAGE
The request was simple enough, a list of properties of the shroud
that allegedly 'can not be duplicated.' In retrospect, it was silly
of me to think you'd be able to distinguish between those properties
the shroud actually has, what you want to interpret it to be, assorted
random bits of pro-authenticity propaganda, and other flotsam. So,
the first step is to go through your statement and eliminate all the
irrelevancies, non sequiturs, and fallacious arguments. Here's
what you've written, with each of the fallacies removed and replaced
by the type of fallacy in square brackets. There are a number of
resources on fallacies and on reasoning in general. You can start at
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/ or
http://courses.washington.edu/spcmu/334/reason.html
>The Shroud image is a spectacular centuries-old high-resolution photo-negative
>image on a linen grave cloth of a man that is anatomically perfect.
>[argument from false authority] The blood on the
>Shroud is real blood (has been found to contain DNA) and soaks through the
>cloth to the other side whereas the image does not. There is no image under the
>blood stains indicating that the blood soaked into the cloth before the image
>was formed. The image is comprised not of added pigments or dusts or coloring
>agents of any kind, but is a chemical change in the cellulose of the linen
>itself and exists only on the millions of fibrals of the linen threads. The
>chemical change is known as dehydrated oxidation and gives rise to the
>straw-yellow color of the Shroud image. The image is built up in what is called
>a random pixle format and is similar to the way a newspaper image is made. It
>is encoded with cloth to body distance information making it totally unique.
>[argument from ignorance] The image has been determined to
>be directionless [begging the question] It
>is also indestructable (relatively speaking) and has survived fires, water,
>countless foldings and unfoldings etc. [argument from false authority]
>[argument from false authority] the image displays optical
>foreshortening [begging the question] They will also
>tell you that the image has no distinct outlines [begging the
>question] The image can, when superimposed over it's own
>slightly offset negative image generate accurate relief information
>[begging the question] [argument from personal incredulity with implied
>argument from false authority] [deliberate vagueness] [irrelevant claim]
>[bald assertion, begging the question] [inverted post hoc ergop propter
>hoc] [irrelevant claim].
Next time, I'll get to some of the relevant actual claims made.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO1bBoayjdWYzk1A5AQE0mAf9Gwl0HiCzipXI7n80r/K09DWP1Ql/Ff/3
ZvmKgdeT0viP9nUKWu/54N8nfDNJABSv4yKeFTuKXDLGVngWQjxgUvf7zpoSZeOj
przfIqtCNWcePShoKykvIKjeqspM5e9BgGhd9StvOmUecF571g5yDJWdvgTLsjxU
8Z0RnPDAkgPGFak5jTAeTTmIUpGi8gbAj7shWAyriPqCfnwkK/Dp3paQum1d8v0v
+9B6VTEii4a/bZZ4Nfz0V/SjpxD95e08+SkMrxa3z/hW9GxNP28Sg/sUg0x8XPjK
fFarBg5vIScUNAPQJ1MKFY+1izKbwBWeuaQAkDPijn+4lcTziN72Yg==
=o0+A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mistletoe Hills
I'll do anything! I'll never read another peer-reviewed paper! I'll renounce
scientific methodology and pay homage only to the Goddess of Smoke and
Mirrors!! Just don't invert my ergop propter or freely rearrange my post hoc
personal incredulity!!! I'm 'begging' you!!!!
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20010712025112...@ng-df1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
[snip]
>So there you go Frank. Do you want to brush aside the whole thing in one fell
>swoop with a few big words, or take each item one at a time and tell me why the
[snip]
OK, I've been lackadaisacal about it, but now that I've cleaned out
all the garbage and empty rhetoric from your 'properties,' I'm ready
to get to some of the actual properties you say the shroud has.
There are 19 specific claims that fit into three groups.
Here are the first two groups.
GROUP 1. ASSUMPTIONS, WISHES OR DESIRES PRESUMPTIVELY DECLARED TO
BE FACTS
I committed to explaining how to duplicate the actual properties of
the shroud, not all the things you think it is or wish it were.
>grave cloth
This is pure wishful thinking.
>anatomically perfect
That is frankly impossible to do. There is *always* distortion when
a three dimensional object is represented in two dimensions. That is
an unalterable fact of geometry. The issue becomes, then, whether
the distortion is consistent with a cloth wrapped around a three
dimensional body or not.
The body proportions revealed by any attempt at reeconstructing the
three dimensional figure are grossly distorted. According to Giorgio
Ricci, the legs are 51 cm (20 in) long in the front view, but only
36.5 cm (14.5 in) in the ventral view. If the arms were
straightened, they would extend past the knees, with the right arm
(according to Pierre Barbet) longer than the left. The fingers are
5-6 times longer than on a normal individual. The head length, too,
is out of proportion to the body.
This does not even mention anomalies of reproduction, such as the
missing shoulders, or the gap between the hair and face. Nor does it
account for the the LACK of distortions that would predictably be in
place (e.g., the missing sides and top of the head between the two
views) if the image had formed without artistic adjustment.
Sure, shroud apologists have all sorts of ways of fudging and
manipulating the data -- assorted body contortions, convenient bolts
of cloth to prop it up just right, imaginary tucks and folds at just
the right points, and so forth. These, however, are ad hoc
assumptions for massaging the real evidence of gross anatomical
abnormalities, into a wished-for 'anatomical correctness' that does
not exist in fact.
>the image displays optical foreshortening
I've juxtaposed this next to the 'anatomically correct' claim because
they so brutally contradict each other.
What's even more interesting is the vicious circularity by which
these two contradictory assumptions are used to prop each other up.
The obvious anatomical abnormalities are fudged away by ad hoc
contortions of the body that are 'optically foreshortened.' When
even contortions can't be invented, simply invoke some previously
unknown optical phenomenon whose unexplained effects just happen to
transform, for instance, correctly proportioned fingers into the
Freddy Krueger claws the image actually has, 'proving' that the image
is anatomically perfect to begin with.
There is no reason to take such circular rationalizations seriously.
The figure in fact is distorted from normal human proportions. Some
of those distortions, the extra-long arms, legs, fingers and head,
for instance, are matters of artistic style. Others, like the
missing shoulders, impossible right footprint, and legs longer in
front than in back, are simply attributed to accidents or errors in
judgment by the artist.
>There is no image under the blood stains indicating that the blood
> soaked into the cloth before the image was formed.
Another property you state is that the 'blood' soaks through the
cloth (which is so). Therefore, there is NO 'under the blood
stains.' The entire statement is meaningless jabber, like 'above the
top' or 'before the beginning.'
>The image is comprised not of added pigments or dusts or coloring
>agents of any kind,
You wish! A variety of pigments have been identified on the shroud,
as even you've admitted. Blind tests have distinguished distinct
concentrations of several pigments on image vs. 'blood' vs. control
(non-image) areas. However, several artistic means do exist for
creating an image without the use of pigments (e.g. Allen's method).
I will also get to other explanations that are consistent with the
known changes in the image over time.
>[encoded with cloth to body distance information] making it totally
>unique
I'll deal with the part in brackets later. The other part is
categorically ignorant. A great many artistic methods encode
topographic information. Statuary, bas relief, block printing, and
rubbing are only the ones off the top of my head. Granted, not all
of them are necessarily able to duplicate the shroud, but the idea
that this feature is 'unique' to the shroud is an unmitigated
falsehood.
>They will also tell you that the image has no distinct outlines
This is either very badly expressed or another piece of meaningless
gibberish. If the image literally had 'no distinct outlines' there
wouyld be no way of telling the image from the non-image!
>The image can, when superimposed over it's own slightly offset negative
>image generate accurate relief information
The method relies on a combination of highly distorted images (similar
to the Rorschach blot effect) and vivid imagination. This alleged
property has not only NOT been demonstrated to exist in blind
trials. Since the same method generates (according to Alan Whanger)
a variety of higly unlikely images (coins, spears, sponges, whips,
and a great deal more) it can be relegated to the same junkpile as
Blondlot's N-rays until it can be SHOWN to be duplicable by
disinterested parties.
>It is also indestructable (relatively speaking) and has survived
>fires, water, countless foldings and unfoldings etc.
The obvious burn holes and water stains argue that this is literally
false. But I suspect what you are trying to say is something about
the shroud image remaining unchanged for centuries, at least.
That is an unjustified assumption that is directly contradicted by
historical evidence that the image was much more vivid in the past
than it is now. That evidence, in fact, points to at least one
means of reproduction (which we'll get to) that can duplicate the
shroud both as it appeared in the 14th century and as it appears
today.
GROUP 2. FALSEHOODS AND CONTESTED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE
>high-resolution
This is a judgment call. If you'd care to quantify it, I'm
listening. Otherwise, the ability to fantasize details not actually
present has already been noted.
>photo-negative
This is a falsehood. Photographs use light and shadow. A PHOTO
negative reverses the two (more precisely, it inverts the grey scale
brightness of image areas).
If the shroud image is a PHOTOGRAPHIC negative, then the darkness of
the hair and beard in photgrphic negatives translates into
shock-white in positive. Likewise, the 'closed' (dark) eyes must be
glowing in positive. These things are not likely.
What Jackson and Jumper demonstrated was that there is a rough (very
rough, with lots of data scatter) correlation between image intensity
and cloth-to-body distance, assuming a body wrapped in a cloth. That
is by definition a topographic negative.
The topographic negative property of the image is an automatic
product of wet or dry rubbings or by pigment dusting on a bas relief
or statue, as has demonstrated by various people. It is also
duplicated by Nicholas Allen's camera obscura technique.
>The blood on the Shroud is real blood
There's little need to go through the extensive evidence that this
conclusion is reached only by systematically misrepresenting some of
the chemical analyses and ignoring the consistently negative results
from any of the chemical and spectroscopic methods that test directly
for blood.
It's sufficient for the point of 'duplicating the shroud' to point
out that it's trivial for an artist to mix real blood (chicken or pig
would be readily available) in with his red pigments.
>(has been found to contain DNA)
Whether this is so or not, it does not appear to be relevant. As
Victor Tryon, the man who claims to have found the DNA signature,
says, "I have no idea who or where the DNA signal came from, nor how
long it's been there. ... Everyone who has ever touched the shroud or
cried over the shroud has left a potential DNA signal there" (Time,
Apr 20 1998).
Now, I'm not going to claim that a 14th century artist would
deliberately plant DNA on his forgery, or even that he could. But
there is no reason to believe that the the presence of DNA on the
shroud, if any, is anything other than a byproduct of being pawed
over for a few centuries.
Next time, I'll finish up by showing how to duplicate the shroud, and
offering a few other of its properties you neglected to mention.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO2FbhayjdWYzk1A5AQH40wf+Jnv0bHI42BBDgJQ5BkmnWDYPbd2M9JaM
C+oHIl1Hxmp3oflPEiRJtMawTaS9BQHjwH4PIlpTEXH55pBOcMhekMW04NT7hBwM
MODJ2Lriy7jN55HvLZWlBfqzXZQeF9W5hdPC3Lah5a2Ou3TNwSKjB377b+J/jIWx
3D5bymUrNqoE4nUaoExbZW7yBfHUATrAzQTSIsei5UrVf9/7zDVRWNFq1/qR+iF1
5aYhZ64SyGkJ24hEnTy26aOqdrNxBhrXtmJ+cX/f8yC/HFWMqs0WW2yGUey68wTX
Hdl1A1yXK7o45CmRZYGkvSFU095Byg8Ur9IbtYAGUkIlBMx6UMewYg==
=J3B1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
K.M. Towe
"difficulty" that will be shoved under the proverbial rug?
--
Dr. K.M. Towe
230 West Adams Street
Tennille, GA 31089-1403
Voice: [478] 552-7500
Fax: [503] 210-1558
E-mail: to...@accucomm.net
Frank Weaver
In article <20010712025112...@ng-df1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
[snip]
>So there you go Frank. Do you want to brush aside the whole thing in one fell
>swoop with a few big words, or take each item one at a time
[snip]
At long last, the conclusion.
HOW TO DUPLICATE THE SHROUD, PART 3
Now that I've eliminated the empty rhetoric, the wishful thinking,
and the biased and often unsupportable interpretations of the
evidence, I'll show how the very few (6) actual features of the shroud
you gave can be duplicated, despite your persistent bombast to the
contrary.
GROUP 3. GENERALLY AGREED UPON PROPERTIES OF THE SHROUD THAT CAN BE
DUPLICATED BY ARTISTIC TECHNIQUES
>[blood] soaks through the cloth to the other side
Too trivial. Any liquid will do, such as paint. Not coincidentally,
all the chemical analyses, including the ones that you insist on
interpreting as blood to satisfy your need to believe, are consistent
with the 'blood' being red pigments in a tempera watercolor medium.
This is supported, as well, by the 'painted-on' appearance of the
'blood.'
>whereas the image does not [soak through the cloth].
There are several ways to do this. Joe Nickell successfully
demonstrated that wet-rub and dry-rub techniques with semi-dry
hematite (i.e., red ocher) cake leave pigment only on the surface
fibrils of the cloth. Emily Craig and Randall Bresee used a
variation of these methods to transfer dry pigment powder from a
drawing onto cloth. McCrone has demonstrated that painting with a
very thin medium (e.g., as in medieval grisaille painting) can also
have this effect, provided the paint is applied properly (McCrone
used his fingers; a dauber would also do). In this case, the paint
medium (watercolor tempera) does soak into the cloth, but it
eventually dries. That leaves pigment on only top layers. And
Nicholas Allen's solargraphy method affects the surface fibers only.
>The image is built up in what is called a random pixle format and
>is similar to the way a newspaper image is made.
I think by this you mean the 'random checkerboard' or crown effect
seen in some photomicrographs. Under magnification, the color
appears on the topmost threads, but does not follow those threads as
they dip in the weave pattern (I don't mean not under other threads,
just physically lower as they're bent down in the weave).
This effect has been demonstrated by Joe Nickell on woven fabrics
rubbed with pigments (Inquest, p. 92). IIRC, McCrone's grisaille
finger-painting also shows a crown effect.
OTOH, any means of projected radiation could not show such an effect
on unshadowed dips in the threads. That's a point against Allen's
solargraphy as well as your favored resurrection radiation.
>encoded with cloth to body distance information
Assuming a cloth wrapped around a body. The more general property is
that it *roughly* encodes 3-D information as local tonal variations.
Any method based on rubbing or block-printing encodes 3-D
information. Nickell's and Craig's methods specifically do so as
local variations in image tone. Allen's solargraph image also
encodes local tonal variations.
>The image has been determined to be directionless
So? Some artists, da Vinci for instance, have given this impression.
It may not even be meaningful; under sufficient magnification the
directionality of brush (or dauber) strokes disappears.
For another answer, see the one below.
>a chemical change in the cellulose of the linen itself and exists
>only on the millions of fibrals of the linen threads. The chemical
>change is known as dehydrated oxidation and gives rise to the
>straw-yellow color of the Shroud image.
I saved the best for last, because it combines so many of the
elements of false assumptions, willful ignorance, and bits of
evidence already brought up.
Let's start with one of the more informed criticisms of Nickell's
method. The image in his rubbings consists of the particles of
pigment he rubs in. Yet the pigment particles McCrone found were
small agglomerates in the submicron range, which one skeptic
estimates could account for no more than 10% of the image intensity
(Marvin Mueller, "The Shroud of Turin: A Critical Appraisal,"
Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1982).
Another issue with rubbings is that, as Isabel Piczek ("Is the Shroud
of Turin A Painting?" private publication, 1995) notes, the loss (or
lack) of a binding medium results inthe pigment particles falling
off. Nickell (Inquest, p. 139) has experimentally confirmed that the
larger particles do indeed slough off rather readily under handling,
gradually diminishing the pigment over time to a scattering of
submicron size particles.
As Piczek states, "The Shroud was folded and refolded, rolled,
exhibited, carried, exposed to sun and handled" ("Is the Shroud ..")
She concludes from that that the shroud could not have been made by
an artist. But she reaches the wrong conclusion because she starts
with the unnecessary and unwarranted assumption that the shroud has
always been unchanged and indestructible. That assumption is based,
circularly, on declaring the shroud a priori to be a miraculous icon,
which is *supposed* to be indestructible by tradition.
Actual historical evidence suggests that the image on the shroud was
very much bolder in the 14th century. It also points out that the
background linen was once much whiter than it is now. The combination
of the gradual sloughing off of the pigment under handling and the
natural yellowing of the surrounding linen makes the original image
grow dimmer and fainter over time.
But what about that chemical degradation of the cellulose? I've
covered that before. Again, experimental science come to our aid.
And again it is Joe Nickell, not anyone from STURP, who's done the
science.
McCrone identified the trace red pigment in the image as primarily
red ocher in the form of jeweller's rouge or Venetian Red, both of
which were in use in the 14th century. All recipes for making
Venetian Red consist of calcining (heating) ferrous sulfate (green
vitriol), either with ammonia, as from urine, or with whiting
(calcium carbonate, made from grinding chalk or limestone).
AsNickell proved by testing the recipes, a substantial amount of the
sulfate salts remain in the pigment even after washing. He also
showed that with even a small amount of moisture, these sulfate salts
turn into dilute sulfuric acid that eats away, dehydrates, and
yellows the linen (Inquest, p. 139).
I haven't even talked about the degradative effect Prof. Allen
observed by painting a cloth with silver nitrate or silver sulfate
and exposing it to sunlight. For details on that, see his paper
"Images on the Shroud of Turin: Verification of the Nature and Causes
of the Photo-negative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin"
in De Arte, vol 51, p 21-35 (July 1995).
GROUP 4. MORE PROPERTIES OF THE SHROUD YOU HAVEN'T MENTIONED
So there you have it, Bob. Any of the several variations of the
rubbing/burnishing/printing methods demonstrated by Nickell or Craig
and Bresee CAN duplicate and HAS duplicated every one of the shroud
properties that you have named except those 'properties' that are
simply wishful thinking or interpretations of the evidence that are
biased by a priori assumptions or outright falsehoods. With the
possible exception of the crown effect, Allen's solargraphy also
duplicates those properties.
Barrie Schwortz can also take this as the answer to his challenge.
I find it amazing that in the 24 years he's devoted to the shroud,
he's never managed to stumble on at least the embarassingly simple
imaging method Joe Nickell developed and published 18 years ago.
If you or Barrie would like to offer an alternative method, be my
guest. But there are some other properties of the shroud you didn't
mention which your mechanism also needs to account for. Here are
several.
(1) According to Sam Pellicori ("Spectral Properties of the Shroud of
Turin," Applied Optics, 1980; 19: 1913-1920), the shroud image
does not fluoresce at all under UV.
This is significant because of what it says the image can NOT be.
Scorches on linen, such as the known burn holes on the shroud, always
fluoresce bright red under UV (Marvin Mueller, "The Shroud of Turin:
A Critical Appraisal," Skeptical Inquirer Spring 1982; see also
Nickell, Inquest, p. 92). The lack of fluorescence eliminates any
scorch mechanism, whether from wrapping around a hot statue.bas
relief, an inexplicable burst of radiation, or whatever.
(2) The flat linen/lack of wraparound distortion issue.
(3) The picturesque, undisturbed appearance of the blood stains.
(4) The blood that floats on top of the hair without matting it.
(5) The hair that falls in defiance of gravity.
(6) Finally, the lack of pressure compression on the buttocks, thighs,
and shoulders.
These five are the same group of properties that Barrie Schwortz left
unanswered the last time he tucked his tail between his legs and slunk
out of the NG. Can you provide a rational (that is, scientific)
mechanism to explains these properties? That would mean a mechanism
that does not resort to the wholesale miracle-mongering, evasions,
and incoherent babble you've offered on other occasions. I can. I
have. I've bet myself a case of beer that you can't.
I've got another bet with myself that you are mendacious enough to go
on saying "no one can duplicate the shroud" without even making a
pretense of responding to my explanation of just how to duplicate
every feature you gave. That is called charlatanry, Bob. Are you
going to prove that my low expectations for you are justified?
If it makes you feel any better, I have the same low expectations of
Mr. Schwortz.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO2eqIqyjdWYzk1A5AQHJxgf8C7WDISnR/UsopL7GBvk5V5zwlWeLJWMW
Iz0cfhXVOpkNPNxslCSxYEMZS2SnCrBp2gNHpFAvYQh96InbDtO6saXuFixUpaIu
pa6X/Lqp0m930PSKZuI6CGhRDwg80ABN/UK6dy/9I/GIQerX4RGby2SryovZ4xbp
5bNRAOmAKaIrRIq76wsHl5wzO5jBhCG9wETscM8Th5TpIyDaavkgkYBkiPkq82Fe
rTTHfPhLs+WRlDcXRFXod2UAO11IilrQBYs/2iyeGkr64aY8rcLqF03GoitvRz7J
jL54/wVEmcsXynng+CALT7cJpdK3sk7yTMYJHVHhwcwdJOjVlwWmKQ==
=oNSa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mistletoe Hills
is that this will forever remain so. This doesn't mean, however, that we
shouldn't continue to study this most enigmatic cloth. But as STURP itself
concluded in its final report, the image remains a mystery. The thing is,
these are the men and women who were (and still are) actually in a position to
say. Joe Nickell is not. That you have relied on him to do your thinking might
be good enough for you, but not me. Mr. Nickell is a stage magician and
professional skeptic who is good at fooling people. His rhetoric is
undoubtedly polished. But it can't compete with the graphs and charts and
analysis of STURP- scientists from the best labs and institutions in the
country who did top-notch work on the Shroud and troubled to have it reviewed
by their peers. If you want to ignore it go ahead.
You and Dr. Towe would have your readers believe that the Shroud can be
duplicated. And yet no one has even come close. Think about it. How hard would
it be to duplicate the Mona Lisa? Any professional artist could do it well
enough to fool almost everybody. But the Shroud? Forget it. Anyone with eyes
and a brain can look at any of the abysmal efforts to make a shroud and tell at
a glance what they are- hopeless attempts to duplicate something that can't be
duplicated. What should be obvious to all who would give it some thought, is
that whoever made the Shroud was in a league of His own.
Bob Haroldsen
Douglas Oswell
> Is anyone going to comment on this? Or, is this another
> "difficulty" that will be shoved under the proverbial rug?
I don't see anything difficult about it. For a three-dimensional
prototype the cloth would have to stand completely off the object,
allowing perhaps for contact with the outermost surfaces only.
Anything else will give noticeable distortion.
mignarda
correctly, the STURP results indicated nothing more than a dehydration and
conjugation of the outermost fibrils. The difference between that and what
we think of as a scorch is probably the same as the difference between
toasting your marshmallow and setting it on fire.
The VP-8 frontal image registers very little relief for the portion of the
body below the hands, though from what I can see of that, and the
conventional photographs, the knee areas are no lighter than other darkened
areas. I can't see the point in arguing that this militates against a
three-dimensional object having been wrapped in the cloth, because that, by
now, should be obvious.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, by rights, the knees should be elevated
to a much greater degree than they appear on the cloth.
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote in message
news:3B698E26...@accucomm.net...
I think you're commenting on the wrong comment, artn't you? This is what I
wrote:
Frank writes: "What Jackson and Jumper demonstrated was that there is a
rough (very rough, with lots of data scatter) correlation between image
intensity and cloth-to-body distance, assuming a body wrapped in a cloth."
It seems to my eyes that the knees on the frontal image of the Shroud have a
lower intensity than either the thighs or the legs. But, the reverse should
be true, should it not? The knees should have been closest to the linen and
therefore closer to the putative mystical radiation that is postulated to
have formed the "scorched" image. The back image is more consistent with
this "correlation" as the back of
the knees should appear lighter in tone, even if elsewhere the full weight
of the body should have pressed the linen and been decidedly more intense
than the front. If there is a cloth-to-body distance correlation, it is
pretty weakly supported by these observations and must be VERY rough indeed.
Douglas Oswell
body below the hands, though from what I can see of that, and the
conventional photographs, the knee areas are no lighter than other darkened
areas.
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote in message news:3B6A0287...@accucomm.net...I put the word "scorched" in quotes. The mechanism is irrelevant. What about the rest of my observation...?
Frank Weaver
In article <3B61B2DF...@accucomm.net>,
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
[snip]
>It seems to my eyes that the knees on the frontal image of the Shroud
>have a lower intensity than either the thighs or the legs. But, the reverse
>should be true, should it not? The knees should have been closest to the
>linen and therefore closer to the putative mystical radiation that is postulated
>to have formed the "scorched" image. The back image is more consistent
>with this "correlation" as the back of the knees should appear lighter
>in tone, even if elsewhere the full weight of the body should have pressed
>the linen and been decidedly more intense than the front. If there is a
>cloth-to-body distance correlation, it is pretty weakly supported by these
>observations and must be VERY rough indeed.
I've transcribed a somewhat lengthy account of the procedure that
Jackson and Jumper went through to get their correlation. The account
is by an image analyst at Los Aloamos National Laboratory. From
other sources, I learned that they did this in 1977. The photograph
of the Shroud they used was one of the high-contrast ones taken by
Enrie in 1931.
First, an outline of the shroud image is carefully traced, full
size, onto a piece of cloth simulating the actual "shroud." The
cloth is then draped over the reclining figure of a suitable human
male volunteer (5'11", 170 lbs.) so body parts on the simulated
image are in contact with, or vertically over, those of the
volunteer. Then by optical techniques (more difficult than they
appear) the vertical cloth-to-body distances are determined for a
two-dimensional array of image points. Previously, the optical
density (darkness) of a photograph of the shroud image had been
determined by microdensitometry [the infamous VP-8 analyzer -- F]
for a two-dimensional array also. Thus image darkness can be
correlated with cloth-to-body distance over a two-dimensional
field. This correlation turns out to be only fair, exhibiting a
lot of data scatter, but it does indicate a roughly
exponential-type fall-off to near-zero image-darkness in a little
less than two inches. Jackson and Jumper then draw a smooth curve
(an exponential function in the early work) through the region of the
scattered data points and call this the "mapping function."
But they also have to make allowance for the sag and drape of the
cloth by determining, for the same two-dimensional array, the
distances of the cloth above the table top on which the human model
reposes. (By simple subtraction, one also has the shape of the
upper surface of the model relative to the table top.) This done,
once they have the image darkness for a specific point on the
shroud image, they can mathematically invert the mapping function
to give the corresponding cloth-to-body distance. From this
procedure along with the drape-shape function, the height above the
reference plane of a point on the presumed human shape under the
shroud can be calculated. By doing this for all the points in the
two-dimensional array, they obtain a three-dimensional image
reconstruction that can be viewed either isometrically on a
computer-generated graph or used to manufacture a statue of the
"Man in the Shroud." The resultant three-dimensional figure looks
rather human but is somewhat distorted. To make it look better,
the mathematical drape-shape function is iteratively changed --
after all, no one knows how the alleged actual shroud might have
been draped in a tomb in Palestine two millenia ago. Indeed, the
mapping function itself is also modified to give a less-distorted
human figure. The final three-dimensional figure then looks
normally human except for one thing: If the face is adjusted to
have normal relief, the body appears to be in bas relief.
Marvin Mueller, "The Shroud of Turin: A Critical
Appraisal," Skeptical Inquirer Vol VI, No 3 (Spring 1982)
p.22.
Mark Antonacci, apparently clueless about its implications,
reproduces the computer graph Mueller mentions on p. 7 of his classic
of pseudoscience, "The Resurrection of the Shroud." Btw, his
description of all this jiggery-poke, following a long discussion
about why normal photographs are distorted by VP-8 reconstruction, is
limited to a single sentence. "After using the machine to process a
Shroud photo, both men [Jackson and Bill Mottern, who obtained the
analyzer] were stunned when a correctly proportioned three-dimensional
image of a man appeared on the computer screen." (p. 39)
The actual Jackson/Jumper method has more fudge in it than Godiva.
It calls into question the heavy reliance shroud advocates put on the
alleged failures of duplication efforts to match the VP-8 results.
In fact, the VP-8 is beginning to look an awful lot like the E-meter
of sindonology.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEUAwUBO2oHFqyjdWYzk1A5AQEuXAf49HGFfPavJkf5mU5D2sTB0fMRHqd+Im0s
w1ZuY2QE5AGdkXusGfadzIE5ADmnaMiG4Ms5+Jbn3Dk8u76GmKDU6uUz64YCDab1
VF+w9uWFF1amr0wBpfu+OPbj3ijcoApI4+flPr7Cn9Xmd5wBT1A2+I2cFhIygKLb
Fj6cSVecPBCjVCXxRnn/M46evK3rbLB7ct/wHSW9xVuF5w15fdUoZeEWuYoGTKt+
7mxS7etzHElXwSbxx0vCoItqQgyU9aX1sECBYcdKQ5eloaZZeh5d5kpip6wYYUcO
gWR+QAYCU0dci9vr+Sjc2C/hvO9lVnF/M9KJN9ri89mGjKXQAvMa
=cJB6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Douglas Oswell
"Frank Weaver" <wea...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:y+fa783/IorS...@world.std.com...
> I've transcribed a somewhat lengthy account of the procedure that
> Jackson and Jumper went through to get their correlation. The account
> is by an image analyst at Los Aloamos National Laboratory. From
> other sources, I learned that they did this in 1977. The photograph
> of the Shroud they used was one of the high-contrast ones taken by
> Enrie in 1931.
>
> First, an outline of the shroud image is carefully traced, full
> size, onto a piece of cloth simulating the actual "shroud." The
> cloth is then draped over the reclining figure of a suitable human
> male volunteer (5'11", 170 lbs.) so body parts on the simulated
> image are in contact with, or vertically over, those of the
> volunteer.
To my mind this draping of the cloth over a volunteer is completely
academic, since the resultant distortion would have been visible on the
cloth no matter what the agency.
-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20010801144134...@ng-ct1.news.cs.com>,
mistlet...@cs.com (Mistletoe Hills) wrote:
>Frank, undoubtedly there remain unsolved issues with the Shroud. My prediction
>is that this will forever remain so.
IOW you, like Barrie Schwortz, can neither identify a property of the
shroud that hasn't been duplicated nor provide a non-gibberish
explanation of a number of properties which argue very strongly for
an artist's hand. Unlike Mr. Schwortz, you haven't enough shame to
slink away. I can't figure out if I should admire your chutzpah or
be disgusted at your shamelessness.
[snip]
>these are the men and women who were (and still are) actually in a position to
>say. Joe Nickell is not. That you have relied on him to do your thinking might
>be good enough for you, but not me. Mr. Nickell is a stage magician and
>professional skeptic who is good at fooling people. His rhetoric is
>undoubtedly polished.
I'll just note how your comment reflects something a former poster
said about those who can't do the science attack the scientists
instead, as he then demonstrated himself.
[snip]
>You and Dr. Towe would have your readers believe that the Shroud can be
>duplicated. And yet no one has even come close.
In light of your inability to say one word to rebut my detailed
description of how every feature of the shroud can be and has been
duplicated, we can take your continued assertion that it can't as a
demonstration of your appropriately named 'blind' faith and what in
Catholic theology is called invincible ignorance.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO25VQKyjdWYzk1A5AQGPsAf/SmyQS1UeETLDXmJ+XjkuzceO2moJZS5F
vvXCmHHP4U8ajB40btVrmMbNiokCTJDyViZCJFl9862kJEB7BpKg4v1GjlkVSKwc
NjXX9kNrCTL9FbbB8Pklcyvp2Za2HuG+YgpE39kuAStLaSKOR3mtmaFE3Raj/E7T
0Pxzz2w6jxvEg+/teQtMEM4rzwc7/4R7bN0RvEnCGevYCOudaODHqTkC7whmk8t6
f3ZaQ1xUZpaR2EI2aYV+5E3eLrdQjO51RQ/E1eIq/ARmyB61bItUsaD8s1oGansz
XE9P05d7vXAJ5q96c5R0S6o/xrL7GT6goSjkiwSgIOPqk/KxIypkfA==
=PWMs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <kFAa7.31680$gj1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Douglas Oswell" <mign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>To my mind this draping of the cloth over a volunteer is completely
>academic, since the resultant distortion would have been visible on the
>cloth no matter what the agency.
Both the inherent distortion of using a different figure and the
inevitable measurement errors make its use problematic. The real
fudge, though, starts with Jackson's and Jumper's decision to use the
volunteer to 'correct' the VP-8 data from the shroud.
They compounded their error by making what they admit to be an
arbitrary choice of mapping function among the many curves that could
have applied to such scattered data. A STURP report admits that
their chosen function matches the data over only a very small range.
Finally, any residual legitimacy their method might have had was
abrogated when they started to manipulate both the mapping and
drape-shape functions to give them the results they wanted.
I don't think fraud is too strong a term for that.
Less manipulative methods would have been to do a direct statistical
comparison between the volunteer and shroud data sets or to use the
volunteer measurements as a baseline for statistical comparison of
VP-8 measurements of the shroud versus duplicates. I'm not entirely
sure either method would be valid, though. That leaves the question
of comparing the '3-Dness' of shroud and duplications a bit open.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO25cbqyjdWYzk1A5AQFSIgf/TBnQq0ZK92Q7YtrqFmtlPaYqBswx1NJM
OE8sBKuC5VWDUlyS6oRrquT2UpYKiAJ4CJ7t6XPhwY2dFZwwfTTpHnAqt2EYZ5Lm
DnkL38ILpGFLZZd+2zdGJRPcjfbL7G+CKlgRSjLryc1CaaBzu6PPFqbaVjEGPv5w
QA/RwOuglkM4JFuHKFkMppzN+0sIWmwgthK5ys/AII2DqoRi0GcyLnutIfWbACFN
JEL8LW9E3lRLSQL2AeEINGqSKqqc7hMWkpt38h4HsFVtLPAkgg7iksKAbc/uleW1
+HEVZJEdVo11hqJZT/5zZQxDq7qtU+XII3XRbQlVMJEDqz/skT7m4g==
=WY6K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
GndHar
not a scientist and is not qualified to comment on much of the work that was
done by the guys who actually have the credentials. He is, rather, a
professional skeptic and sometime stage magician who wears a white lab coat and
calls himself a 'senior research fellow." While his efforts to duplicate the
Shroud are commendable, they serve only to demonstrate how impossible it is.
The fact is, his effort fails in several important ways to match what is on the
Shroud. For one thing, it is just a face. It is made of powder whereas the
Shroud image is substanceless and exists as a chemical change in the millions
of fibrals of the Shroud's fabric. Also, his effort dosen't encode meaningful
relief information, is not photo-negative in nature and is not, needless to
say, anatomically accurate. (Doesn't even begin to duplicate the unfakeable
bloody wounds.) It does, however, betray the hand of an artist which the Shroud
image does not.
As for your "detailed description of how every feature of the Shroud can be and
has been duplicated," obviously this is not the case or we'd see a convincing
Shroud copy which we don't. Instead, what you've done is to combine selected
features of various failed attempts to duplicate the Shroud (such as Nickell's
and professor Allen's efforts) and pointed to them as 'proof' that the deed has
been done. The trouble is, if this were the case, one would have to assume that
the Shroud was both an artistic rendition and a photograph at the same time!
The idea that there are "a number of properties that argue very strongly for an
artist's hand" is naive in the extreme. No artist I know of would entertain for
one second the notion that the Shroud is a work of art. The image is simply far
too subtle for such a heavy handed explanation. It is not 'stylized' in the way
of an artistic rendering, but is rather the high- resolution photo-negative
image of a real man. (At least according to overwhelming medical concensus.)
This is why I feel that if you're really that dead set on insisting that the
Shroud is a man-made artifact, you'd do well to concentrate exclusively on the
'early photograph' theory even though this explanation still falls far short.
Here, at least, we have an image that looks something like the real thing and
in addition, corroborates the Shroud's photographic quality.
Bob
Chris Cunningham
GndHar wrote:
>
> Frank, Barrie didn't attack anybody. He simply pointed out that Joe Nickell is
> not a scientist and is not qualified to comment on much of the work that was
> done by the guys who actually have the credentials. He is, rather, a
> professional skeptic and sometime stage magician who wears a white lab coat and
> calls himself a 'senior research fellow." While his efforts to duplicate the
> Shroud are commendable, they serve only to demonstrate how impossible it is.
> The fact is, his effort fails in several important ways to match what is on the
> Shroud. For one thing, it is just a face. It is made of powder whereas the
> Shroud image is substanceless and exists as a chemical change in the millions
> of fibrals of the Shroud's fabric. Also, his effort dosen't encode meaningful
> relief information, is not photo-negative in nature and is not, needless to
> say, anatomically accurate. (Doesn't even begin to duplicate the unfakeable
> bloody wounds.) It does, however, betray the hand of an artist which the Shroud
> image does not.
But the Shroud doesn't encode any more meaningful relief information
itself, unless you play with the data. And even then, it only works for
the face, and only slightly (in reverse!) for the front of the body, and
not at all for the dorsal image. The Shroud is _not_ photonegative,
unless
Jesus had a white beard. Though I suppose being visited by Satan all
those
times might give you a bit of a fright.
The image on the Shroud is "substanceless" as you put it because it's
hundreds of years old. If Nickell had about half a millenium or so to
wait,
we'd see if the tests he performed were accurate, i.e. that the iron in
the
paint catalyzed the oxidation of the fibers. Unfortunately, we can only
go
by what theory tells us, and it says that's reasonably plausible.
>
> As for your "detailed description of how every feature of the Shroud can be and
> has been duplicated," obviously this is not the case or we'd see a convincing
> Shroud copy which we don't. Instead, what you've done is to combine selected
> features of various failed attempts to duplicate the Shroud (such as Nickell's
> and professor Allen's efforts) and pointed to them as 'proof' that the deed has
> been done. The trouble is, if this were the case, one would have to assume that
> the Shroud was both an artistic rendition and a photograph at the same time!
Not at all. All of the features Frank listed can be duplicated by
Nickell's method. Allen's just gives you another alternative, though he
has a few extra problems with that one (mainly the checkerboard pattern
of
the oxidation).
--
Chris Cunningham
><NOTE: Remove the last 'o' from my e-mail to reply><
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"The best defense is to keep your conscience clean....
If you don't lose your integrity, you can't be had and you
can't be hurt"
--VADM James B. Stockdale, USN (ret.)
/|\ "Y GWIR YN ERBYN Y BYD"
Bobbycindi
it? Why is it we only see a face image that looks for all the world like a
painting by a six year old? You claim that the Shroud is not photo-negative in
nature. But I've seen the Shroud with my own eyes and can assure you that it
looks nothing like the spectacular image we see when it's viewed in the
negative by virtue of the camera. It is at once blotchy, diffuse and
two-dimensional looking. Hardly something an artist would create even if he
could. Even if you refuse to accept the unanimous verdict of the scientists and
artists who have actually studied the cloth, it seems to me that a little
common sense is in order.
Bob Haroldsen
Frank Weaver
In article <20010807133304...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
gnd...@aol.com (GndHar) wrote:
>Frank, Barrie didn't attack anybody.
He took a potshot and ran off when asked to support it. I, OTOH,
gave a number of examples to illustrate just who is doing the
science.
[snip Bob's usual long rant repeating already debunked nonsense]
Bob, I amassed detailed evidence and descriptions debunking each and
every one of these statements. If you'd like to dispute the specifics
of that evidence and those descriptions then by all means, be my guest.
If you can do no more than repeat already debunked claims, then you
are merely demonstrating what a simpleton you truly are.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO3IJjqyjdWYzk1A5AQHXdwf+JSAt3zIx0xpsM88jjtNPmoayptqHKw/p
8HRZuAgkM14dC6/4hlmri2s4YK/VY8SRDhAYgB6KxTBbTuVMFXU6aGkmdLQZcirA
l87x0kIK7Ej7sfNI0JJ+hvEWTz9zs5Cj5Nz7wtjcMRYopHWGNWztd4pyYqYrm/I+
z1yj71iVOFeJd5s4iv+I5PRARbIyXOEjvyJf8MoUewqPrpZUWVFAVsEuVOOp6pU6
cJMb+S6djGJ5MREC6hRhzPP4K3cSUehZxnL+ybmaVLOe5tK3ubqGEgAHfY6mFhst
FwG+KDYqtrS0PF3MLbH1Dvgs6AaNfFijNmUAbWsTZZlPfsW2163smQ==
=KJu7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <E2EC11FC7787F335.1D9050FF...@lp.airnews.net>,
Chris Cunningham <ly...@pdq.net> wrote:
> Not at all. All of the features Frank listed can be duplicated by
>Nickell's method. Allen's just gives you another alternative, though he
>has a few extra problems with that one (mainly the checkerboard pattern
>of the oxidation).
I've been thinking about that. try this on for size.
Allen's solargraphy relies on coating the linen with a silver nitrate
solution. It produces two different images: (1) a chemical reaction
in the nitrate itself caused by sunlight; and (2) an oxidative
reaction of the underlying flax caused by the modified nitrate. He
then rinses off the first image.
If Allen were sufficiently careful in coating the cloth with silver
nitrate, I think he would duplicate the checkerboard effect in
application that Nickell got. That effect would propagate to the
flax, as sunlight would have little effect on the non-coated threads
dipping downwards.
The one problem I see is that, unlike a rubbing, I don't see a reason
for the medieval artist to have such a light hand with the coating.
Have you any thoughts?
Ken?
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO3INXayjdWYzk1A5AQFMcQf+I0BejGFjfzTCx4EPPnEzCP0gkbefmS6A
pKES3KAT4pU6qpBDn4fyqYKyNS0zwaMUtdxupQ40AovSthjdkEOjSZYfH8SuYuMd
eZpbRvZv2K/qFpPDYovYOIfVLg6bOglLKcWLj+FVTnCU7vgvCpUoE28+UUaa4VMY
ZNvT+u3bzm2iws5tEgNkcpBp/pXDo7HeE/nbmfNL2sJ8DhAzYLYXCbd9VWteqtZQ
gOF55DlCrvsBiPfqdvN35s2K8kr2O1N9y3DlNPpLQkEa9fhiNYQIPybuUcAPC+Nv
OCU9mpN3jiH5aNbt8Y1XugrhmTzi9ieR7Gnbt3OkFiWZSoqNoThZwA==
=ciIt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
curiosity, could you also tell us what kind of testing they've done? For
comparison purposes STURP's involved the following;
Photography- visible, ultraviolet, infrared (some 5000 photos) VP-8 image
analysis. Computer image enhancement. Mapping function analysis. Topograghic
imaging. Multispectral analysis. Mathematical image analysis. Low energy
X-radiography. X-ray flourescence. Reflectance spectroscopy- ultraviolet,
visible, infrared. Thermography. Microdensitometry. Macroscopy.
Microscopy-polarization, fluorecent, phase contrast, electron. Biosterometry.
Laser microprobe Ramen spectroscopy. Electron energy dispersive spectroscopy.
Microspectrophotometric transmission spectra. Wet chemistry: generation of
porphyrin fluorescence; cyanmethemoglobin and hemochromagen tests; protease
lysis; immunofluorescence. Plus over 1000 chemical experiments to determine the
nature of all image and blood marks, as well as history of the linen, water
stains, miscellaneous fibrils, particles and debris, and the presence of
organic and inorganic pigments and vehicles, oxidants, reductants, and all
known human means for creating the image on the Shroud.
K.M. Towe
Bobbycindi
Walter McCrone and Joe Nickell would appreciate being referred to as "monkeys"
on "typewriters"!
Frank Weaver
In article <20010809233042...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Frank, in your illustration of "just who is doing the science" out of
>curiosity, could you also tell us what kind of testing they've done?
Why don't you turn your attention to the dozen or so examples I very
pointedly provided from the work of Nickell, Craig, Allen and McCrone
instead of pretending that I did not?
>For
>comparison purposes STURP's involved the following;
[snip the usual recitation]
And how is this different from "a number of scientific tests of
dubious value carried out in ill-conceived ways by scientists of
unknown reputation" (to quote Harry Gove)?
I'm still waiting, for instance, to hear how any of this testing
provides a sensible answer to the lack of wraparound distortion, the
unsmudged and unspangled blood, how and why the blood floats on the
hair, why the hair defies gravity, and why there is no pressure
compression in the buttocks, thighs and shoulders. Just to remind
you, I've provided experimentally determined answers to all these
issues, as well as some others, by a number of people. Where are
STURP's?
Or was all STURP's testing more like "a group of kids playing with
expensive toys, hoping they would reveal some ultimate truth" (Gove,
again)?
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO3jpCayjdWYzk1A5AQGZRwf+PLN9rlPp5E7imzrKTYVdf4pOXX4GlJcL
lLd1CWnlAHz1CKP0B8Ad7sa7gM5MSLEMeCZp1p6E2soZalz/LkU1MWnYB4T+9wOq
XAcH8jWM1NXxufcDqw8DjCDw0HtkUqvwFP8oH7p4kuf36tIGPIb3IoKbwGCixgxo
xSRJJsBPFY/LYoxJnfdXouZFPcdvgEILDDI+zd4oe2A/tCNSvRiLeMwriqSVhI8b
mnKMBj2o1HTU5TVop4oEeukOiRMOB4G0cd94qf+pAH7YJ2HfYMv7rHqBiDdKpJsB
lPUNyiSSE2/YmpZodTr0/Xa8sG8CggDuunmTd8vks8adDBkwZUDecw==
=4/ww
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
remotely duplicates the Shroud except for Professor Allen's photograph which
still doesn't do the trick. Again, I'm most certain the Shroud is NOT a
bias-relief rubbing, an iron oxide powder transfer, a photograph and a
conventional painting all at the same time. Why don't you at least narrow your
selection to the 'early photograph' theory? That, at least, has something to
recommend it.
As for your list of questions STURP couldn't answer, I wouldn't have it any
other way. For one thing, it shows that at least STURP was honest enough to
admit they didn't have all the answers. You would apparently have us believe
that science knows all there is to know. But if I understood what the
mathematician Kurt Godel was telling us, that day will never come. And thank
God for that!
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20010815004854...@mb-mb.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>And just to remind you Frank, you still have nothing to point to that even
>remotely duplicates the Shroud except for Professor Allen's photograph which
>still doesn't do the trick. Again, I'm most certain the Shroud is NOT a
>bias-relief rubbing, an iron oxide powder transfer, a photograph and a
>conventional painting all at the same time.
Only an idiot would try to make it out that way, or fail to
understand the idea of multiple alternative methods.
>Why don't you at least narrow your
>selection to the 'early photograph' theory? That, at least, has something to
>recommend it.
We properly eliminate only the obviously nonviable attempts, like
vaporography or contact print or the dead-on-arrival radiation scorch
hypothesis.
It would be an error to prematurely eliminate alternatives that are
still viable on the existing evidence. Perhaps some subtle bits of
evidence will amass that more clearly points to one or the other,
perhaps not. We can still say that methods to recreate the shroud
clearly exist, several of them in fact. They have been demonstrated
to do so, even though they may not have been worked out down to the
last fare-thee-well.
>As for your list of questions STURP couldn't answer, I wouldn't have it any
>other way. For one thing, it shows that at least STURP was honest enough to
>admit they didn't have all the answers.
Apparently, after supposedly devoting thousands of man-hours over
several decades to study of the shroud, STURP, its former members,
and their associates can't answer even the most rudimentary questions
about it. That does raise some questions about the either the
competence of their science, its intent, or both.
An old Chinese proverb says, "The man who says, 'It can't be done'
should not interrupt the man who is doing it." Joe Nickell, Glenn
Taylor, Walter Sanford, Emily Craig, Randall Bresee, Nicholas Allen,
and Walter McCrone are among those 'doing it' -- that is, doing the
research and experimentation to explain how and why the shroud was
made. The efforts of STURP and its associates, though, are little
more than smoke and mirrors to wrap an illusion of science around a
manufactured 'mystery' that is not a bit mysterious in fact.
>You would apparently have us believe
>that science knows all there is to know.
Not hardly. The making of the shroud, however, is clearly a matter
for sientific and historical research. Remember, though, it is you
(and STURP) who makes baseless claims of 'scientific' support for
your (and their) personal religious fantasies.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBO3z4g6yjdWYzk1A5AQHkcAf+OsOijkynmaOUtHA0/S5JMGm/knkZXGTq
uT3F6ApWLoO0MJDYnDvJbykLxDgsLHyJ5y/Fw2O92c56ai2fw8p2emfcWhMvy5qH
/fNG/PsUh4UuDd1koU4ZHf7TdbXPuHr8PPJOP1RSy1Oles69HP1cQfXaDW4gYqKy
oUlCe4g3s6UxYCHM/4iTOFoTPSgY/1ZOAnr3Zah191cmrm9flp2U/GHMve04WvqD
SjoYHE+MCu9rPXL9BzPEsKvgjMsgPKmxMWtU0sujTjSW/QMl2MveS2d1Geygu1Sv
48R/NT5I7FEaYNPk7KO8w1pJB+NLpFs9aCF8i0573yK34G4TCMA33w==
=0JI5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
'doing it' (making one), why is it we still have nothing to look at that fits
the bill? Chinese proverbs aside, if you honestly can't decide if the Shroud is
a bias relief rubbing, a transferred iron oxide effort, a conventional painting
OR a photograph, you are NOT in a position to refute the guys who can- those
guys being STURP. They're the ones who actually studied the Shroud, and they
don't see it as ANY of the things you described. Blow all the hot air you want
Frank, but you still have virtually nothing to point to that is in any way
supportive of your position. We (the believers) have the science AND the Shroud
to support ours.
Bob
Bobbycindi
findings just because they couldn't explain them.
Douglas Oswell
because they couldn't explain them, but I fault some of the members for
jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on the same criterion.
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010823190711...@mb-cj.aol.com...
Bobbycindi
unwarrented? As I'm sure you know, STURP unanimously came to the conclusion
that the man of the Shroud was a real man. It seems to me you're going up
against men and women from across the board who can pretty well back up their
claims. And that's not to mention a number of other highly qualified
researchers who have studied the Shroud and agree with STURP. Are you saying
you know more than they?
Bob
Douglas Oswell
opposite conclusions from those which some (not all) members of STURP
endorsed. Who am I to gainsay their expertise? People like you and me are in
the position of jurors in a very complicated court case where highly
technical evidence is presented. Both sides are certain to present expert
testimony that is diametrically opposed. The jurors must predicate their
decision on their own intelligence and sensibilities.
I see no evidence to prove conclusively that the figure depicted on the
shroud is a "real" man. It might be difficult enough to prove such a thing
with a modern photograph, much less an indistinct image on a linen cloth. At
this juncture, we simply don't know.
The only STURP finding that I find meaningful is their observation on the
nature of the image. The team had adequate time and access for drawing their
conclusion and I see no reason to doubt their word, unless a massive
conspiracy of liars exists. I do not believe McCrone was lying when he
stated that he found iron oxide on the specimens he was given. That's what I
believe in relation to the scientific analysis of the shroud. Everything
else (my own theories included) is speculation; some of it educated, some of
it utter crap.
Speaking of "knowing more" than the researchers, knowledge itself is not the
acme of human intellectual achievement. Wisdom, prudence and insight are far
more precious and far more difficult to attain.
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010823222314...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Bobbycindi
prudence and insight? What about the Pope? He believes the Shroud image is that
of a real man. I'm not Catholic, but it seems to me that he is actually very
wise and very insightful, not to mention knowledgeable too.
As for some of the STURP members not thinking the image on the Shroud is that
of a real man, this is news to me. I know that Erick Jumper decided that the
image, based on the carbon dating, must not be Jesus but even he thinks it's
still a real guy. (As far as I know) Perhaps you could tell me if I'm wrong
about this by naming names? Also, I'm not aware of but a handful of other
researchers who have studied the Shroud and not come to the same conclusion as
STURP. And those that do disagree seem to me not in much of a position to say.
Take a guy like Dr. Michael Baden. He's not done any kind of research on the
Shroud per se, but rather disagreed with the likes Fred Zugibe about the rigor
mortis evidence and pointed out that bodies don't normally leave behind their
image along with perfect looking blood stains. While this is true, it's
actually rather beside the point.
Why? Because like it or not, the Shroud exists and kicks butt like nothing
else. (Doesn't it seem a bit odd to think that of all the artifacts in the
world, one would stir up more controversy than all the rest combined.)
You could perhaps name a few other researchers to back up your claim? If they
have provided evidence, point to it! If the issue you'd raise is that of
interpretation of whether or not the man of the Shroud is a real man (as
opposed to just the chemical/physical nature of the image) what's wrong with
siding with the experts in this regard too? Especially when MY wisdom tells me
that image on the Shroud is exactly what it looks like- Jesus as he lay in his
tomb.
Bob