Turin Shroud: Proof of Jesus' Resurrection?
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Ted Park on 4 Apr 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
> In the book "Drawing on the Artist Within" by Betty Edwards, she notes
> that the eye level on the image on the shroud is incorrect. If you look
> at photographs of people, and you measure the distance between the eye
> level and the chin, and the eye level and the top of the head, you will
> find that they are very close. Many images which are drawn by people
> who have not learned to draw proportionately yet, show the eyes about
> two thirds up the head. One hypothesis is that the features of the
> face are more important, thus they are drawn taking up more space than
> the "uninteresting" forehead. This in and of itself doesn't prove
> that the shroud is a forgery (maybe Jesus had really high eyes) but
> it certainly doesn't help the cause for the shroud being genuine.
These questions may be somewhat pointless since the Shroud image was not
the result of drawing, but what is the percentage of people that have
high eyes? Do different races have eyes generally placed in different
positions? What is the percentage of Jews that have high eyes?
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Ken Braatz on 25 Mar 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
> Unfortunately, the Shroud will probably never reveal its origin. For
> unlike the Crop Circles, the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot, the
> hoaxer is dead and therefore can not give up his secret.
We're not talking about mere photos or mere reports of some hairy thing
running around. With the Shroud, lots of tests can be run on it. After
all its subjection to much scientific study and testing, no evidence of
forgery has appeared.
> I am thoroughly convinced, however, that the Shroud was created as
> easily as the aforementioned hoaxes.
"Was created as easily as." How can this be, since using the best
technology of the 20th century, we are not able to duplicate the image
on the Shroud?
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Therion Ware on 25 Mar 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
> I believe the Shroud was dated to the middle ages, which means that
> if it is genuine, Gods' technological ability is rather limited and
> somewhat tardy.
It was carbon dated in 1988 "with at least 95% confidence... [to] AD
1260-1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr.)"[_Nature_ 337:614 (1989).]
I don't buy the carbon dating tests.
> Other than that, we don't have anything like a complete provenance;
> there is no documented history.
During the early 1900s, the lack of our knowing where the Shroud was for
the previous 1300 years, assuming it was real, was _the_ reason for
rejecting authenticity by historians. However, the forensic
pathologists and anatomists accepted it as the real thing based on the
image. I'm with the forensic pathologists.
> Many hundreds of thousands were
> crucified; how do we know that this image is of one particular
> person?
Based on the exact correspondence between the wounds recorded on the
image and the Gospel accounts.
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Jeff Candy on 4 Apr 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
> By 'some sort of miracle of physics' I presume you mean a phenomenon
> which clearly violates the laws of physics. Please be sure to inform
> the editors of Physical Review if you are indeed able to establish
> (c). I could suggest the subject category 'miraculous facecloths'.
> Send your manuscript, in quadruplicate, to:
>
> Editors
> Physical Review Letters
> 1 Research Road
> P.O. Box 9000
> Ridge, NY 11961-9000
This was not my original idea, but instead came from something appearing
in Culliton's comments, _Science_ 201:236 (1978). "Altogether they
number two dozen or so and hope that their collective scientific
talents, when put to the test, will reveal (i) the ingenuity of an
extraordinarily clever 14th century forger, (ii) a rare but explicable
natural phenomenon, or (iii) the physics of miracles."
david ford
Hello, and welcome to this thread. To kick off the thread, here are
some slightly edited snippings from what I wrote in March and April,
1997.
I will be discussing the Shroud of Turin this summer as evidence for the
resurrection of Jesus. The cloth is made out of linen and measures
about 1.1 by 4.5 meters (3 by 14 feet), and has been said to bear the
image of Jesus after He had been crucified. The argument will take the
form of a disjunctive syllogism:
Premise 1: The Shroud is the result of a) natural processes b) a
forger/human hands or c) a miracle of physics.
Premise 2: The Shroud is not the result of a, and is not the result of
b.
Conclusion: The Shroud is the result of some sort of miracle of physics
(probably occurring in the process of Jesus' resurrection).
As for some pointers on how the argument can be defeated, you can show
that my 3 options in Premise 1 don't cover everything, or you can defeat
Premise 2 by showing that the Shroud _could_ have been made by human
hands, or that natural processes _could_ have resulted in the Shroud.
Since the reasoning itself is strong, you'll want to attack the
premises.
The most prominent anti-authenticity individuals are Dr. Walter C.
McCrone, president of Walter C. McCrone Associates, Inc., a laboratory
focusing on microparticle analysis, and Joe Nickell, author of _Inquest
on the Shroud of Turin_ (1987), a revision of Nickell's _The Shroud of
Turin_ (1983), both published by Prometheus Books. Nickell bases much
of his critique of the Shroud on the statements of McCrone.
After reading Dr. John Heller's _Report on the Shroud of Turin_ (around
'83) and reading about McCrone's actions, sloppy testing, statements,
and nonappearances at gatherings to present his findings, in my mind
McCrone's credibility is totally shot. His claims, appearing in his own
personal magazine _The Microscope_, have been conclusively disproved in
the refereed literature produced in the wake of the Shroud of Turin
Research Project (STURP), which studied the Shroud in 1978 using a
battery of scientific instruments.
Heller describes a thought experiment to imagine how someone could have
painted the image on the linen. He would have needed sophisticated
mechanical devices to put the image on the microfibers (if my arm is the
linen, the hairs on my arm are the microfibers, and that's where the
image is), a color TV since the image color is so close to that of the
linen, a device that would let him see the image (under-- I forget what
the exact number is-- say 10 feet, the image fades away), etc.
The idea that the image was painted is also disproved by the testing on
the Shroud using the VP-8 image analyzer. The Shroud contains 3-d info,
and the VP-8 (which interprets regions of high intensity as being close,
and those of low intensity as being farther away), when a photo of the
Shroud is put into it, produces a 3-d image without distortion, unlike
for normal photos. Whatever produced the Shroud image got weaker in
effect the farther it was away from the cloth. Nickell's work fails the
VP-8 test, and even using our best 20th century know-how, we can't
reproduce what's on the Shroud.
In response to the question of how it's known that the Turin Shroud
depicts Jesus, briefly, there is correlation between what's on the
Shroud and the Gospel accounts, such as the post-mortem spear wound out
of which blood and serum ("blood and water") flowed, the crown (actually
a cap) of thorns, the being beaten with a Roman flagrum, the legs not
having been broken, etc.
The Shroud is a perfect negative. In 1898, a photographer developing
his film after taking pictures of the Shroud noticed this, and the
Shroud has been the subject of much interest since. "Still, Rogers, in
a philosophical frame of mind muses, 'What better way, if you were a
deity, of regenerating faith in a skeptical age, than to leave evidence
2000 years ago that could be defined only by the technology available in
that technical age?'"["The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges
20th-Century Science," News and Comment by Barbara J. Culliton in
_Science_ 201:239 (1978).]
After this set of posts, still to be responded to (no guarantees) are
replies by Ian J., Jimmy A., William I., Jeff C., ksjj, passivepower,
and Bob M.
david ford
Posted and emailed.
dlharm1 on 25 Mar 97:
> I think it is too bad that the Shroud is a fake. Even without the
> radiocarbon evidence skeptical investigator Joe Nickell found that
> the Shroud's forger confessed to the local religious authorities.
Somebody else uncovered the story of the confession, not Nickell.
> Others found traces of red tempora paint where true believers found
> blood. Too bad its fake though. If the Shroud were really what the
> believers claim then we could take some o' those elusive blood cells
> and clone the sucker.
CBS ran an hour long program on the Shroud within the past 2 months, and
one guy they showed had run some tests on the blood, and found X and Y
chromosomes. The test was done without the knowledge of the person in
charge of the Shroud, and he was not happy. Anyway, it was said that
samples had to be taken from many places on the cloth (around 12, IIRC)
because of the possibility of contamination.
> If the resulting kid could walk on water and
> turn water into wine, even a heathen such as myself would consider
> becoming an Apostle (heck, they might even depict me on stained-glass
> or on a spoon|). Wow|
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Stephen in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud" on 24 Mar 1997:
david ford:
>: The argument will probably go
>: something like the following: premise 1: the Shroud, whether made by human
>: hands or the result of the miracle of physics, depicts the death of Jesus
>: Christ. premise 2: The Shroud could not have been made by human hands.
>: Conclusion: the Shroud is evidence for the existence of Jesus.
>
> Premise 3, the shroud was been known to be a fake by the church when
> it was made, and has been proven to be fake by carbon dating.
>
> Conclusion: The Pope and scientists agree that the shroud is a fake.
A single carbon date does not mean everything. One must look at the
whole package of information before making a decision. And the
preponderance of evidence lies on the side of authenticity.
>: The Shroud may also serve as evidence for Jesus' resurrection, and
>: information will be provided in support of this assertion.
>
> Or that people won't let facts get in the way of their beliefs.
What are the facts that support the contention that the Shroud is not
authentic? If the carbon dating result is all that's had, that's a
seriously slender basis on which to base one's case.
>: The string will also contain discussions about the big bang model, the
>: theory of evolution, and the spontaneous generation thesis, and should be
>: up and running by the end of June.
(This never happened, though my thread "Re: Cosmology, Evolution,
Abiogenesis: An Intelligent Discussion" appears in talk.origins, alt and
talk.atheism, and sci.skeptic. It's kinda quiet right now.)
> Hmm, how about the Greek creation myths, the Indonesian creation myths, the
> chinese creation myths, the Norse creation myths, the babylonian creation
> myths, and possibly the Jewish creation myths, both biblical and talmudic.
david ford
Posted and emailed.
henry l. barwood around 4 Apr 1997 in "Re: Proof of
Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
> I have not been following this thread very closely, so my apologies for
> butting in. There is ample evidence that the shroud was painted. Walter
> McCrone detected hematite and cinnabar in a collagen base on shroud
> fibers long before the carbon dating.
The Shroud has been copied by many artists over the centuries, and thus,
it is to be expected that there is some cinnabar and hematite on it.
However, the amount present is not enough to be visible, nor is it found
in the image areas. Sufficient amounts are just not present. As for
McCrone detecting a collagen base on the fibers, McCrone's assertions
concerning the Shroud, including this particular one, lack basis in
reality.
> He was ignored by shroud believers
> (and still is).
With good reason-- he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's pretty
funny that Nickell speaks highly of McCrone's credentials and work,
including that of calling the Vinland map a fake, when just this year,
it has been shown that the map is in fact genuine.
> The recent red-herring about "biopolymers" corrupting
> the dating is not only ridiculous, but partially corroborates
> McCrone's observation that the fibers were coated with collagen (on
> which the bacteria feed).
So you're saying that yes there are bacteria on the fibers, but it's
"ridiculous" to suppose that those bacteria altered the date as
determined by carbon 14 testing. How exactly is this ridiculous?
> We have a cult of the shroud here in Bloomington who
> believe anything about the shroud (except the evidence). That it is
> world wide is hardly surprising.
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Hugh Young in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud" on 1 Apr 1997:
david ford:
>: --_Verdict on the Shroud evidence for
>: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ_, Kenneth Stevenson and
>: Gary Habermas, 102-3 (1981).
>
> A book which STURP has repudiated, and forced Stevenson and Habermas
> to delete its members' names from.
Why did STURP repudiate _Verdict_? In this same post, you later say
"STURP was absolutely loaded to the gunwales with believers," so I'm
imagining it wasn't because they disagreed with _Verdict_'s conclusions.
>: If the Shroud was
>: painted, the forger's work cannot be detected by skeptics using the
>: most sophisticated analytical technology of the twentieth century."-104.
>
> If you're going to say what skeptics can't detect, wouldn't it be more
> honest to refer to some skeptics? See "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin"
> by Joe Nickell (et al) Prometheus 1987 isbn 0-87975-396-X
>
>: "In a statement which may not be as hyperbolic as it seems, Walsh (1963:8)
>: observed: 'The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive
>: relic of Jesus Christ in existence... or it is one of the most ingenious,
>: most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record.
>: It is one or the other; there is no middle ground.'"-William Meacham, "The
>: Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological
>: Epistemology," _Current Anthropology_ 24:283 (1983).
>
> Proof by assertion.
>
>: In the subsection "EARLY FORGERY," "Based on the already shaky premise
>: that forgers accidentally
>
> ? What does he imagine they were trying to do?
>
>: As Donald Lynn (quoted in Rinaldi 1979:14)
>: of STURP concluded, 'it would be miraculous if it were a
>: forgery.'"-_Current Anthropology_ 24:293.
>
> STURP was absolutely loaded to the gunwales with believers.
>
>: For a discussion of how the Shroud is consonant with the New Testament
>: and the burial of Jesus, see _Verdict on the Shroud_ or Stevenson's
>: 1990 book on the Shroud.
>
> Of course it's "consonant". Do you imagine the people who forged it
> hadn't read the NT?
So you're saying that the person/s that forged the shroud image used
myrrh and aloes for the pigment that was rubbed on the bas-relief, since
they had read John's burial account?
So you're saying that Nickell is wrong when he says on 142 of _Inquest_
(1987) that "The shroud is simply not consistent with John's account of
Jesus' burial...."?
> That's what marks it out as a forgery more than anything else-
> that every mark on it relates to the NT version of events - even a
> mark on the cheek allegedly made by a sponge full of vinegar! - and
> none of the less pleasant marks left by a real corpse are there.
What for "less pleasant marks left by a real corpse" that are missing
are being referred to?
> Nickell argues persuasively (unless you are determined to believe,
> of course - but the question then arises whether people who are
> determined to believe in the shroud have any religious faith) that
> the image could easily have been produced by laying the cloth on a
> bas-relief and rubbing with pigment. The pigment degraded the fibres
> before itself being lost, and it is this that has accidentally
> generated the negative effect.
What is the source for the suggestion that pigment can degrade linen
fibers?
> On the cover of Inquest is the image of a face that most people would
> immediately identify as the shroud. In fact it is a modern fake
> produced by the above method.
_______________________________________________________
Hugh Young in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud" on 5 Apr 1997:
david ford:
>: Oh, the correlation between what's on the Shroud and the Gospel accounts,
>: such as the post-mortem spear wound out of which blood and serum ("blood
>: and water") flowed, the crown (actually a cap) of thorns, the being beaten
>: with a Roman flagrum, the legs not having been broken, etc.
>
> Exactly. Every single mark on the shroud corresponds to one of the gospel
> accounts. That in itself should make you suspicious. There isn't a mark that
> doesn't come out of the gospel stories (which were of course freely
> available to the artists of the 14th C).
There's a big difference between reading in the Gospels that Jesus was
scourged, got a crown of thorns, was crucified, and got a spear in the
side out of which blood and water flowed, and knowing what kind of marks
a Roman flagrum leaves, knowing how to simulate realistic looking head
punctures, knowing how crucifixion was done and what the angles of flows
of blood on a crucifixion victim would look like, knowing what kind of
wound a particular kind of Roman spear would produce, and knowing how an
outflowing of blood and water-like substance would appear.
"There isn't a mark that doesn't come out of the gospel stories." How
about dirt on the nose (which is probably broken), and on the feet? The
dirt is not visible to the human eye. Why should a forger add dirt that
wouldn't be visible except with the use of a microscope?
>: But you knew I
>: was already going to say that, because you've been researching the Shroud,
>: collecting evidence first from Turin Shroud websites, and then looking up
>: the peer-reviewed literature cited there, and reading books on the
>: subject, etc., so as to support your position that it's not the burial
>: shroud of Christ.
>
> or anybody else.
>
>: Premise 1: The Shroud is the result of a) natural processes b) a
>: forger/human hands or c) a miracle of physics.
>
> As mentioned previously, this expression is meaningless.
>
>: As for some pointers on how you can defeat the argument, you can show that
>: my 3 options in Premise one don't cover everything, or you can defeat
>: premise 2 by showing that the Shroud _could_ have been made by human
>: hands, or that natural processes _could_ have resulted in the Shroud. But
>: the reasoning itself is strong.
>
> So was the Maginot line. The Germans just went around the end.
>
>: You'll want to attack the premises. So, read the literature, gather
>: your evidence, and develop your arguments for the summer months. Good luck.
>
> (Pompous ass thinks he runs the only "shroud" debate in town.)
>
> Joe Nickell in "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin" (Prometheus, 1987 - after
> the carbon dating) ISBN 0-87975-396-X wipes the floor with the "shroud".
I find this extremely hard to swallow, since the peer-reviewed
scientific literature sandblasts McCrone's statements into oblivion, and
Nickell bases much of his critique of the Shroud on the work of McCrone.
(The carbon dating was in 1988, not 1987.)
> (He also exposes the grotesque bias of STURP.)
Please present the evidence that STURP (Shroud of Turin Research
Project) was grotesquely biased.
> There is vermilion (mercuric sulphide), iron oxide and rose madder in
> the "blood" stains, bound together with collagen tempera. There is no
> trace of haemoglobin.
>
> In the rest of the image is a small amount of iron oxide which would
> have caused the degradation of the cellulose fibres, accounting for
> the "negative" image. The iron oxide is not bound, suggesting it was
> rubbed on.
Again, these remarks have McCrone as their original source.
clownprince
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SGI.3.95.970621...@umbc8.umbc.edu>...
> "Was created as easily as." How can this be, since using the best
> technology of the 20th century, we are not able to duplicate the image
> on the Shroud?
>
We are, and we are also able to duplicate the image using medieval
chemicals and equipment (after all, the middle ages is the time period in
which the shroud was created).
Check out
http://wn.apc.org/wmail/issues/970509/NEWS29.html and
http://www.petech.ac.za/Shroud
Lilith
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, david ford wrote:
> Posted and emailed.
>
> Ken Braatz on 25 Mar 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
>
> > Unfortunately, the Shroud will probably never reveal its origin. For
> > unlike the Crop Circles, the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot, the
> > hoaxer is dead and therefore can not give up his secret.
>
> We're not talking about mere photos or mere reports of some hairy thing
> running around. With the Shroud, lots of tests can be run on it. After
> all its subjection to much scientific study and testing, no evidence of
> forgery has appeared.
>
no evidence of forgery has appeared - ROFLOL !!!!! lots of tests can and
have been run, and they showed that the fabric dated 12century CE, these
tests also found that the so called image was painted on.
Lilith
QUEEN OF DEMONS
Athiest #328
Reverend Chuck
1. Find model. Offer to pay model.
2. Smear paint all over model.
3. Wrap shroud around model.
4. Unwrap model. Hang shroud to dry.
5. Voila.
J.B. Bandow
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970621...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>It was carbon dated in 1988 "with at least 95% confidence... [to] AD
>1260-1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr.)"[_Nature_ 337:614 (1989).]
>I don't buy the carbon dating tests.
>
Why? The date would put the construction of the shroud at a time when the
Church was trying to re-assert its power, and the aristocracy trying to
consolidate power. There were numerous 'holy artifacts' 'found' by
philosophers working for various nobles. I believe there are several
accounts of different nobles having aquired Christ's body and well as a
plethora of 'divine' artifacts and idols. The shroud would be another of
these 'divine' findings.
jbb
Depree, Jonathan A
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970621...@umbc8.umbc.edu> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
>From: david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
>Subject: Re: Turin Shroud: Proof of Jesus' Resurrection?
>Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 23:26:07 -0400
>Posted and emailed.
>Ken Braatz on 25 Mar 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
>> Unfortunately, the Shroud will probably never reveal its origin. For
>> unlike the Crop Circles, the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot, the
>> hoaxer is dead and therefore can not give up his secret.
>We're not talking about mere photos or mere reports of some hairy thing
>running around. With the Shroud, lots of tests can be run on it. After
>all its subjection to much scientific study and testing, no evidence of
>forgery has appeared.
>> I am thoroughly convinced, however, that the Shroud was created as
>> easily as the aforementioned hoaxes.
>"Was created as easily as." How can this be, since using the best
>technology of the 20th century, we are not able to duplicate the image
>on the Shroud?
I saw something like it happen completely by accident.
Our family used to have a holiday home which we visited in summer. One year I
left a paperback novel lying on the windowsill. It must have been there for
anything up to a year in New Zealand's strong sunlight.
The cover of the book has faded to blue and the first page has a perfect
negative image imprinted onto it.
Perhaps if you were to do an oil painting, put a linen backing on the painting
and hang it in the sun for some time you would see a similar effect.
Jonathan Depree,
Lincoln University, P.O. Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Socrates was a famous Greek Teacher who went around giving
people advice. They killed him. (school history howler)
Capella
> >Ken Braatz on 25 Mar 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
>
> >> Unfortunately, the Shroud will probably never reveal its origin. For
> >> unlike the Crop Circles, the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot, the
> >> hoaxer is dead and therefore can not give up his secret.
>
> >We're not talking about mere photos or mere reports of some hairy thing
> >running around. With the Shroud, lots of tests can be run on it. After
> >all its subjection to much scientific study and testing, no evidence of
> >forgery has appeared.
>
The carbon dating from 3 independant labs put the Shroud's creation
at sometime around 1300 CE. Experts say the fire did nothing to
significantly alter this measurement
> >"Was created as easily as." How can this be, since using the best
> >technology of the 20th century, we are not able to duplicate the image
> >on the Shroud?
>
If anyone would like to see a picture of what this poster says we
cannot do, go to
alt.binaries.pictures
and look for Turin Shroud reproduction.
This was made using a simple technique availabe at the time the
shroud was dated to.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
Dallas, Texas
See Zeus zap an infidel at Capella's Observatory
Also pictures of galaxies, nebula, star clusters, etc...
http://web2.airmail.net/sybil/capella/
joe...@aol.com
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970621...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
this was written:
> Conclusion: The Shroud is the result of some sort of miracle of physics
> (probably occurring in the process of Jesus' resurrection).
The parenthetical part of this conclusion is completely unwarranted, even
if one believes the Shroud is the result of a miracle of physics.
In fact, the conclusion offered above is exactly as silly and unwarranted
as this alternate conclusion:
Conclusion: The Shroud is the result of some sort of
miracle of physics (probably occurring when a fairy
queen from the land of Boogabooga shit upon the Pope's
robe in the year 1173 and used her magic wand to spread
her fairy shit around on the robe to form a picture of the
mythical "Jesus", because this mischievous fairy queen
knew this would fool mystics for centuries to come, which
she thought would be quite funny.)
By the way, the Romans knew a technological procedure for refining lead
that was subsequently lost. It has not been rediscovered. To this day,
scientists have no idea how the Romans were able to refine lead to a
purity that can only be duplicated using sophisticated 20th century
equipment.
Does this mean the lead pipes the Romans constructed were the result of a
miracle of physics? Of course not.
You don't know how the Shroud could have been painted without 20th-century
equipment. Does this mean it resulted from a miracle of physics? Of
course not - no more so than did the Roman lead pipes.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Aaron Turner
> >"Was created as easily as." How can this be, since using the best
> >technology of the 20th century, we are not able to duplicate the image
> >on the Shroud?
On UK TV a few (5?) years ago the following was done:
(1) Turin Shroud analysed, and strength of colour used to create a
3d image of the 'body', which was quite convincing.
(2) An artists was hired to paint a Shround forgery.
(3) This was analysed for 3d shape. One side was as convincing as
the Shroud, the other aspect was a bit flawed. Not bad for a
first attempt.
> I saw something like it happen completely by accident.
> Our family used to have a holiday home which we visited in summer. One year I
> left a paperback novel lying on the windowsill. It must have been there for
> anything up to a year in New Zealand's strong sunlight.
> The cover of the book has faded to blue and the first page has a perfect
> negative image imprinted onto it.
> Perhaps if you were to do an oil painting, put a linen backing on the painting
> and hang it in the sun for some time you would see a similar effect.
Doesn't explain the paint on the shroud, unless perhaps this process
happened, and then it was additionally touched up by the addition of
paint, which is possibe. The other possibility is that someone was
daubed with paint and then wore the shroud, and then the image was
touched up. Apparently these is some evidence for retouching of the
image.
Another odd fact of the shroud that makes it very doubtful it is in any
way authentic is that whilst it contains pollens, it contains NO olive
tree pollen, which is surprising if it had ever been in the middle east.
Also relic forgery was quite a good business in medieval times.
_____________________________________________________________________
Aaron Turner
aa...@minster.york.ac.uk http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/~aaron
_____________________________________________________________________
Jimmy Adams
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970621...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes
>Posted and emailed.
>
>Ted Park on 4 Apr 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
>
>> In the book "Drawing on the Artist Within" by Betty Edwards, she notes
>> that the eye level on the image on the shroud is incorrect. If you look
>> at photographs of people, and you measure the distance between the eye
>> level and the chin, and the eye level and the top of the head, you will
>> find that they are very close. Many images which are drawn by people
>> who have not learned to draw proportionately yet, show the eyes about
>> two thirds up the head. One hypothesis is that the features of the
>> face are more important, thus they are drawn taking up more space than
>> the "uninteresting" forehead. This in and of itself doesn't prove
>> that the shroud is a forgery (maybe Jesus had really high eyes) but
>> it certainly doesn't help the cause for the shroud being genuine.
>
>These questions may be somewhat pointless since the Shroud image was not
>the result of drawing,
... or so you suppose ..
>but what is the percentage of people that have
>high eyes? Do different races have eyes generally placed in different
>positions?
That the eyes come half way up (or down) the skull is almost universal,
and shows no variation between races. Artists have known this for
millenia (Egyptian, Greek, Roman), but naive artists have sometimes
failed to get it right. If the image was indeed created by an artist, it
seems odd to describe him as naive - but maybe his skill-base was not in
draughtmanship.
> What is the percentage of Jews that have high eyes?
>
--
Jimmy Adams
Jimmy Adams
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970621...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes
>Posted and emailed.
>
>
>> Unfortunately, the Shroud will probably never reveal its origin. For
>> unlike the Crop Circles, the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot, the
>> hoaxer is dead and therefore can not give up his secret.
>
>We're not talking about mere photos or mere reports of some hairy thing
>running around. With the Shroud, lots of tests can be run on it. After
>all its subjection to much scientific study and testing, no evidence of
>forgery has appeared.
>
>> easily as the aforementioned hoaxes.
>
>technology of the 20th century, we are not able to duplicate the image
>on the Shroud?
>
Coade Stone, but nobody believes that it was miraculous.
--
Jimmy Adams
Rodney Small
What is Coade Stone and when was it made?
Tom Ray
Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote in article
<33B1EB...@erols.com>...
> Jimmy Adams wrote:
> >
> > In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970621...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
> > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes
> > >Posted and emailed.
> > >
> > >Ken Braatz on 25 Mar 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin
Shroud":
> > >
> > >> Unfortunately, the Shroud will probably never reveal its origin. For
> > >> unlike the Crop Circles, the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot, the
> > >> hoaxer is dead and therefore can not give up his secret.
Hey, even if the shroud was proven to have come from the Jerusalem
area about 2000 years ago, how would we know that it was "Jesus'"
shroud--No one knows what Jesus looked like (the medevial paintings are
said to have been based on King Mausoleus---famous for the "Mausoleum" and
his statue there). And Crucifiction
was the common method of execution of the time.
In medevial times ANYTHING found in the middle east dating from Jesus'
time was considered some sort of "relic"--An old nail JUST HAD to be one to
which Jesus wad nailed to his cross, An empty tomb JUST HAD to be Jesus'
tomb, A shroud with an image of a crucified man outlined in stains JUST HAD
to be the shroud of Jesus.
In the nineteenth century it was calculated that there were enough
peices of the "True cross" to "build a ship of the line".
Even if the shroud is not a forgery, who is to say that it is Jesus'
shroud.
TOM
Mitzi L. Stone
Gee Guys,
I want to believe it is real. I have heard a very good channel back
in 1977 say that the Shroud was real. Of course this may not be enough
evidence for a true cynical person to accept. I believe that there is
an awakening on the earth at this time. Many artifacts and signs are
being revealed. Such as the White Buffalo "Miracle" as the second
coming of White Buffalo Calf Women who brought the sacred pipe to the
Native American People. The Shroud internet sight is great I hope that
you visit it. It is http://www.shroud.com/ I learned a great deal
about the scientific research and testing that is currently going on and
the test results that they have already.
A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste! You wouldn't miss it.
Peace be with you, Mitzi
Tom Ray wrote:
--
It is unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited commercial
email
per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I assess a US $500 charge for
reviewing & deleting each unsolicited commercial email. Sending
unsolicited
commercial email to my email address denotes acceptance of these terms.
My
posting messages to UseNet neither grants consent to receiving nor is
intended to solicit commercial email.
NEWSTAR ASTROLOGY
Mitzi L. Stone,
Send no junk EMAIL: new...@lcc.net
Jimmy Adams
In article <33B1EB...@erols.com>, Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com>
writes
>Jimmy Adams wrote:
>>
>> In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970621...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
>> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes
>> >Posted and emailed.
>> >
>> >Ken Braatz on 25 Mar 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
>> >
>> >> Unfortunately, the Shroud will probably never reveal its origin. For
>> >> unlike the Crop Circles, the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot, the
>> >> hoaxer is dead and therefore can not give up his secret.
>> >
>> >running around. With the Shroud, lots of tests can be run on it. After
>> >all its subjection to much scientific study and testing, no evidence of
>> >forgery has appeared.
>> >
>> >> I am thoroughly convinced, however, that the Shroud was created as
>> >> easily as the aforementioned hoaxes.
>> >
>> >"Was created as easily as." How can this be, since using the best
>> >technology of the 20th century, we are not able to duplicate the image
>> >on the Shroud?
>> >
>> A completely false line of argument. We have also lost the art of making
>> Coade Stone, but nobody believes that it was miraculous.
>> --
>> Jimmy Adams
>
>What is Coade Stone and when was it made?
"An artificial stone made in Lambeth [South London] from c. 1769 to c.
1820 and used for figure sculpture, monuments, architectural dressings
and decorative work. It is not known who invented it or what the recipe
was, but Mrs. Eleanor Coade, who came to London from Lyme Regis to open
a factory in Lambeth, claimed that it resisted frost and therefore
retained sharpness of outline better than natural stone. Time has proved
her right." (Extracted from The Oxford Companion to Art)
--
Jimmy Adams
Reverend Chuck
1. Hire model.
2. Coat model with paint.
3. Wrap model in bedsheet.
Though I suppose this is the least likely explanation.
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Jeff Candy in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud" on 30 Mar 1997:
david ford:
>: In the subsection "EARLY FORGERY," "Based on the already shaky premise
>: that forgers accidentally and spectacularly succeeded in their task,
>: this hypothesis is hopelessly fraught with difficulties.
>
> Such as?
"Of greatest importance is the medical interpretation of the head wounds
as inflicted on a living body; spiking the scalp of a corpse or marking
it with blood could not approach the pathological exactitude of the
wounds and blood flows.... The postmortem side wound presents equal if
not greater difficulties: it was inflicted on an upright corpse,
resulting in a copious flow of blood _and_ clear fluid (matching the
biblical account).... [concerning the 2nd flow across the lower back]
early forgers could not have attained such precision and... it was
unnecessary in any case for the simple production of a bloodstained
cloth for a gullible public....
(1) The major demand for relics came after the state establishment of
Christianity, by which time crucifixion had been abolished [Constantine
outlawed the practice around A.D. 315] (2) Stains, dyes, oils, or other
materials likely to have been used by early forgers in an attempt to
imprint the cloth are completely lacking on the Shroud. (3) The victim
appears to have been Jewish, with the correct burial posture, chin band
tied and eyes covered [with what appear to be coins; it was then a
burial practice to close the eyes using coins or pot shards]....
(4) A successful imprint of Christ's likeness made in this era would
have been trumpeted as another great relic 'come to light.' (5) An
image of the nude and unwashed body of Christ would have been considered
offensive, lessening or destroying its economic and ceremonial
value."[William Meacham, _Current Anthropology_ 24:292-3 (1983).]
>: It can be
>: unequivocally rejected, and with it any possibility that the Shroud
>: is the product of a forgery attempt. As Donald Lynn (quoted in
>: Rinaldi 1979:14) of STURP concluded, 'it would be miraculous if
>: it were a forgery.'"-_Current Anthropology_ 24:293.
>
> This is canonical result #3, ladies and gentlemen, of
> the theist's search for the origin of the shroud:
>
> 3. Nobody can-na make a shroud like-a dat one!
>
> Does this argument apply also to pyramids and crop circles
> (and Erik Estrada's teeth) which can be explained only by the
> work of spacemen?
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Jimmy Adams on in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud"
on 4 Apr 1997:
> (a great deal about the Turin Shroud, mostly suggesting it to be
> genuine).
>
> Three questions:
>
> 1) If it be genuine, why did the Bishop of Troyes declare it to be (in
> 1389) "cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who
> painted it"? Had he not said this, it would undoubtedly have brought
> fame and fortune to him and to all in the area.
from the memorandum of Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, to the Avignon
Pope Clement VII: ".... in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain
collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being
consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of
devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth
cunningly painted, upon which by a clever slight of hand was depicted
the twofold image of one man....
Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [Lord Henry of
Poitiers] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly
painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to
wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or
bestowed."[Quoted in Ian Wilson's _The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth
of Jesus Christ?_ (1978), 230-1.]
To answer the question of why he said this, Father Edward A. Wuenschel
in the _American Ecclesiastical Review_ 93:441-72 (1935): "Taken on its
own merits, the memorial of... d'Arcis is untrustworthy, because it was
written in anger and betrays a strong bias against de Charny and the
Dean of Lirey. [Clement VII] himself, in his rescript to de Charny and
in his final decree, declares that... d'Arcis was angry with his
opponents for obtaining an indult to exhibit the Shroud without his
permission.
He was still more angry with them when they ignored his command to
withdraw the Shroud from public veneration, and invoked the intervention
of the king to prevent him from taking action against them. And he was
hurt and humiliated when [Clement VII] upheld his opponents and put him
under silence in the rescript to the layman de Charny, leaving the
outraged bishop to learn of this censure from common report. ...d'Arcis'
memorial is a violent outburst over his grievances and a piece of
special pleading in his own defense."[Quoted in Thomas Humber, _The
Sacred Shroud_ (1977), 110-111.]
> 2) What of the carbon dating, which puts the fabric into a period
> around that of its first appearance?
The carbon dating is wrong. It's been wrong in other instances, and it
was wrong this time.
> 3) Why is the head detached from the body?
"The face.... seems detached from the rest of the body because of the
apparent absence of shoulders."[Ian Wilson, _The Shroud of Turin_
(1978), 9-10.] Three possible explanations come to mind:
1) The forger was incredibly stupid and forgot to include the shoulders.
2) The forger was incredibly smart and knew that after Jesus breathed
His last on the cross, His head would fall down, rigor mortis
would keep it that way, and knew that the head in that position
would keep the shoulders and neck from appearing on the cloth
because it was too far from the cloth for the simulated image-
formation-at-a-distance process he used in making the Shroud to
work.
3) There was no forger, and the lack of a neck and shoulders on the
Shroud is a result of the tilted head blocking the neck from the
cloth and raising the linen high enough so that when Jesus'
resurrection occurred, the we'll say radiation that was emitted
from the ventral neck and shoulder region was not recorded on the
linen.
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Bob Michaelson in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud"
on 25 Mar 97:
> And, since the Shroud was conclusively radiocarbon dated to the
> Middle Ages, it is even more definitively a miracle: the energy
> radiated from Jesus when the Shroud was created *transported it in
> time* fourteen centuries! Scoffers repent!
This would be one way of discounting the radiocarbon dating result,
namely, explaining that the date is off because the resurrection may
have done something to the cloth. Such an explanation would be ad hoc,
since it can't be tested. Some testable explanations for the inaccurate
date are that perhaps the sample was contaminated by the bacteria living
on the cloth, or that something happened to the cloth during the 1532
fire which would throw carbon-dating off (the fire was hot enough to
melt the silver container, and the container was quickly cooled by
water).
On second thought, perhaps invoking the resurrection-factor for
explaining the carbon dating _is_ testable. IIRC, Heller describes all
manner of substances being tested, with the only thing that could have
produced the image being radiation by the process of elimination. Thus,
we could test whether bombarding a cloth with radiation changes its C-14
date. (Note also that radiation can act at a distance and decrease in
strength the farther it has to travel to the cloth, in accord with the
VP-8 image analyzer experiments.)
david ford
Posted and emailed.
passivepower on 7 Apr 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
> Hello, there is no reason to gather evidence of any sort because you are
> so far behind the times that you will end up shooting yourself in the
> foot along with all of the other so-called christians who, for some
> very odd reason, believe that it is their duty to somehow convince the
> rest of the world that a man called jesus lived 2000 years ago.
Yes, I suppose a precondition for converting to Christianity is
believing that Jesus Christ existed in the first place.
> If you
> are a christian, then live your life after His example. Convincing the
> world of anything regarding Him is not going to save anyone, including
> you.
>
> It has already been established among a few circles that a man by the
> name of jesus lived 2000 years ago in Palestine. It has also been
> established that he was a very devout member of at least one Jewish
> religious sect. It has also been established that he created enough
> messianic fervor among the people to worry the established Jewish and
> Roman authorities enough to arrange for his death.
>
> Now, aside from many other points to make, let's cut to the chase:
>
> Due to the fact that the curators of the shroud (The Vatican, presently)
> were obliged to secure the services of members of the scientific
> establishment in order to bolster the faith of the simple, as well as
> possibly convince the hardened skeptic, certain pieces of the shroud
> were examined as long ago as 1988 (and before no doubt) by some
> scientists, hired by the Vatican.
The carbon dating was done in 1988, the Shroud of Turin Research Project
(STURP) investigation was done in 1978, and in 1973 and 1969 a small
group that didn't know what they were doing examined the Shroud. Before
then, forensic pathologists and anatomists studied the Shroud using on
photographs made in 1931, and before then, using photographs made in
1898.
> What they found was that the shroud could be as old as 2000 years, that
> it probably came from the Middle East (pollen sample analysis) and that
> the person depicted on it was probably crucified, a popular Roman custom
> (in punishment anyway).
The linen on which the image is could be 2000 years old, since the
linen's particular weave, a 3 to 1 herringbone twill, was widely used at
least that long ago.
The pollen sample analysis was done by Max Frei, a member of the 1973
commission. After studying adhesive tape that had been placed on the
Shroud and lifted, he said that he'd found pollen from plants that only
lived in the Middle East. Steve Schafersman writes that McCrone, Heller,
Ray Rogers, Alan D. Adler, and Giovanni Riggi found only a few grains of
pollen using the 1978 samples, not anywhere near to what Frei claimed to
have found.[_The Microscope_ 30(4):351 (1982).]
The fact that the person depicted in the Shroud bore realistic marks of
crucifixion became known following the 1898 photographs.
> However, a more careful analysis resulted in the curious observation of
> the blood trails on the shroud. The blood trails indicated that the
> blood flowed for a considerable time after the body had been laid down.
> Simple forensic analysis.
Reference is here made to the flow of blood (and a clear fluid) (from
the gaping side wound) across the lower back region that occurred as the
body was placed in a horizontal position. There is also a flow of blood
(and the clear fluid) from the wound down the side while the body was in
the original vertical position.
> It was this observation that caused the reversal on the part of the
> Vatican in their announcement that the shroud must be a fake. They could
> not possibly allow the faithful to be shaken by such a simple truth that
> CORPSES DON'T BLEED.
The side wound was post-mortem, and the flow of blood across the lower
back occurred as a result of the body being moved.
> So, after you have beaten your brain silly with all of your present and
> future arguments that may eventually convince others that the shroud
> was the shroud of Jesus, you will then be required to accept the idea
> that jesus was not dead, was not resurrected, but instead, REVIVED. A
> TRUE MIRACLE INDEED.
Do you really think that the Romans couldn't tell when their crucifixion
victims were dead? If Jesus didn't die on the cross, how did He survive
the spear wound into the side, out of which "blood and water" flowed?
Also, if Jesus never died and merely revived in the tomb, how did the
image get on the Shroud? Also, if Jesus merely revived in the tomb, how
did He in His severely weakened condition roll the stone away?
> You are being lead down a path of deception for maximum possible shock
> effect. You will shoot yourself in the foot in your attempt to
> validate Scripture or Doctrine. The bones of Jesus are buried in
> France,
>
> Mount CARDOU
>
> CAR = Body
> DOU = God
david ford
Posted and emailed.
William H. Ivey on 4 Apr 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection:
Turin Shroud":
> Historical reports on the shroud generally describe the image as being
> brighter than it is today - sounds like the pigment deteriorated to me
> (so the image we see today is where the pigment used to be).-Wm
Overall image brightness is dependent on the body image's inherent
brightness and on the brightness of the background. Because there is
evidence that the background is becoming progressively darker, no
grounds exist for concluding that the body image is becoming less
bright.
Shooty
Jimmy Adams wrote:
> >> Jimmy Adams
> >
> >What is Coade Stone and when was it made?
>
> "An artificial stone made in Lambeth [South London] from c. 1769 to c.
> 1820 and used for figure sculpture, monuments, architectural dressings
> and decorative work. It is not known who invented it or what the recipe
> was, but Mrs. Eleanor Coade, who came to London from Lyme Regis to open
> a factory in Lambeth, claimed that it resisted frost and therefore
> retained sharpness of outline better than natural stone. Time has proved
> her right." (Extracted from The Oxford Companion to Art)
>
> --
Coade Stone is still made and there is still a factory in South London
producing figures and statues.
Shooty
Bob Michaelson
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970627...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>Posted and emailed.
>
>Bob Michaelson in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud"
> on 25 Mar 97:
>
>> And, since the Shroud was conclusively radiocarbon dated to the
>> Middle Ages, it is even more definitively a miracle: the energy
>> radiated from Jesus when the Shroud was created *transported it in
>> time* fourteen centuries! Scoffers repent!
>
>This would be one way of discounting the radiocarbon dating result,
>namely, explaining that the date is off because the resurrection may
>have done something to the cloth. Such an explanation would be ad hoc,
>since it can't be tested. Some testable explanations for the inaccurate
>date are that perhaps the sample was contaminated by the bacteria living
>on the cloth, or that something happened to the cloth during the 1532
>fire which would throw carbon-dating off (the fire was hot enough to
>melt the silver container, and the container was quickly cooled by
>water).
>
Indeed they are testable, and analysis shows that these proposed mechanisms
are not at all capable of producing medieval dates if the shroud is 2,000
years old. See A. J. T. Jull, D. J. Donahue, and P. E. Damon, "Factors that
affect the apparent radicarbon age of textiles", in "Archaeological Chemistry:
Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis" ed. by Mary V. Orna,
American Chemical Society 1996. Moreover if you do the arithmetic, in order
to produce that change in r.c. dating you would need about as much carbon from
contaminants (soot or bacteria or whatever) as you have from cloth in the
sample -- not a very plausible circumstance!
>On second thought, perhaps invoking the resurrection-factor for
>explaining the carbon dating _is_ testable. IIRC, Heller describes all
>manner of substances being tested, with the only thing that could have
>produced the image being radiation by the process of elimination. Thus,
>we could test whether bombarding a cloth with radiation changes its C-14
>date. (Note also that radiation can act at a distance and decrease in
>strength the farther it has to travel to the cloth, in accord with the
>VP-8 image analyzer experiments.)
>
Unless you have some specific mechanism in mind -- and AFAIK all such
proposed mechanisms have failed -- your "second thought" is gibberish.
Bob Michaelson
rmic...@nwu.edu
William H. Ivey
In <Pine.SGI.3.95.970627...@umbc8.umbc.edu> david ford
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
Our eyes don't average the brightness, they prefer contrast. A darker
background would make the pigment stand out. Example: Your average
roadside Black-velvet Elvis. (Some, apparently, find those just as
mystical as the Shroud.) -Wm
William H. Ivey
>Some testable explanations for the inaccurate [carbon-14] date are
>that perhaps the sample was contaminated by the bacteria living on the
>cloth,
Lets see, for an error of 1300+ years to be caused by bacteria, there'd
have to be: 1) a huge mass of modern bacteria (half of the total
sample), or 2) a smaller mass of bacteria from the future...
Oh, and they'd have to cling to the samples through all the handling
and cleansing. Hmmm, anachronistic bacteria excreting superglue? -Wm
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Hugh Young on 4 Apr 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
david ford:
[snip]
> Then I read Nickell and found how
> dishonest the shroudists were, I've been a much more active
> sceptic ever since.
"Dishonest," eh? Nickell makes dishonesty an art form when it comes to
the question of whether there is blood on the Shroud. He writes the
following: "The method is consistent with the [1973] commission's tests
of several fibers which indicated that _no blood was present_ and with
the commission's conclusion that the crimson was probably painted
on."[_The Humanist_ (Nov/Dec 1978), 31.]
"Several modern tests failed to detect the presence of blood, and the
commission report suggested the crimson was probably the result of
painting." As part of the caption for three photos on 147 we read,
"Modern tests show 'blood' is fake."[_Popular Photography_ (Nov 1979),
146.]
"Reddish granules were found in the 'blood' images on the threads, but
these would not even dissolve; and the forensic scientists suggested the
'blood' stains were probably due to painting."[_Free Inquiry_ (Summer
1981), 29.]
"Actually, a decade ago, the still red and 'picturelike' stains failed a
battery of forensic tests, and subsequently the distinguished
microanalyst Walter McCrone discovered the 'blood' was made up of
artists' pigments--red ochre (iron oxide), vermilion, and rose
madder."[_Free Inquiry_ (Spring 1985), 10.]
The above is pure fabrication. This is the reality: "Doctors Frache,
Rizzati and Mari [of the 1973 commission].... were unable to isolate
positive traces [for blood], but the scientists cautioned against
drawing conclusions from such an ancient cloth. They refused to exclude
the possibility that blood is present on the samples, but they conducted
no tests to identify the stains as anything other than blood....
Professors Filogamo and Zina conducted microscopic examination of two
thread to ascertain if traces of blood could be identified. Although
their tests also proved inconclusive, they did discover three distinctly
different microscopic granules or globules. The first is of an
'indeterminable nature,' the second is bacterial spores and the third is
'probably of an organic nature.'"[Thomas Humber, _The Sacred Shroud_
(1977), 177-8.]
An inconclusive result is a far cry from determining that the blood is
"fake," as Nickell incorrectly alleges. I've absolutely _no_ idea where
Nickell got the idea that the 1973 commission, or anyone on it for that
matter, thought the blood was "probably painted." Particularly
hilarious is Nickell's comment that "the negative results of numerous
tests by qualified forensic experts" is evidence for the "blood" not
being blood.[_Inquest_ (1987), 144.]
"Hilarious" because the 1973 individuals couldn't even get the blood
into solution, and without doing that, there was no way that using their
methods they could get a positive test result for blood. In light of
his numerous factually incorrect assertions concerning the question of
blood or no-blood, particularly egregious following the publication of
peer-reviewed articles on the matter following the 1978 STURP
examination, if one is going to be skeptical of anything in the
controversy surrounding the Shroud, it ought be of Nickell's remarks.
Make that Nickell's _and_ McCrone's remarks. In his personal magazine
_The Microscope_, McCrone states that the blood is actually a paint
pigment called iron oxide, the basis for this claim being his light
microscopy observations. However, in table 5 in the peer-reviewed
_Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal_ 14:92 (1981), John
Heller and Alan Adler list the following under the heading "Tests
Confirming the Presence of Whole Blood on the Shroud":
"1) High Fe in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence
2) Indicative reflection spectra
3) Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra
4) Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence
5) Positive hemochromagen tests
6) Positive cyanmethemoglobin tests
7) Positive detectionn [sic] of bile pigments
8) Positive demonstration of protein
9) Positive indication of albumin specifically
10) Protease tests, leaving no residues
11) Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls
12) Forensic judgement of the appearance of the various wounds and blood
marks."
> Since C14 dating has shown that the cloth is from the same century
> it first appeared, does that mean G*d wanted to use modern technology
> to weaken our faith?
Carbon dating is not all it's cracked up to be. It's been wrong in
giving wildly differing dates for the same thing, and it was wrong in
giving a date from the middle ages for the Shroud.
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Ian Johnston on 4 Apr 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
david ford:
>: This is an announcement to the atheist groups that I hope to be
>: discussing the Shroud of Turin this summer as evidence for the
>: resurrection of Jesus.
>
> With all due respect, it doesn't sound so much as if you'll be
> "discussing" it as using it.
>
>: This is just to put you on notice so that you can bone up on
>: counterarguments, if you so desire. The argument will probably go
>: something like the following: premise 1: the Shroud, whether made by
>: human hands or the result of the miracle of physics, depicts the
>: death of Jesus Christ.
>
> Invalid premise. How do you know that it's Jesus?
"Furthermore, it is apparent that this faint image exhibits in
impressive detail everything we know or would like to believe about a
true Shroud of Christ. Its very perfection, however, argues equally for
authenticity and fakery. The details of the crucifixion in the New
Testament are faithfully recorded. The bruises, scourge marks, blood
from the crown of thorns, as well as wounds in the wrist, feet and right
side are clearly depicted."[Walter C. McCrone, _The Microscope_ (1981)
29:35.] (The side wound is said to appear, not by the NT, but by
tradition in the right side.)
"What are the two hypotheses in the present case? The shroud is
authentic or it is a forgery. Is there a third hypothesis? No, and
here's why. Both Wilson (1979, pp. 51-53) and Stevenson and Habermas
(1981, pp. 121-29) go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man
imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After
all, the man on _this_ shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of
thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his
side pierced, and so on.... I agree with them on all of this. If the
shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus. Otherwise, it's an
artist's representation, i.e., a fraud."[Steven D. Schafersman, _The
Skeptical Inquirer_ (Spring 1982), 41.]
>: premise 2: The Shroud could not have been made by human hands.
>
> Invalid premise. How do you know this?
"The notion has indeed been disproved so thoroughly and absolutely that
it should be permanently buried. I shall simply list yet again the
numerous items of evidence, many of which would be sufficient singly to
establish that the image is not a medieval painting, rubbing, scorch, or
other work of art: anatomical detail, realism of the wounds, presence of
blood, absence of pigment or binder, reversal of light and dark [i.e.,
the depiction of the very different things skin and hair is like a
negative] [except for the blood, which isn't reversed], diffuseness of
the image at close range [it's hard to paint what you can only see by
stepping back a ways],
three-dimensional information [encoded in the image, and whose presence
is revealed using the VP-8], absence of outline or shading, lack of
directionality in the colored areas [except for the scourge marks] [even
the painting technique of pointillism has a direction: up-down], lack of
change in color from light to dark tones [the appearance of being darker
in places results from a larger number of degraded linen fibers, not a
change in color], color not affected by heat or water [known from the
1532 fire, when some melted silver burned holes in the linen, after
which water was splashed on the silver container and stained the Shroud
in places], detail and twin radiation of scourge marks [the marks have a
different center on the left and right sides],
nailing of wrists [unlike the popular representations of Jesus as nailed
though the palms; a palm with a nail in it would tear out, demonstrated
using experiments with cadavers] [also, nailing through the wrists
damages the median nerve, causing excruciating pain and making the thumb
contract: on the Shroud, no thumb is visible] [also, the nail goes
through and enlarges the so-called "space of Destot," and no bones are
broken]...
characteristic wounds of the Roman _flagrum_ [for the scourge marks] and
_lancea_ [for the side wound], Oriental cap rather than [the usually
depicted] Western circlet crown [for the crown of thorns; a metal glove
would be needed to make a circlet of thorns, but it's easy to make a cap
using just some twine and a sword], accuracy in Semitic appearance
[e.g., the unbound pigtail, then a Jewish fashion] and Jewish burial
posture [e.g., the folded arms; incidentally, there are objects
(probably coins) over the eyes, then a burial custom]... difficulty in
reconciling the Shroud with biblical [burial] accounts, nudity of the
figure [in severe violation of popular depictions of the crucifixion;
those that copied the Shroud usually added clothes]."[William Meacham,
_Current Anthropology_ 24:291 (1983).]
I left out the statement that the feet were nailed using a single nail,
since someone has suggested that they may have been nailed separately,
and the pollen claims.
Meacham continues, "Each of these features could be explained by
invoking extraordinary circumstance.... Clearly, however, the cumulative
effect is to place the painting hypothesis somewhat lower in credibility
than notions of the Marlowe authorship of Shakespeare's plays or an
Egyptian influence on the Mayas."[291-2]
>: Conclusion: the Shroud is evidence for the existence of Jesus.
>
> Invalid conclusion, unsurprisingly.
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Hugh Young on 4 Apr 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
david ford:
>: The refereed literature conclusively disproves the hypothesis that
>: the image was painted.
>
> That is not what Nickell or McCrone say. The "bloodstains" are paint.
> (They are far too red to be blood. Dried blood is black.) The image
> could have been applied by rubbing the cloth against a bas (low)
> relief such as a bronze image, with a pale pigment such as iron oxide.
It makes 0 sense for a forger go to all the trouble of making a bronze
image of Jesus of not only the front, but also the back. Agree? Where
is this bronze image, anyway? Such an exquisite work of art would be
very valuable in itself.
> The cover of Nickell's book
> carries such an image and most people mistake it for the cloth
> of Turin at first.
If that is so, most people have not looked much at photos of
the Shroud face.
>: the image color is so close to that of the linen,
>
> It is now. It has faded a lot. It may have been washed (in holy
> water, to protect the image....?).
What is the source for the statement that the image "has faded a lot"?
>: The hypothesis that the image was painted is also disproved by the
>: testing on the Shroud using the VP-8 image analyzer. The Shroud
>: contains 3-d info,
>
> No, the "3D info" was added by digitally adding data obtained from
> a real man lying under a cloth. (Nail soup!)
Concerning the use of a model under a cloth, I understand neither what
is said in the section "_3-D or Not 3-D_?" in _Inquest_ (1987), 88-91,
nor the account as it was presented in Ian Wilson's _The Shroud of
Turin_ (1978), 197-8. However, this doesn't much matter, since in
_Report on the Shroud of Turin_ (1983), John Heller recounts that the 3-
d image was (also) obtained using a photograph of the Shroud. The photo
was put into the VP-8 image analyzer, some knobs were adjusted, and
presto, the 3-d image appeared to the astonishment of the onlookers.
Wilson states on 199 that a transparency was used. It's curious that
Nickell fails to mention the VP-8's results in _Inquest_....
> It is impossible to
> consistently reconcile the "3d info" of the body with that of the
> face. Either the face is too proud or the body is too flat.
From a few lines up: "the '3D info' was added." Now there's said to be
3-d info in the body and in the face. Which will it be-- there _is_ 3-d
info, or there _isn't_ 3-d info?
>: and the VP-8 (which interprets regions of high intensity as being
>: close, and those of low intensity as being farther away), when a
>: photo of the Shroud is put into it, produces a 3-d image without
>: distortion, unlike for normal photos. Whatever produced the Shroud
>: image got weaker in effect the farther it was away from the cloth.
>
> Just like the rubbed relief method.
If this is truly so, then why did Nickell try so hard to discount the
fact that 3-d info was found in his _Popular Photography_ (Feb. 1979)
article?
>: Nickell's work fails the VP-8 test,
>
> Hard to say what this means, but I doubt that this could have been
> done double blind, or that those who did it were impartial observers.
The statement means that when one puts a photo of Nickell's work into
the VP-8, one gets a distorted image. Unlike is the case with a photo
of the Shroud.
>: and even using our best 20th century know-how, we can't
>: reproduce what's on the Shroud.
>
> That could be because the image on the cloth of Turin has been
> degrading for 600 years. The image now is caused by discoloured
> fibres, but that may not be what originally caused it. One
> possibility is that they were discoloured by the ferric oxide,
> now dispersed.
What is the source for the claim that its possible for ferric oxide to
discolor linen fibers? Also, why is it said that the ferric oxide is
"now dispersed"? Did not McCrone-- an individual upon whom Nickell
bases much of his criticism of the Shroud-- claim that the paint pigment
iron oxide (and vermilion) was responsible for the blood and body image
areas, as revealed by his microscope examinations?
>: (As a side note, the Shroud is a perfect negative.
>
> Perfect? It doesn't look particularly realistic either way.
"In fact, the perfection of the image rules out, to my mind, the
possibility of its being formed by _any conceivable_ natural process,
assuming, of course, that the shroud is authentic."[Steven Schafersman,
_The Skeptical Enquirer_ (Spring 1982), 41.]
Schafersman continues, "It is this fact that has so greatly troubled
STURP. They at first proposed various radiation hypotheses to explain
the image, but these have now been retracted upon the realization that
they were proposing supernormal or supernatural phenomena."
>: In 1898, a
>: photographer developing his film after taking pictures of the Shroud
>: noticed this, and the Shroud has been the subject of much interest
>: since, for the detail is much more noticeable.)
>
> Sure: astronomers look at stars maps in the negative too.
[snip]
david ford
Posted and emailed.
Hugh Young on 4 Apr 1997 in "Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
david ford:
[snip]
>: Well, I've spent too much time on this. I sincerely hope the
>: atheists
>
> What's this got to do with atheism? Heaps of devout christians don't
> believe in the cloth. In fact only a subset of a few sects take any
> notice. Many who care about such things say "I believe in the risen
> Christ, not some old cloth."
Who'd want to place one's trust in large piece of linen? Now a risen
Lord, that's another matter. And the Shroud constitutes evidence for
Jesus' resurrection.
> Wowee, what big words. I am impressed. Except that "miracle of
> physics" is a contradiction in terms. It certainly would have to be
> a miracle that printed the front of JC's body on one half of the
> cloth, the back on the other, and left no room between them for the
> top of his head.
Two possible explanations: 1) the forger was extremely stupid and forgot
to put the image of the top of the head, and 2) a napkin was tied over
the top of the head and under the chin to keep the jaw shut, and that
napkin prevented a top-of-the-head image from forming on the Shroud.
>: The string will also contain discussions about the big bang model,
>: the theory of evolution, and the spontaneous generation thesis, and
>: should be up and running by the end of June.
>
> Why not some learned dissertation on the Easter Bunny and biology of
> garden gnomes, too? They have about as much connection as your other
> topics.
>
> How much impact on faith overall has the cloth of Turin had?
> Has a single person been converted to Xy by it?
If no one has converted to Christianity as a result of the evidence of
the Shroud of Turin, then maybe it's about time someone did, with the
"how" of converting being described in the book of Romans in the Bible.
> I for one was nearly convinced by Ian
> Wilson's book (I think it was - the one with the beautiful colour
> photographs) that at least there seemed to have been an historical
> Jesus who had been wrapped in the cloth. (I never bought that
> "resurrection-radiation" crap.)
[snip]
After rereading the section "Radiation Scorches" in the chapter
"Resurrection Radiance?" in _Inquest_, and paying particular attention
to the last 2 paragraphs, please explain exactly why you don't buy the
"'resurrection-radiation' crap."
Capella
david ford wrote:
>
>
> > Since C14 dating has shown that the cloth is from the same century
> > it first appeared, does that mean G*d wanted to use modern technology
> > to weaken our faith?
>
> Carbon dating is not all it's cracked up to be. It's been wrong in
> giving wildly differing dates for the same thing, and it was wrong in
> giving a date from the middle ages for the Shroud.
Three *independant* tests matching within about 100 years? I don't think
so.
The only time I have ever heard of Carbon-14 dating giving "widly
differing dates" has been from Creationist's literature. Hardly
impartial stuff...
The fire the shroud was in does not significantly affect the tests
either according to the expert testers.
This dating is consistent with the historical appearance of the shroud
in the middle ages when so many other "holy relics" started
popping up, helping people to make a profitable living at their
display (which was the case of the Shroud).
The Catholic Church even recognises the Shroud as a fake after the
dating which ended any serious debate.
William H. Ivey
Nah, that'd produce a more realistic image than the one on the
shroud.-Wm
Sherilyn
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970627...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes
>
>The carbon dating is wrong. It's been wrong in other instances, and it
>was wrong this time.
Offered without evidence, this is a very weak counter to a major flaw in
your claim.
--
Sherilyn
g&g
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<1w6idxCI...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...
I agree with Sherilyn, could you please tell why this particular carbon
dating was wrong and how you absolutely know it to be wrong?
>
Capella
Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970627...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes
> >
> >The carbon dating is wrong. It's been wrong in other instances, and it
> >was wrong this time.
>
> Offered without evidence, this is a very weak counter to a major flaw in
> your claim.
> --
> Sherilyn
The earth is the center of the universe with the Sun revolving
around it, the bible can not be wrong. Galileo has been wrong
before and he is wrong now.
- The Church 1616 CE
Sherilyn
In article <86B0B9FD90E90626.215CD2CC505CC70A.CB7A706BFC1EB396@library-
proxy.airnews.net>, Capella <cap...@airmail.net> writes
>Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>> In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970627...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
>> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes
>> >
>> >The carbon dating is wrong. It's been wrong in other instances, and it
>> >was wrong this time.
>>
>> Offered without evidence, this is a very weak counter to a major flaw in
>> your claim.
>> --
>> Sherilyn
>
>
>The earth is the center of the universe with the Sun revolving
>around it, the bible can not be wrong. Galileo has been wrong
>before and he is wrong now.
> - The Church 1616 CE
:)
Perhaps appropriate to the church of 1616, but not to the modern church.
I doubt very much that the Pope who could give the address from which I
quote in 1992 would have much time for Mr Ford's excuses.
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~newman/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
[Excerpt--please see URL for full text]
"A twofold question is at the heart of the debate of which
Galileo was the centre.
"The first is of the epistemological order and concerns biblical
hermeneutics. In this regard, two points must again be raised.
In the first place, like most of his adversaries, Galileo made
no distinction between the scientific approach to natural
phenomena and a reflection on nature, of the philosophical
order, which that approach generally calls for. That is why he
rejected the suggestion made to him to present the Copernican
system as a hypothesis, inasmuch as it had not been confirmed by
irrefutable proof. Such therefore, was an exigency of the
experimental method of which he was the inspired founder.
"Secondly, the geocentric representation of the world was
commonly admitted in the culture of the time as fully
agreeing with the teaching of the Bible of which certain
expressions, taken literally seemed to affirm geocentrism.
The problem posed by theologians of that age was, therefore,
that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and
Scripture.
"Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of
research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine
their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them
did not know how to do so.
"Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to
be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who
opposed him. "If Scripture cannot err", he wrote to Benedetto
Castelli, "certain of its interpreters and commentators can and
do so in many ways".(2) We also know of his letter to Christine
de Lorraine (1615) which is like a short treatise on biblical
hermeneutics.(3)
References:
(2) Letter of 21 November 1613, in Edizione nazionale delle Opere di
Galileo Galilei, dir. A. Favaro, edition of 1968, vol. V, p. 282.
(3) Letter to Christine de Lorraine, 1615, in Edizione nazionale delle
Opere di Galileo Galilei, dir. A. Favaro, edition of 1968, vol. V, pp.
307-348.
--
Sherilyn
Capella
Well, at least (last I heard) since it was dated, the Catholic Church
no longer considers the Shroud to be authentic, just a few batty fundies
have taken up that crusade. :^)
Jimmy Adams
In article <5p625d$r9b$2...@news5.gte.net>, g&g <gri...@gte.net> writes
>> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes
>> >
>> >The carbon dating is wrong. It's been wrong in other instances, and it
>> >was wrong this time.
>>
>> Offered without evidence, this is a very weak counter to a major flaw in
>> your claim.
>> --
>> Sherilyn
>dating was wrong and how you absolutely know it to be wrong?
>>
Shroud.
Following this point, do you have any suggestions as to where it spent
the missing 1300 years?
--
Jimmy Adams
Shooty
g&g wrote:
>
> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <1w6idxCI...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...
> > In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970627...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
> > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes
> > >
> > >The carbon dating is wrong. It's been wrong in other instances, and it
> > >was wrong this time.
> >
> > Offered without evidence, this is a very weak counter to a major flaw in
> > your claim.
> > --
> > Sherilyn
> I agree with Sherilyn, could you please tell why this particular carbon
> dating was wrong and how you absolutely know it to be wrong?
> >
Cos' if it's right then the shroud is a fake and this whole discussion
is a waste of space, and as we know the whole of Christianity will fall.
Shooty
Uncle Al Schwartz
A piece of cloth is a Euclidean plane with zero curvature, the sum of a triangle's
interior angles equaling 180 degrees, and one line is parallel to a given line.
A human (or demigod's) head is a Bolyai-Lobechevsky elliptic with positive curvature,
the sum of a triangle's interior angles always exceeding 180 degrees, and no lines
are parallel to a given line.
The two are mathematically incommensurate - they cannot be mapped one onto the other
without distortion. That is why you cannot have an accurate flat map of a round
Earth. It isn't merely diffcult. It is a mathematical impossibility. We thus live
with Mercator Projection.
The Shroud of Turin was manufactured as follows: A FLAT bas relief sculpture was
variously daubbed with pigment and then heated in a fire to around 233 centigrade.
The linen cloth was draped over the hot scuplture and lightly charred. All the high
points of the object - cheekbones, nose, chin, forehead - contacted the cloth and
charred it black. On an illuminated face they are normally highlights. All the low
points of the object - eye sockets, mouth, cheeks - were away from the cloth and
it stayed pale. On an illuminated face they are normally in shadow. The result is a
photographic negative of the sculpture.
If you look at a negative of the Shroud of Turin you see a typical Middle Ages'
knight. If you look at the original, you see a brass rubbing of same. It is of the
level of an Indiana Jones S/FX.
Boring.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
unc...@uvic.ca (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
david ford
Etherman on 23 Jun 1997:
William Mayers:
Etherman on 22 Jun 1997:
>:> In "The Jesus Conspiracy" Kirsten and Gruber document how and why
>:> the Vatican substituted a piece of cloth from the Middle Ages for
>:> the sample from the Shroud.
>:
>: However, the people who conducted the tests documented how they
>: authenticated the "shroud" itsself and then took the sample they
>: tested from the "shroud" itsself, without letting the "shroud"
>: itsself out of their sight. Seems Kirsten and Gruber took
>: advantage of some folks' gullability...
>
> That's funny because in "TJC" we're told that the scientists didn't
> take the cloth from the Shroud.
The procedure for how the samples were obtained with suitable
witnesses is described in "Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin,"
an article in _Nature_ 337:611-15 (1989). G. Riggi (whoever that is)
removed the sample. The scientists present included Professors Gonella,
Damon, Donahue, Hall, and Woelfli.
> The tests were set up so that the
> scientists wouldn't know which sample was from the Shroud and
> which was from ordinary cloth. That way there were be no possible
> experimenter bias.
Three containers were sent to the labs: pieces from the Shroud and
from two controls. However, the Shroud's weave could not be found
in a control, so the labs could tell which of the 3 samples came
from the Shroud.
> The sealing of samples in containers was done
> in secret. Perhaps you have a reference that indicates otherwise?
"All of these operations, except for the wrapping of the samples in
[aluminum] foil [by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr M.S. Tite of the
British Museum] and their placing in containers, were fully documented
by video film and photography."[pg. 612.] Dr. Tite was there.
Rasmus Gjesdal
I think this Shroud has been shrouded in mystery long enough.
The real question should be: How can a cult which is so desperate
that it has to cling to a shroud which has prooven to be a forgery
claim to have anything to offer mankind?
--
- Rasmus Gjesdal- Norway
-------------------
http://home.sn.no/~rgjesdal/contra.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2818/contra.htm
Christopher A. Lee
In article <33B899...@sn.no> rgje...@sn.no writes:
>I think this Shroud has been shrouded in mystery long enough.
>The real question should be: How can a cult which is so desperate
>that it has to cling to a shroud which has prooven to be a forgery
>claim to have anything to offer mankind?
I don't think they're desparate. Just that the stronger the belief, the
stronger the mental block: they don't just believe they're right, they
*K*N*O*W* it, even when they're wrong. So anything that supports their
position is automatically correct and anything that casts doubt on it is
obviously wron even if they can't see why.
Rasmus Gjesdal
Christopher:
I think you are right, they think by employing hereditary
preconceptions.
But what happends when people like that define sanity for mankind?
What happends to society when people like that rise the future
generations?
It seems they are only right in one thing:
If everyone becomes Christian, the end is near!
--
- Rasmus Gjesdal
- Norway
-------------------
http://home.sn.no/~rgjesdal/
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2818/
The ChemTeam
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >
> > In article <33B899...@sn.no> rgje...@sn.no writes:
> > >I think this Shroud has been shrouded in mystery long enough.
> > >The real question should be: How can a cult which is so desperate
> > >that it has to cling to a shroud which has prooven to be a forgery
> > >claim to have anything to offer mankind?
What a great question to ask with no proof. Has anyone surveyed this? Does
anyone have some baseline data? Do we have any indications that there is
resistence to the proof that the Shroud is fake?
What about the Hittites? Did you know that the Bible has been scoffed at
for centuries, since no record of the Hittites existed? And recently,
archeologists have discovered evidences of an unknown group that called
themselves -- the HITTITES.
I guess a book as accurate as that and a belif system from it do have
something to offer people.
> >
> > I don't think they're desparate. Just that the stronger the belief, the
> > stronger the mental block: they don't just believe they're right, they
> > *K*N*O*W* it, even when they're wrong. So anything that supports their
> > position is automatically correct and anything that casts doubt on it is
> > obviously wron even if they can't see why.
Silly, simplistic, and way too self-congragulatory. The Shroud of Turin
does not support any Christian belief that I am aware of. The fact of
Christ's crucifixition (and it is a historical fact attested to in the
secular works of the time) is not related to the Shroud. The belief that
Christ's death was substitutionart attonement and the acceptence of
salvation by faith do not depend on the Shroud.
>
> Christopher:
> I think you are right, they think by employing hereditary
> preconceptions.
> But what happends when people like that define sanity for mankind?
> What happends to society when people like that rise the future
> generations?
> It seems they are only right in one thing:
> If everyone becomes Christian, the end is near!
Man, you guys have been preaching to the choir for way too long.
"hereditary preconceptions" Now this was employed for humor value, right.
Wait, let me go read up on Jean Lamark (sp) first.
"what happens" Gag, employed twice. Well, sport, it seems your hereditary
preconceptions have got in the way. Now, since they are hereditary and you
cannot control them or adjust them, maybe you ought to retire from the
debate. After all, rejection of Christianity's claims is IN YOUR GENES.
"If everyone" Wow, this guy is definitive. But wait, we're right in
something else. THE HITTITIES. Wonder what else in the Bible is right?
Certainly not the Shroud, cuz it ain't in the Bible.
Oh well, heredity.
John L. Park
Chem...@clubnet.net
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/ChemTeamIndex.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Recommendations:
1) The Dick Dale Anthology: Better Shred than Dead.
Rhino Records R2 72631
2) The Elements of Hypertext Style. By Bryan Pfaffenberger
Publ. by AP Professional. ISBN 0-12-553142-7
Christopher A. Lee
In article <33B8B2...@sn.no> rgje...@sn.no writes:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>> In article <33B899...@sn.no> rgje...@sn.no writes:
>> >I think this Shroud has been shrouded in mystery long enough.
>> >The real question should be: How can a cult which is so desperate
>> >that it has to cling to a shroud which has prooven to be a forgery
>> >claim to have anything to offer mankind?
>>
>> stronger the mental block: they don't just believe they're right, they
>> *K*N*O*W* it, even when they're wrong. So anything that supports their
>> position is automatically correct and anything that casts doubt on it is
>> obviously wron even if they can't see why.
>
>I think you are right, they think by employing hereditary preconceptions.
>But what happends when people like that define sanity for mankind?
>What happends to society when people like that rise the future generations?
I agree. It's a bit worrying. They consider us the ones who are abnormal,
deficient etc.
People who still believe in Santa Claus and know I don't, go out of their
way to tell me all about him and his toy-workshop at the North Pole. And
treat me as some kind of idiot for not believing them.
Jimmy Adams
In article <ChemTeam-010...@db1-ppp9.dial.clubnet.net>, The
ChemTeam <Chem...@clubnet.net> writes
>> >
>> > In article <33B899...@sn.no> rgje...@sn.no writes:
>> > >I think this Shroud has been shrouded in mystery long enough.
>> > >The real question should be: How can a cult which is so desperate
>> > >that it has to cling to a shroud which has prooven to be a forgery
>> > >claim to have anything to offer mankind?
>
>anyone have some baseline data? Do we have any indications that there is
>resistence to the proof that the Shroud is fake?
>
>What about the Hittites? Did you know that the Bible has been scoffed at
>for centuries, since no record of the Hittites existed?
No, I didn't know this. Do you have a reference? Since Ramses II fought
a major battle against the Hittites in 1299 b.c., it would be surprising
if people coming later were unaware of them.
> And recently,
>archeologists have discovered evidences of an unknown group that called
>themselves -- the HITTITES.
What discovery would this have been, by whom, and where?
>
>I guess a book as accurate as that and a belif system from it do have
>something to offer people.
Your premise is questionable. Most Bible critics have been more
concerned with the story of the creation, and the flood.
(remainder snipped)
--
Jimmy Adams
Rasmus Gjesdal
Jimmy Adams wrote:
>
> In article <ChemTeam-010...@db1-ppp9.dial.clubnet.net>, The
> ChemTeam <Chem...@clubnet.net> writes
> >In article <33B8B2...@sn.no>, rgje...@sn.no wrote:
> >
> >> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <33B899...@sn.no> rgje...@sn.no writes:
> >> > >I think this Shroud has been shrouded in mystery long enough.
> >> > >The real question should be: How can a cult which is so desperate
> >> > >that it has to cling to a shroud which has prooven to be a forgery
> >> > >claim to have anything to offer mankind?
> >
> >What a great question to ask with no proof. Has anyone surveyed this? Does
> >anyone have some baseline data? Do we have any indications that there is
> >resistence to the proof that the Shroud is fake?
> >
> >What about the Hittites? Did you know that the Bible has been scoffed at
> >for centuries, since no record of the Hittites existed?
>
How can any christian brag about the bible being the only place which
has information about the Hittites when it is known that the reason
for this was the destruction by christians of ancient writings?
How can christians brag about their information about the Hittites when
the biblical data is incorrect? (Hittite kings from the 6th century BC
named as Canaanite giants in Genesis for example)
It is like a rapist bragging about being the only person who knows who
raped and subsequently murdered his victim
(remainder snipped)
--
- Rasmus Gjesdal
- Norway
-----------------------------
http://home.sn.no/~rgjesdal/contra.htm
Ezekiel 20:25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good,
and
judgments whereby they should not live;
Ezekiel 20:26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they
caused to
pass through [the fire] all that openeth the womb, that I might make
them desolate,
to the end that they might know that I [am] the LORD.
david ford
Robert Imrie, DVM on 23 Jun 1997:
Etherman:
Etherman:
david ford:
>:>: "There isn't a mark that doesn't come out of the gospel stories."
>:>: How about dirt on the nose (which is probably broken), and on the
>:>: feet? The dirt is not visible to the human eye. Why should a
>:>: forger add dirt that wouldn't be visible except with the use of
>:>: a microscope?
"Visual observation of the heel area at 500 times magnification revealed
the presence of very fine yellowish particles suggesting dirt; the nose
area might also contain dirt or residual skin material."[Samuel
Pellicori and Mark S. Evans, "The Shroud of Turin Through the
Microscope," _Archaeology_ pg. 41 (Jan-Feb 1981).]
The heel area was investigated after reflectance spectroscopy revealed
that the spectra from the heel region was very different from the rest
of the body image's spectra as examined up to the knee. Heller relates
that Eric Jumper called in Pellicori, who after carefully examining the
heel region, said "'It's dirt.' 'What?' exploded Eric. 'Let me look!'
Deep into and between the threads dirt particles could be seen."[John
Heller, _Report on the Shroud of Turin_ (1983), 112.] On 217, Heller
notes that there are "lesions on nose and knee commensurate with a
fall."
>:> If Jesus's nose was broken then we have a contradiction with the
>:> Bible which says none of his bones were broken.
>:
>: I realized last night that this doesn't make sense since there are
>: no bones in the nose.
>
> Wrong. Take a good look at a human skull. There's plenty of bone in
> and around the human nose. Try looking up "nasal bones" (they're the
> protruding structures to which the nasal cartilages are anchored) and
> "nasal turbinates."
>
> It's always wise to check the facts before you post on a subject.
"There is a very slight deviation of the nose and at the tip of the nose
is an area of discoloration consistent with a bruise. Detailed
photographs and microscopic studies of the cloth in the nose image area
show scratches and dirt. These are consistent with the nose having made
contact with the ground, most likely as the result of a fall. The
deviation of the nose may reflect injury to the nasal cartilage,
although this is less clear."[Robert Bucklin, M.D., J.D., "The Shroud of
Turin: A Pathologist's Viewpoint," _Legal Medicine Annual_ (1981 or
1982), 38.]
>:> I suggest you
>:> read "The Jesus Conspiracy" by Kirsten and Gruber. They explain
>:> that if the Shroud is not a forgery (which they tentatively accept)
>:> then Jesus must have been alive when he was placed in it.
"Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that
Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports
the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs,
probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and
heart and thereby ensured his death (Fig 7). Accordingly,
interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the
cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge."[Edwards et.
al., "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ," _J. of the American
Medical Association_ 255:1463 (1963).]
"Then Jesus must have been alive when he was placed in it." Let's hear
about what K&G have to say.
>:> They
>:> explain how the image could have been formed by a living person.
>:> They further explain that the Shroud is inconsistent with Hebraic
>:> burial customs.
This should be interesting, hearing about how a living person can make
an image like that on the Shroud. Also, how is "the Shroud...
inconsistent with Hebraic burial customs"?
david ford
Aaron Turner on 24 June 1997:
> On UK TV a few (5?) years ago the following was done:
>
> (1) Turin Shroud analysed, and strength of colour used to create a
> 3d image of the 'body', which was quite convincing.
> (2) An artists was hired to paint a Shroud forgery.
> (3) This was analysed for 3d shape. One side was as convincing as
> the Shroud, the other aspect was a bit flawed. Not bad for a
> first attempt.
What was the evidence presented that the artist's copy had 3-d
information in it?
> Doesn't explain the paint on the shroud, unless perhaps this process
> happened, and then it was additionally touched up by the addition of
> paint, which is possible.
There is a very small amount of paint on the Shroud. However, the paint
does not occur in the image areas and does not account for the image.
Its presence is easily accounted for, and in fact is to be expected,
since artists have painted over 60 copies of the Shroud in the past 600+
years.
> The other possibility is that someone was
> daubed with paint and then wore the shroud, and then the image was
> touched up. Apparently these is some evidence for retouching of the
> image.
There is no evidence for the image being retouched. As for the
suggested technique, if you cover your face with charcoal, and then
press a cloth over your face, one gets severe distortion as the cloth is
made flat. For example, see Nickell's face a little past pg. 94 in
_Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_ (1987). In contrast, there is no such
distortion in the Shroud image. Notes Nickell on 80, "Like Vignon
before me, I abandoned the contact-imprint hypothesis, and so have
virtually all investigators."
> Another odd fact of the shroud that makes it very doubtful it is in any
> way authentic is that whilst it contains pollens, it contains NO olive
> tree pollen, which is surprising if it had ever been in the middle east.
The 1978 examination took tape samples from the Shroud and found a few
pollen grains on them, but not nearly the number Frei claimed to have
found and identified. No effort was made to identify the pollen.
> Also relic forgery was quite a good business in medieval times.
You're a medieval forger, and want to make a forgery of Christ's burial
shroud to make some serious money. In the Church of the Holy Sepulcher
in Jerusalem, there's a reddish stone called the "Stone of Unction" on
which it's been claimed since Byzantine times that Jesus was laid and
washed.[Wilson, _The Shroud of Turin_ (1978), 40.] You know of this
tradition saying that Jesus' body was washed. Some questions, to see
just how _meticulous_ and _hard-working_ you as a forger are:
1) Will your forgery depict a washed or an unwashed body?
2) Will you use blood from a chicken or cow, etc., or will you use
primate blood?
3) Will you put some clothes around the midsection, or will you depict
Jesus nude?
4) Will you depict just the face of Jesus, His face and chest, His
entire front side, or both front and back?
5) Will you put some dirt on the heel that won't be visible except when
using a microscope, no or yes?
6) Will you depict Jesus with a pony tail, no or yes?
7) Will you put the nail wounds in the palms or in the wrists?
8) Will you depict the thumb or not?
9) Will you put blood flows from the wrist wounds traveling in 2
different directions, i.e., the directions corresponding to the 2
positions assumed during crucifixion, no or yes?
10) Will you paint your forgery or not?
11) Will your final product be a negative, no or yes?
12) Will some of your wounds have serum albumin at the edges, no or yes?
13) Will your scourge marks be like those inflicted using a Roman
flagrum, no or yes?
14) Will your final product contain 3-dimensional information, no or
yes?
15) Will your image be the result of the linen's [see Matthew 27:59]
microfibrils' dehydration, oxidation, and conjugation, i.e.,
degradation of the cellulose, no or yes? [Such degradation can be
achieved by using heat in the lab, e.g., by baking linen in an
oven or using lasers on linen.]
david ford
Lilith on 22 Jun 1997:
david ford on 21 Jun 1997:
>: We're not talking about mere photos or mere reports of some
>: hairy thing running around. With the Shroud, lots of tests
>: can be run on it. After all its subjection to much scientific
>: study and testing, no evidence of forgery has appeared.
>
> no evidence of forgery has appeared - ROFLOL !!!!! lots of
> tests can and have been run, and they showed that the fabric
> dated 12century CE, these tests also found that the so called
> image was painted on.
Since when has radiocarbon dating also been able to determine
whether an object was painted or not?
vale...@convex.com
>It makes 0 sense for a forger go to all the trouble of making a bronze
>image of Jesus of not only the front, but also the back. Agree? Where
>is this bronze image, anyway? Such an exquisite work of art would be
>very valuable in itself.
There was no bronze. The image is not a rubbing. It's a painting,
filled with the stylistic distortions typical of 13th Century
European portraiture. A person who was proportioned like the image
in the "shroud" would be a freak.
--
To reply, replace "valencia" with "schumach".
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to a US$200 archive fee.
vale...@convex.com
>>It makes 0 sense for a forger go to all the trouble of making a bronze
>>image of Jesus of not only the front, but also the back. Agree? Where
>>is this bronze image, anyway? Such an exquisite work of art would be
>>very valuable in itself.
No doubt it was destroyed sometime in the last 700 years. The "shroud"
image is filled with the stylistic distortions typical of 13th Century
European art. A person who was proportioned like the image in the
Christopher A. Lee
In article <ChemTeam-010...@db1-ppp9.dial.clubnet.net> Chem...@clubnet.net (The ChemTeam) writes:
>In article <33B8B2...@sn.no>, rgje...@sn.no wrote:
>
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <33B899...@sn.no> rgje...@sn.no writes:
>> > >I think this Shroud has been shrouded in mystery long enough.
>> > >The real question should be: How can a cult which is so desperate
>> > >that it has to cling to a shroud which has prooven to be a forgery
>> > >claim to have anything to offer mankind?
>
>What a great question to ask with no proof. Has anyone surveyed this? Does
>anyone have some baseline data? Do we have any indications that there is
>resistence to the proof that the Shroud is fake?
>
>What about the Hittites? Did you know that the Bible has been scoffed at
>archeologists have discovered evidences of an unknown group that called
>themselves -- the HITTITES.
So why don't you believe in the ancient Greek myths and their deities?
After all, after all they were scoffed at for centuries because no
record of Troy existed? And an archeologist named Schliemann used
these writings to discover - you've guessed it - TROY.
>I guess a book as accurate as that and a belif system from it do have
>something to offer people.
I guess a book as accurate as that and a belif system from it do have
something to offer people.
>
>> >
>> > I don't think they're desparate. Just that the stronger the belief, the
>> > stronger the mental block: they don't just believe they're right, they
>> > *K*N*O*W* it, even when they're wrong. So anything that supports their
>> > position is automatically correct and anything that casts doubt on it is
>> > obviously wron even if they can't see why.
>
>Silly, simplistic, and way too self-congragulatory. The Shroud of Turin
>does not support any Christian belief that I am aware of. The fact of
What fact?
>Christ's crucifixition (and it is a historical fact attested to in the
>secular works of the time) is not related to the Shroud. The belief that
Which I notice you haven't cited.
>Christ's death was substitutionart attonement and the acceptence of
>salvation by faith do not depend on the Shroud.
That's good. I'm glad you admit your beliefs have no factual grounding.
>"If everyone" Wow, this guy is definitive. But wait, we're right in
>something else. THE HITTITIES. Wonder what else in the Bible is right?
>Certainly not the Shroud, cuz it ain't in the Bible.
Precious little. How many legs does a grasshopper have? What's the value
of pi? Do leporids chew the cud? What evidence is there for a worldwide
flood as described in Genesis? Where is there a mountain so high you can
see all the kingdoms of the world from the top? This is too easy.
Did you hear about the guy who called his pet parakeet Onan because it
spilled its seed?
The ChemTeam
In article <chrisleeE...@netcom.com>, chri...@netcom.com
(Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
> So why don't you believe in the ancient Greek myths and their deities?
>
> After all, after all they were scoffed at for centuries because no
> record of Troy existed? And an archeologist named Schliemann used
> these writings to discover - you've guessed it - TROY.
>
He used the myths?
Let's see: Pluto liked Persophne (sp?) so he kidnapped her. Ceres went to
Jupiter and asked for her return. J laid down the conditions and because P
had eaten three seeds of a pomegranate, that's why we have winter.
I suspect Shliemann used something a bit more fact based, say like a
heroic poem or two.
A far cry from the myths.
> The fact of
>
> What fact?
You broke in too soon. The fact is that of a man named Jesus Christ who
was crucified.
>
> >Christ's crucifixition (and it is a historical fact attested to in the
> >secular works of the time) is not related to the Shroud. The belief that
>
> Which I notice you haven't cited.
Once again, you are too soon. The belief that I cite is the orthodox
Christian belief of what Jesus' death (and subsequent resurrection)
accomplished with regard to salvation.
>
> >Christ's death was substitutionart attonement and the acceptence of
> >salvation by faith do not depend on the Shroud.
>
> That's good. I'm glad you admit your beliefs have no factual grounding.
<mild sarcasm on>
He notices the technique of deliberately overstating the case. I merely
point out that the Shoud is not related to the acceptance or rejection of
the central Christian message and all of a sudden I'm admitting that my
beliefs have no factual grounding.
Well, golly gee, I guess yours don't either. So there.
<mild sarcasm off>
>
> >"If everyone" Wow, this guy is definitive. But wait, we're right in
> >something else. THE HITTITIES. Wonder what else in the Bible is right?
> >Certainly not the Shroud, cuz it ain't in the Bible.
>
> Precious little. How many legs does a grasshopper have? What's the value
> of pi? Do leporids chew the cud? What evidence is there for a worldwide
> flood as described in Genesis? Where is there a mountain so high you can
> see all the kingdoms of the world from the top? This is too easy.
I know and it gets easier.
Does sin exist?
Can man save himself?
Whom do you believe Jesus Christ to be?
You ask lots of nice little picky questions to divert attention away from
the central fact of how you respond to the offer of salvation by the
substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.
That is something that one must accept by faith and BTW, that is not faith
aside the facts. It is a judgement that, as a whole, the Christian message
is sensible and acceptable.
Many have and will decide that it is not. And many who reject also feel
the need to ridicule
>
> Did you hear about the guy who called his pet parakeet Onan because it
> spilled its seed?
No, but I did hear about the guy who bought a Range Rover and named it
Dog, so he could have a Rover named Dog.
And I do know that an 800-lb pet parakeet says "Here kitty kitty."
Paul Andrew King
In article <ChemTeam-010...@db1-ppp9.dial.clubnet.net>,
Chem...@clubnet.net (The ChemTeam) wrote:
>What a great question to ask with no proof. Has anyone surveyed this? Does
>anyone have some baseline data? Do we have any indications that there is
>resistence to the proof that the Shroud is fake?
Try message-id <Pine.SGI.3.95.97062...@umbc8.umbc.edu> for
one example, quoting several other examples.
>
>What about the Hittites? Did you know that the Bible has been scoffed at
>for centuries, since no record of the Hittites existed?
No, I don't. I haven't seen any scoffing at the Bible over the alleged
non-existence of the Hittites. I do know that people scoffed at the
Illiad, though...
And recently,
>archeologists have discovered evidences of an unknown group that called
>themselves -- the HITTITES.
And Schliemann found Troy, based on Homer's descriptions. So, I guess that
means that the Greek gods are real...
Paul K.
SD Anderson
In article <ChemTeam-010...@db1-ppp21.dial.clubnet.net>,
Chem...@clubnet.net (The ChemTeam) wrote:
> Does sin exist?
> Can man save himself?
> Whom do you believe Jesus Christ to be?
>
> You ask lots of nice little picky questions to divert attention away from
> the central fact of how you respond to the offer of salvation by the
> substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.
>
> That is something that one must accept by faith and BTW, that is not faith
> aside the facts. It is a judgement that, as a whole, the Christian message
> is sensible and acceptable.
What exactly does this have to do with "Turin Shroud: Trivial Proof
of Forgery"?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
The ChemTeam
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970701...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Lilith on 22 Jun 1997:
> david ford on 21 Jun 1997:
>
> > no evidence of forgery has appeared - ROFLOL !!!!! lots of
> > tests can and have been run, and they showed that the fabric
> > dated 12century CE, these tests also found that the so called
> > image was painted on.
>
> Since when has radiocarbon dating also been able to determine
> whether an object was painted or not?
This last seems to be a deliberate misunderstanding of the prior post.
Tests (plural) were referred to. One of the tests is the radiocarbon test
and another test (or tests) established that the image was painted. Many
other (unnamed) tests were also performed.
P Graves
Part of a response asks:
> > >... Wonder what else in the Bible is right?
> > >Certainly not the Shroud, cuz it ain't in the Bible.
> >
> > Precious little. How many legs does a grasshopper have? What's the value
The bible does give a value for pi and gets it wrong!
Check 1 Kings 7, v23 which refers to the construction of a circular
vessel. My modern translation says that it is *4.4 metres in diameter
and 13.2 metres in circumference*.
pi = circumference/diameter = 3 on these figures. The circumference
should be 13.8 metres, a significant difference.
Matt Giwer
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 23:31:25 -0400, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
>It makes 0 sense for a forger go to all the trouble of making a bronze
>image of Jesus of not only the front, but also the back. Agree? Where
>is this bronze image, anyway? Such an exquisite work of art would be
>very valuable in itself.
Early cannon were made of bronze putting anything made of bronze
at great risk until iron cannon replaced them.
===
Dedicated to the 104 dead victims of the Qana massacre.
http://www.flinet.com/~politics/action/ch-beat.htm
Steve Mading
The ChemTeam (Chem...@clubnet.net) wrote:
: In article <chrisleeE...@netcom.com>, chri...@netcom.com
: (Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
[ The post I reply to lost the attribution for this next paragraph,
but I assume it was "The ChemTeam"'s words: ]
: > >"If everyone" Wow, this guy is definitive. But wait, we're right in
: > >something else. THE HITTITIES. Wonder what else in the Bible is right?
: > >Certainly not the Shroud, cuz it ain't in the Bible.
: >
: > Precious little. How many legs does a grasshopper have? What's the value
: > of pi? Do leporids chew the cud? What evidence is there for a worldwide
: > flood as described in Genesis? Where is there a mountain so high you can
: > see all the kingdoms of the world from the top? This is too easy.
: I know and it gets easier.
: Does sin exist?
: Can man save himself?
: Whom do you believe Jesus Christ to be?
: You ask lots of nice little picky questions to divert attention away from
: the central fact of how you respond to the offer of salvation by the
: substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.
Now hold on a minute, there! You (I assume it was you) are the one
who started the 'picky' details with your example of the Hittites.
You were making the silly assertion that just because the bible is
right with respect to the Hittites, that it must be right in all
other aspects too. Then this person, Christopher Lee, points out
some details in the Bible that he says are not right - not because
*he* wants to be picky, but because *you* started the detailing.
These examples of incorrect details, if they are really in the Bible,
completely destroy your argument that the entire Bible must be true
just because parts of it are true. (I haven't read the Bible, so
I'll leave it up to you two to argue over whether or not those
details are in the Bible.)
And as to your example of the Hittites, lets put it this way:
Assume for a moment that you are an archeologist way in the future,
who has read a modern translation of the the 'ancient' James Bond
books of the 20th century. After reading all the James Bond books,
you go around digging and discover the ruins of Washington DC, London,
Moscow, and several other cities mentioned in the James Bond books.
Your careful analysis shows that these cities are indeed exactly like
they were described in the novels. You discover that their governments
were engaged in struggles just like those mentioned in the books, and
that orginizations such as the CIA, and the KGB actually existed. You
discover that the cars James Bond drove were real cars made by auto
companies that really existed. Most of the details of the world
surrounding James Bond turn out to be truthfully accounted in the
books.
Should we then conclude that the James Bond novels were true? If we
used the same logic you want us to use with the Bible, we would have
to.
It is percectly possible to write fictional stories that borrow
heavily from the real world of the time. We do it all the time.
James Bond, the Tom Clancy books, the movie 'Independence Day',
"Appocalypse Now", etc. In fact very few fiction stories are
not set in our world - It seems that only certain science fiction
and fantasy novels avoid using our world as a setting. Every other
fiction book uses the world around us as the setting.
david ford
Capella on 23 Jun 1997:
david ford:
>: We're not talking about mere photos or mere reports of some hairy
>: thing running around. With the Shroud, lots of tests can be run
>: on it. After all its subjection to much scientific study and
>: testing, no evidence of forgery has appeared.
>
> The carbon dating from 3 independent labs put the Shroud's creation
> at sometime around 1300 CE.
The 3 labs used the exact _same_ technique, and tested the exact _same_
piece of cloth, i.e., samples from different areas of the Shroud were
not used. Archaeologist William Meacham very sensibly recommended in
his 1986 "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud:
Possibilities and Uncertainties," near http://www.shroud.com, that 5
samples be taken, and 2 methods used, IIRC.
> Experts say the fire did nothing to
> significantly alter this measurement.
I've seen a journal article title that was rather long and that
mentioned something like "ratio isotope fractionation" in connection
with how the fire and the sudden cooling of water could affect the C-14
results. Also, Meacham discusses how the fire and cooling could have
affected the results. Search for the phrase "Transfer of cellulose
pyrolysis products" in his aforementioned article. What is the source
for the statement "Experts say the fire did nothing to significantly
alter this measurement"?
>: "Was created as easily as." How can this be, since using the best
>: technology of the 20th century, we are not able to duplicate the
>: image on the Shroud?
>
> If anyone would like to see a picture of what this poster says
> we cannot do, go to
>
> alt.binaries.pictures
>
> and look for Turin Shroud reproduction.
Please describe the reproductions in detail. For example, are the
images confined to the topmost fibrils of the cloth?
> This was made using a simple technique available at the time
> the shroud was dated to.
g&g
>
> : You ask lots of nice little picky questions to divert attention away
from
> : the central fact of how you respond to the offer of salvation by the
> : substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.
This is one statement that I really don't get. If christ supposedly had a
"substitutionary death on the cross," then what in the hell do I have to
be saved from? Christians are allways saying that "Christ died for your
sins," or "He took upon himself the sins of the world," and other such
comments. If he died for all the sins in the world, how can I possibly
have any sins in me that I need saving from? I just don't get it. It
sounds to me like a lot of pretty screwed up guilt creation and mind
control garbage rather than any reasonable religion or way of life. Makes
me pretty happy to have nothing to do with it.
raven1
The ChemTeam wrote:
> > >"If everyone" Wow, this guy is definitive. But wait, we're right in
>
> > >something else. THE HITTITIES. Wonder what else in the Bible is
> right?
> > >Certainly not the Shroud, cuz it ain't in the Bible.
> >
> > Precious little. How many legs does a grasshopper have? What's the
> value
> > of pi? Do leporids chew the cud? What evidence is there for a
> worldwide
> > flood as described in Genesis? Where is there a mountain so high you
> can
> > see all the kingdoms of the world from the top? This is too easy.
>
> I know and it gets easier.
>
> Does sin exist?
Definition, please?
> Can man save himself?
From what, a non-existent place of eternal torture created by your
"loving" God?
> Whom do you believe Jesus Christ to be?
A religious reformer of the 1st century CE who got himself executed when
he seemed to be getting dangerous politically.
>
>
> You ask lots of nice little picky questions to divert attention away
> from
> the central fact of how you respond to the offer of salvation by the
> substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.
As an aside here, what happens to the majority of humanity throughout
history who never heard of Jesus? "Oops, sorry to overlook you, but you
still have to go to Hell for not being SAVED..."
>
>
> That is something that one must accept by faith
On what possible rational basis ? (Don't even THINK of citing Pascal's
wager, BTW)
> and BTW, that is not faith
> aside the facts.It is a judgement that, as a whole, the Christian
> message is sensible and acceptable.
It isn't.
>
> Many have and will decide that it is not. And many who reject also
> feel
> the need to ridicule
When Christians stop trying to impose their political agenda on the US,
and stop trying to get a fairy tale account of creation taught as
science, maybe non-Christians will show a bit more forbearance.
--
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."
-Willy Wonka
Matt Giwer
On 1 Jul 1997 14:30:12 GMT, Chem...@clubnet.net (The ChemTeam) wrote:
>In article <33B8B2...@sn.no>, rgje...@sn.no wrote:
>
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> > In article <33B899...@sn.no> rgje...@sn.no writes:
>> > >I think this Shroud has been shrouded in mystery long enough.
>> > >The real question should be: How can a cult which is so desperate
>> > >that it has to cling to a shroud which has prooven to be a forgery
>> > >claim to have anything to offer mankind?
>What a great question to ask with no proof. Has anyone surveyed this? Does
>anyone have some baseline data? Do we have any indications that there is
>resistence to the proof that the Shroud is fake?
>What about the Hittites? Did you know that the Bible has been scoffed at
>for centuries, since no record of the Hittites existed? And recently,
>archeologists have discovered evidences of an unknown group that called
>themselves -- the HITTITES.
I have no idea who told you that but it is far from the truth.
BUT if you take the bible seriously then there is a lot of
condoned genocides you have to explain away.
The ChemTeam
In article <5pgq6l$6tf$1...@earth.execpc.com>, mad...@earth.execpc.com
(Steve Mading) wrote:
> Now hold on a minute, there! You (I assume it was you) are the one
> who started the 'picky' details with your example of the Hittites.
> You were making the silly assertion that just because the bible is
> right with respect to the Hittites, that it must be right in all
> other aspects too. Then this person, Christopher Lee, points out
> some details in the Bible that he says are not right - not because
> *he* wants to be picky, but because *you* started the detailing.
Sorry sport, you misread.
1) I never claimed that the whole Bible is true because the Hittites turn
out to have existed.
2) TheBible has been ridiculed over many years on the basis of the
Hittites. In effect, the argument is that since here is a major gap, we
may assume there are other gaps and, therefore, dismiss the entire Bible.
3) Typically, "errors' creep into a non-believer's argument via
mistranslations of a word or miapprehension of the context. For example,
the "God created evil" is of this type. Also, often the selective
knowledge base of the non-believer comes into play, as in "Aha, this
prophecy was false" when in fact, in the literature, it has been properly
dealt with. I am no Bible history scholar, so I cannot answer every little
detail that the non-believers care to throw out at me.
Then, too, if a Christian cannot answer one of the tiny little details,
the claim is made that the entire thing should be thrown into doubt.
Capella
david ford wrote:
>
> Capella on 23 Jun 1997:
> david ford:
>
> >: We're not talking about mere photos or mere reports of some hairy
> >: thing running around. With the Shroud, lots of tests can be run
> >: on it. After all its subjection to much scientific study and
> >: testing, no evidence of forgery has appeared.
> >
> > The carbon dating from 3 independent labs put the Shroud's creation
> > at sometime around 1300 CE.
>
> The 3 labs used the exact _same_ technique, and tested the exact _same_
> piece of cloth, i.e., samples from different areas of the Shroud were
> not used. Archaeologist William Meacham very sensibly recommended in
> his 1986 "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud:
> Possibilities and Uncertainties," near http://www.shroud.com, that 5
> samples be taken, and 2 methods used, IIRC.
Three laboratories came up with the same results *independantly*.
This proves that the cloth was a middle ages forgery just like many
other so-called relics, like John the Baptist's finger bone, etc...
>
> > Experts say the fire did nothing to
> > significantly alter this measurement.
>
> I've seen a journal article title that was rather long and that
> mentioned something like "ratio isotope fractionation" in connection
> with how the fire and the sudden cooling of water could affect the C-14
> results. Also, Meacham discusses how the fire and cooling could have
> affected the results. Search for the phrase "Transfer of cellulose
> pyrolysis products" in his aforementioned article. What is the source
> for the statement "Experts say the fire did nothing to significantly
> alter this measurement"?
I saw interviews on TV by members of 2 of the three testing teams and
they agreed that the hoops that Shroud believers are jumping through are
not credible, that the fire and the "micro-oganism" and other even more
ridiculous claims are not taken seriously.
>
> >: "Was created as easily as." How can this be, since using the best
> >: technology of the 20th century, we are not able to duplicate the
> >: image on the Shroud?
> >
> > If anyone would like to see a picture of what this poster says
> > we cannot do, go to
> >
> > alt.binaries.pictures
> >
> > and look for Turin Shroud reproduction.
>
> Please describe the reproductions in detail. For example, are the
> images confined to the topmost fibrils of the cloth?
Various methods have been used to get exactly the same results as
the shroud with middle ages technology. There is no great mystery
to this or anything that can't be easily explained, plus the fact
that the shroud didn't appear until the middle ages and dates to
the middle ages. The cloth weave was a middle ages European pattern,
not a first century near-east pattern.
There isn't really anything credible left to argue for Shroud
believers.
>
> > This was made using a simple technique available at the time
> > the shroud was dated to.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
Dallas, Texas
See Zeus zap an infidel at Capella's Observatory
Also pictures of galaxies, nebula, star clusters, etc...
http://web2.airmail.net/sybil/capella/
J Giffen
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> The ChemTeam (Chem...@clubnet.net) wrote:
> : In article <chrisleeE...@netcom.com>, chri...@netcom.com
> : (Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
>
> [ The post I reply to lost the attribution for this next paragraph,
> but I assume it was "The ChemTeam"'s words: ]
>
> : > >something else. THE HITTITIES. Wonder what else in the Bible is right?
> : > >Certainly not the Shroud, cuz it ain't in the Bible.
When Kirilian photographs were take of the shroud, it showed the
outline of a man; only when electrochemical analysis of the
shroud was done, it only showed that the electricity was passing
along paths of least resistance in the cloth, rendering the
photography results futile, parascientific, and nonsupernatural.
> : > Precious little. How many legs does a grasshopper have? What's the value
> : > of pi? Do leporids chew the cud? What evidence is there for a worldwide
> : > flood as described in Genesis? Where is there a mountain so high you can
> : > see all the kingdoms of the world from the top? This is too easy.
>
> : I know and it gets easier.
>
> : Does sin exist?
> : Can man save himself?
> : Whom do you believe Jesus Christ to be?
>
> : You ask lots of nice little picky questions to divert attention away from
> : the central fact of how you respond to the offer of salvation by the
> : substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.
>
> Now hold on a minute, there! You (I assume it was you) are the one
> who started the 'picky' details with your example of the Hittites.
> You were making the silly assertion that just because the bible is
> right with respect to the Hittites, that it must be right in all
> other aspects too. Then this person, Christopher Lee, points out
> some details in the Bible that he says are not right - not because
> *he* wants to be picky, but because *you* started the detailing.
The bible was never written as a fiction story, though by today's
standards it would seem it pushes the truth, with men living 6-8
hundred years in Noah's time, Jesus walking on water and other
unbelievable things.
A faith healer may get the crowd believing with a few fake
healings, and then use the power of their belief to do several
real healings.
Sometimes it seems like the philosophy that went into writing
the bible did the same.
J Giffen
raven1
The ChemTeam wrote:
> In article <5pgq6l$6tf$1...@earth.execpc.com>, mad...@earth.execpc.com
> (Steve Mading) wrote:
>
> > Now hold on a minute, there! You (I assume it was you) are the one
> > who started the 'picky' details with your example of the Hittites.
> > You were making the silly assertion that just because the bible is
> > right with respect to the Hittites, that it must be right in all
> > other aspects too. Then this person, Christopher Lee, points out
> > some details in the Bible that he says are not right - not because
> > *he* wants to be picky, but because *you* started the detailing.
>
> Sorry sport, you misread.
>
> 1) I never claimed that the whole Bible is true because the Hittites
> turn
> out to have existed.
>
> 2) TheBible has been ridiculed over many years on the basis of the
> Hittites. In effect, the argument is that since here is a major gap,
> we
> may assume there are other gaps and, therefore, dismiss the entire
> Bible.
>
> 3) Typically, "errors' creep into a non-believer's argument via
> mistranslations of a word or miapprehension of the context. For
> example,
> the "God created evil" is of this type. Also, often the selective
> knowledge base of the non-believer comes into play, as in "Aha, this
> prophecy was false" when in fact, in the literature, it has been
> properly
> dealt with. I am no Bible history scholar, so I cannot answer every
> little
> detail that the non-believers care to throw out at me.
>
> Then, too, if a Christian cannot answer one of the tiny little
> details,
> the claim is made that the entire thing should be thrown into doubt.
Fine, let's forget about tiny little details, and talk about holes big
enough to pass a battleship through, like plants existing before the sun
in the first bloody chapter! WAKE UP! It's a book of MYTHS AND LEGENDS,
and not to be taken literally!
>
>
> John L. Park
> Chem...@clubnet.net
> http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/ChemTeamIndex.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Current Recommendations:
> 1) The Dick Dale Anthology: Better Shred than Dead.
> Rhino Records R2 72631
> 2) The Elements of Hypertext Style. By Bryan Pfaffenberger
> Publ. by AP Professional. ISBN 0-12-553142-7
--
Jimmy Adams
In article <ChemTeam-040...@db1-ppp14.dial.clubnet.net>, The
ChemTeam <Chem...@clubnet.net> writes
>In article <5pgq6l$6tf$1...@earth.execpc.com>, mad...@earth.execpc.com
>(Steve Mading) wrote:
>
>> Now hold on a minute, there! You (I assume it was you) are the one
>> who started the 'picky' details with your example of the Hittites.
>> You were making the silly assertion that just because the bible is
>> right with respect to the Hittites, that it must be right in all
>> other aspects too. Then this person, Christopher Lee, points out
>> some details in the Bible that he says are not right - not because
>> *he* wants to be picky, but because *you* started the detailing.
>
>Sorry sport, you misread.
>
>1) I never claimed that the whole Bible is true because the Hittites turn
>out to have existed.
>
>2) TheBible has been ridiculed over many years on the basis of the
>Hittites. In effect, the argument is that since here is a major gap, we
>may assume there are other gaps and, therefore, dismiss the entire Bible.
>
>3) Typically, "errors' creep into a non-believer's argument via
>mistranslations of a word or miapprehension of the context. For example,
>the "God created evil" is of this type.
So Isaiah XLV, vii (KJV) "I form the light, and create darkness; I make
peace, and I create evil; I the Lord do all these things" is a mis-
translation? What is the correct translation, then, and who is your
authority?
>Also, often the selective
>knowledge base of the non-believer comes into play, as in "Aha, this
>prophecy was false" when in fact, in the literature, it has been properly
>dealt with. I am no Bible history scholar, so I cannot answer every little
>detail that the non-believers care to throw out at me.
>
But this does not seem to prevent you posting.
>Then, too, if a Christian cannot answer one of the tiny little details,
>the claim is made that the entire thing should be thrown into doubt.
If you claim that the Bible is the word of God then one mistake must
throw this claim into doubt. If you admit that it is a collection of
writings made by a variety of hands over a long period of time, then you
cannot claim its infallibility (or its authority). Take your choice.
--
Jimmy Adams
Sanat Kumara
Mark Puertolas wrote:
>
> GAY MAN WANTS TO .....
Try and keep this kind of stuff limited to alt.philosophy.objectivism
david ford
Capella on 4 Jul 1997:
david ford:
>: The 3 labs used the exact _same_ technique, and tested the exact _same_
>: piece of cloth, i.e., samples from different areas of the Shroud were
>: not used. Archaeologist William Meacham very sensibly recommended in
>: his 1986 "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud:
>: Possibilities and Uncertainties," near http://www.shroud.com, that 5
>: samples be taken, and 2 methods used, IIRC.
>
> Three laboratories came up with the same results *independently*.
While it is true that the labs used different cleaning techniques, the
statement that the results were arrived at "*independently*" is
weakened, to repeat, by the fact that the labs all used the exact _same_
radiocarbon dating technique and tested the exact _same_ area of the
cloth. In the words of Ian Wilson, "Effectively they [the labs] were
almost bound to achieve the same result...."[Wilson, _Holy Faces, Secret
Places_ (1991), 178.]
> This proves that the cloth was a middle ages forgery just like many
> other so-called relics, like John the Baptist's finger bone, etc...
Concerning the stated margin of error, "The results of radiocarbon
measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar
age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of
Turin of AD 1260-1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr)."[_Nature_
337:614 (1989).]
This margin of error business is an idea of statistics. It does not
mean that the date actually _is_ within the range AD 1260-1390, but
rather, means that there is a 95% _probability_ that its age is between
AD 1260-1390. The same situation occurs with a political poll: when a
poll is taken and it's reported that 30 to 36 percent of Americans
support candidate Y with a 95% confidence interval, it doesn't mean that
it's a sure thing that between 30 and 36 of Americans support Y, but
rather, that there's a 95% _probability_ that 30-36% support Y. And as
amply demonstrated by upsets, even the best of polls can be wrong in
predicting the winner of a particular political contest.
In the case of an eruption that is thought, using history, to have
happened around 1500 BC, dates of 1100 plus minus 190 years BC were
obtained. It just so happens that also obtained were dates ranging back
to 2590 plus minus 80 years BC. Does this latter date mean that the
eruption actually occurred within the years 2590 plus minus 80 BC? No,
of course not. Don't be taken in by these "seemingly very precise"
margins of error, whether in polling or in radiocarbon dates.[Wilson,
_Holy Faces, Secret Places_ (1991), 172-3.] The date assigned to the
Shroud in no way "proves that the cloth was a middle ages forgery," just
as an exit poll that projects Mr. Smith winning in no way proves that he
will win.
>: I've seen a journal article title that was rather long and that
>: mentioned something like "ratio isotope fractionation" in connection
>: with how the fire and the sudden cooling of water could affect the C-14
>: results. Also, Meacham discusses how the fire and cooling could have
>: affected the results. Search for the phrase "Transfer of cellulose
>: pyrolysis products" in his aforementioned article. What is the source
>: for the statement "Experts say the fire did nothing to significantly
>: alter this measurement"?
>
> I saw interviews on TV by members of 2 of the three testing teams and
> they agreed that the hoops that Shroud believers are jumping through are
> not credible, that the fire and the "micro-organism" and other even more
> ridiculous claims are not taken seriously.
"Members of... the three testing teams" sounds like people from the labs
doing the tests; any chance there were any archaeologists in there?
"Listen to most physicists talking about the accuracy of carbon dating,
and you may be led to believe that it is about as inviolable as the
high-society world of 1912 thought the _Titanic_ unsinkable, and that
therefore the shroud dating result should be accepted without question.
But listen to many an archaeologist, the actual users of carbon dating,
and it is a different story."[Ian Wilson, _Holy Faces, Secret Places_
(1991), 172.]
"However, I doubt that anyone with significant experience in the dating
of excavated samples would dismiss for one moment the potential danger
of contamination and other sources of error. No responsible field
archaeologist would trust a single date, or a series of dates on a
single feature, to settle a major historical issue, establish a site or
cultural chronology, etc."[William Meacham, "Radiocarbon Measurement and
the Age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties," an essay
around http://www.shroud.com This essay, published before the 1988
carbon dating, is required reading for anyone interested in the question
of carbon dating and the Shroud.]
>: Please describe the reproductions in detail. For example, are the
>: images confined to the topmost fibrils of the cloth?
>
> Various methods have been used to get exactly the same results as
> the shroud with middle ages technology.
So there is no answer to the request to "describe the reproductions in
detail." What, then, were the "Various methods" used?
> There is no great mystery
> to this or anything that can't be easily explained, plus the fact
> that the shroud didn't appear until the middle ages and dates to
> the middle ages.
In his _Holy Faces, Secret Places: An Amazing Quest For the Face of
Jesus_ (1991) and _The Shroud of Turin_ (1978), historian Ian Wilson
makes, from what little I've read of it, a good case that there is
evidence for the Shroud's existence before the 1300s. It appears that
depictions of Jesus suddenly took on a similar appearance in the 600s,
whereas before they varied widely. Wilson says the Shroud was doubled
in four and placed in a mount that hid the rest of the cloth and
its true nature, allowing only the face to be visible. In the mid 600s,
in this form the Shroud, which Wilson thinks was hidden away in a
particular wall, was found.
The icon depictions of Jesus have features in common with the image on
the Shroud, the two immediately noticeable to me being the forked beard
and 3 sides of a rectangle close to between the eyes. Nickell's claim
that the icons of Jesus influenced the making of the Shroud, rather than
the Shroud influencing the iconography,[_Inquest_ (1987), 48.] is
absurd. What forger is going to go to all the trouble of making sure
that the face on his fake shroud has 15 points of congruence with icons
of Jesus?
> The cloth weave was a middle ages European pattern,
> not a first century near-east pattern.
After I broached the issue of the Shroud in March 1997, William H. Ivey
<wi...@ix.netcom.com> and Joseph Crea had a very interesting
conversation about the weave and size of the cloth. On 30 Mar 1997 in
"Re: Proof of Resurrection: Turin Shroud," Joseph Crea
<Josep...@worldnet.att.net> stated that he was "a weaver who has
specialized in reproducing various fabrics of antiquity...." Said he on
31 Mar 1997, "As for weave structure, I've never bought into the
argument that a herringbone/broken twill weave was diagnostic of a
Syrian manufacture sometime around the time of Jesus' life. Once more,
archaeological discoveries from Scandinavia and elsewhere shows this
weave structure to be both early and widespread."
What is the source for the statement "The cloth weave was a middle ages
European pattern"? It wouldn't be David Sox by any chance, who is
quoted by Nickell as saying "The problem with the weave is that, to
date, archaeologically, there are no examples of the kind of weave we
have in the Shroud... in any artifacts earlier than the late middle ages
except for one or two _variations_ of that weave"?[Nickell, _Inquest on
the Shroud of Turin_ (1987), 35, citing David F. Brown's "Interview with
H. David Sox," _New Realities_ 4(1):31 (1981.]
I'm going to ask Joseph C. when the "discoveries from Scandinavia and
elsewhere" were made. This may turn out to be another instance of
Nickell's _Inquest_ being way out of date, the exemplars of which are
what he says about the nature of the blood (reality: it's blood) and of
the image (reality: it's not a painting).
> There isn't really anything credible left to argue for Shroud
> believers.
This comment and the matters of blood and image prompt me to ask, is the
shoddy scholarship found throughout _Inquest_ typical of the material
that Prometheus Books promulgates?
david ford
Posted and mailed.
Joseph Crea <Josep...@worldnet.att.net> on 31 Mar 1997 in "Re: Proof
of Resurrection: Turin Shroud":
[snip]
> As for weave structure, I've never bought into the argument that a
> herringbone/broken twill weave was diagnostic of a Syrian manufacture
> sometime around the time of Jesus' life. Once more, archaeological
> discoveries from Scandinavia and elsewhere shows this weave structure
> to be both early and widespread.
When were these discoveries made?
Capella
david ford wrote:
>
> While it is true that the labs used different cleaning techniques, the
> statement that the results were arrived at "*independently*" is
> weakened, to repeat, by the fact that the labs all used the exact _same_
> radiocarbon dating technique and tested the exact _same_ area of the
> cloth.
No, it is not "weakened" it is strengthened. Control samples were also
sent to the 3 laboratories.
In the words of Ian Wilson, "Effectively they [the labs] were
> almost bound to achieve the same result...."[Wilson, _Holy Faces, Secret
> Places_ (1991), 178.]
If they were honest and accurate, yes, that is the idea.
No, no, no. That is apologetic BS. This is nothing like a political
poll.
You also conveniently forgot to mention that they said it was 99.9% that
it was from 1000 CE to 1500 CE.
>
> >: I've seen a journal article title that was rather long and that
> >: mentioned something like "ratio isotope fractionation" in connection
> >: with how the fire and the sudden cooling of water could affect the C-14
> >: results. Also, Meacham discusses how the fire and cooling could have
> >: affected the results. Search for the phrase "Transfer of cellulose
> >: pyrolysis products" in his aforementioned article. What is the source
> >: for the statement "Experts say the fire did nothing to significantly
> >: alter this measurement"?
> >
> > I saw interviews on TV by members of 2 of the three testing teams and
> > they agreed that the hoops that Shroud believers are jumping through are
> > not credible, that the fire and the "micro-organism" and other even more
> > ridiculous claims are not taken seriously.
>
> "Members of... the three testing teams" sounds like people from the labs
> doing the tests; any chance there were any archaeologists in there?
Was there any apologetics in there? Obviously not. It doesn't matter.
These are the experts. Some of them were disappointed but honest
christians.
>
> >: Please describe the reproductions in detail. For example, are the
> >: images confined to the topmost fibrils of the cloth?
> >
> > Various methods have been used to get exactly the same results as
> > the shroud with middle ages technology.
>
> So there is no answer to the request to "describe the reproductions in
> detail." What, then, were the "Various methods" used?
I did answer you, you just ignored it because you didn't like it.
The exact same results as the Shroud were reproduced using middle
ages technology.
>
> > There is no great mystery
> > to this or anything that can't be easily explained, plus the fact
> > that the shroud didn't appear until the middle ages and dates to
> > the middle ages.
>
Popping up around the time of the "genuine" Turin Shroud (the middle
ages) was 40 other various "Holy Shrouds" that Jesus was supposedly
buried in, but only one other one with an image on it.
Other relics that popped up were "genuine" angel feathers, the finger
of John the Baptist, scores of outfits worn by the Virgin Mary, and a
multitude of "genuine" splinters from the cross.
Jimmy Adams
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.97070...@umbc10.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes
>Capella on 4 Jul 1997:
>david ford:
>statement that the results were arrived at "*independently*" is
>weakened, to repeat, by the fact that the labs all used the exact _same_
>radiocarbon dating technique and tested the exact _same_ area of the
>cloth. In the words of Ian Wilson, "Effectively they [the labs] were
>almost bound to achieve the same result...."[Wilson, _Holy Faces, Secret
>Places_ (1991), 178.]
>
fact that three samples were taken from the same area is totally
irrelevant. That three different teams in three different labs produced
the same result shows that none of them made a mistake. Sure one would
hope that this would happen, but it does not always do so. To say that
they "were almost bound to achieve the same result" strengthens the
case, it does not weaken it.
>> This proves that the cloth was a middle ages forgery just like many
>> other so-called relics, like John the Baptist's finger bone, etc...
>
>Concerning the stated margin of error, "The results of radiocarbon
>measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar
>age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of
>Turin of AD 1260-1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr)."[_Nature_
>337:614 (1989).]
>
>This margin of error business is an idea of statistics. It does not
>mean that the date actually _is_ within the range AD 1260-1390, but
>rather, means that there is a 95% _probability_ that its age is between
>AD 1260-1390. The same situation occurs with a political poll: when a
>poll is taken and it's reported that 30 to 36 percent of Americans
>support candidate Y with a 95% confidence interval, it doesn't mean that
>it's a sure thing that between 30 and 36 of Americans support Y, but
>rather, that there's a 95% _probability_ that 30-36% support Y. And as
>amply demonstrated by upsets, even the best of polls can be wrong in
>predicting the winner of a particular political contest.
There is a misunderstanding of the statistics here. Although opinion
poll results are quoted with confidence limits, like carbon dating
tests, they are subject to other errors than sampling errors, like
people not wishing to admit they are going to vote for Y, because Y has
a bad image. Cloth, and carbon, do not suffer from these effects.
Whilst it is true that saying the results fall within this range with
95% probability does not mean they fall within this range *certainly*,
it does mean that 1325 is our best estimate (close to the 1389 date of
first exhibition). It also means (with the dates quoted) that there is
only one chance in 100 that its manufacture fell before 1195. The
possibility that it was made before 33 is negligible.
--
Jimmy Adams
david ford
Capella <cap...@airmail.net> on 28 Jun 1997:
david ford:
>: Carbon dating is not all it's cracked up to be. It's been wrong in
>: giving wildly differing dates for the same thing, and it was wrong
>: in giving a date from the middle ages for the Shroud.
>
> Three *independent* tests matching within about 100 years? I don't
> think so.
>
> The only time I have ever heard of Carbon-14 dating giving "wildly
> differing dates" has been from Creationist's literature. Hardly
> impartial stuff...
While getting sidetracked by my creation/ evolution discussions (what's
responsible for the delay in replying in this thread), I came across the
following. "Of all the [absolute dating] methods, probably carbon 14 is
the least dependable, and yet it is the most interesting to many people
because it is applied to the most recent part of geologic
history."[David M. Raup's "The Geological and Paleontological Arguments
of Creationism," in _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (1983), ed. Laurie
R. Godfrey, 155-6.] Note the phrase "least dependable" and the book in
which this comment appeared.
(For those that can't stick around to wait and see if a reply is ever
made, in a month or two check http://www.dejanews.com for posts by yours
truly, and if I replied, the reply should be there.)
> The fire the shroud was in does not significantly affect the tests
> either according to the expert testers.
The testers were physicists, not archaeologists. The physicists don't
actually use the C-14 test as part of their studies, while in contrast,
by practical experience, archaeologists have learned that C-14 is not
the sure thing it was originally hoped to be.
"Various factors can throw off the correct calculation of age. For
instance, a sample m[a]y be contaminated by contact with ancient organic
material such as coal. Past fluctuations in the atmosphere, such as
would occur with a volcanic eruption, may also throw off the estimate
and make the tested material appear older."[Richard Milner, _The
Encyclopedia of Evolution_, entry "Radiocarbon Dating, the C-14 clock."
Foreword by evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould.]
The above comment: "The fire the shroud was in does not significantly
affect the tests either according to the expert testers." I don't see
how these "expert testers" can say this, since atmospheric fluctuations
can change the final test results, as stated by Milner, who is, BTW,
another evolutionist (in his essay, archaeologist Meacham mentioned that
there are far more instances of forward contamination than of backward
contamination).
Milner also states, "Since no single date can be considered really
definitive, archaeologists take a series of 50 or so samples from a site
to establish consistency and reliability." Contrast that with the
Shroud dating, where not 50, but one sample from _1_ area was taken and
subdivided for testing. This fact alone is enough to throw the dating
out.
> This dating is consistent with the historical appearance of the shroud
> in the middle ages when so many other "holy relics" started popping
> up, helping people to make a profitable living at their display (which
> was the case of the Shroud).
If the Shroud is a forged relic, it is the Mother of all Forgeries. We
can't even make something like it _today_. If I was a forger out to
make some money, I'd take a cloth, splash some blood on it, and sell it
in the morning. If you were a forger, would you go to all the trouble
of putting an image on the cloth, to say nothing of the anatomically
perfect exactitude of the body and wounds and the other unique aspects
of the Shroud, e.g., its containing 3-d info and being a negative?
> The Catholic Church even recognises the Shroud as a fake after the
> dating which ended any serious debate.
So the debate we're having right now is not serious.
Christopher A. Lee
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970721...@umbc9.umbc.edu> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
>Capella <cap...@airmail.net> on 28 Jun 1997:
>david ford:
>
>>: Carbon dating is not all it's cracked up to be. It's been wrong in
>>: giving wildly differing dates for the same thing, and it was wrong
>>: in giving a date from the middle ages for the Shroud.
>>
>> Three *independent* tests matching within about 100 years? I don't
>> think so.
>>
>> The only time I have ever heard of Carbon-14 dating giving "wildly
>> differing dates" has been from Creationist's literature. Hardly
>> impartial stuff...
>
>While getting sidetracked by my creation/ evolution discussions (what's
That's your problem for taking on too many unsupportable things without
understanding them.
>responsible for the delay in replying in this thread), I came across the
>following. "Of all the [absolute dating] methods, probably carbon 14 is
>the least dependable, and yet it is the most interesting to many people
>because it is applied to the most recent part of geologic
>history."[David M. Raup's "The Geological and Paleontological Arguments
>of Creationism," in _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (1983), ed. Laurie
>R. Godfrey, 155-6.] Note the phrase "least dependable" and the book in
>which this comment appeared.
Once again you take an out of context quote to show what appears to be an
opinion supporting you - BUT BECAUSE YOU *N*E*V*E*R* GIVE THE ARGUMENT,
just the "apparent" conclusion IT IS WORTHLESS.
Why do you do this? This is a serious question, that I predict you won't
answer, because it demonstrates that you do not understand what you are
arguing about.
The half-life of carbon-14 is a bit less than 6,000 years. There is very
little C14 in the first place, and it decays to Nitrogen. Because the
C14 proportion is (was*) in equilibrium the initial ratio is known and
the known decay rate allows AN ORGANIC (**) specimen to be dated.
This requires accurately measurable amounts of C14. The smaller the
amount the greater the measuring error. And when you're dividing a very
small amount by a very large amount you lose further precision. So C14
dating is only used for ORGANIC specimens less than 40,000-50,000 years
old. So it is useless in geological timescales (Hint: where was the quote
from? Another hint: "The Geological and Paleontological Arguments..."
(was*) C14 is created in the athmosphere from N14 by solar bombardment
and was in rough equilibrium until we started testing A-bombs etc.
The effects of "man-made" radiation are known and taken into
account
(**) C14 is ingested either directly from the air by breathing or
indirectly by eating food which ingested it. When the specimen
dies it stops ingesting it. But the C14 still decays to N14.
The creationist red herring of shellfish is just that - a red
herring: shellfish ingest chalk/limestone/etc for their shells
from dissolved minerals in the water. Which is also well
understood and taken into account.
Other radiometric methods are used to date older or non-organic remains.
Eg Krypton/Potassium ratio.
But then Raup new this. You only have to read his stuff instead of taking
out of context quotes second hand from your creationist book of quotes.
Carbon-14 is highly accurate with comparatively recent specimens *because*
of the short half-life. You fail to give the context for the Raup quote.
If he's talking about palaeontological timescales in the milions of years
then it's obviously innacurate FOR THAT.
Do you actually try to understand what you're arguing against?
Reverend Chuck
Gil Rood wrote:
>
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> >If the Shroud is a forged relic, it is the Mother of all Forgeries. We
> >can't even make something like it _today_. If I was a forger out to
> >make some money, I'd take a cloth, splash some blood on it, and sell it
> >in the morning. If you were a forger, would you go to all the trouble
> >of putting an image on the cloth, to say nothing of the anatomically
> >perfect exactitude of the body and wounds and the other unique aspects
> >of the Shroud, e.g., its containing 3-d info and being a negative?
>
> that claims to prove the shroud is a fake. (Turin Shroud by Lynn
> Picknett and Clive Prince - HarperCollins - 1994 - ISBN 0-06-017224-X)
> The authors contend that the image was prepared by a photographic
> method using egg white and a chromium salt. The authors explain the
> method used and the printed images do resemble the shroud image. One
> negative aspect to the book is that the authors expound a very
> complicated consiracy theory to explain why the fake was not
> discovered before now. If anyone is interested I will post a more
> complete explainatian of the photographic method.
>
> Gil
I used to be a printmaker. I _know_ how to do this.
What more could you need but a found corpse left from a Mafia hit, an old bedsheet, and
some paint? Sheesh... I could take a road kill tomcat, dip it in paint, leave it
wrapped in a towel for a week, and voila! The Holy Shroud of Morris!
Gil Rood
Jack of Hearts
Gil Rood wrote:
> If I may jump in at this point. I have in my personal library a book
> that claims to prove the shroud is a fake. (Turin Shroud by Lynn
> Picknett and Clive Prince - HarperCollins - 1994 - ISBN 0-06-017224-X)
> The authors contend that the image was prepared by a photographic
> method using egg white and a chromium salt. The authors explain the
> method used and the printed images do resemble the shroud image. One
> negative aspect to the book is that the authors expound a very
> complicated consiracy theory to explain why the fake was not
> discovered before now. If anyone is interested I will post a more
> complete explainatian of the photographic method.
I'm interested. Please, do.
> Gil
-- Jack
Even the greatest minds are amazed by something
as simple as human stupidity.
I appreciate well thought out replies @ thedeck centuryinter net
alt.atheist #482 @ .
Ted Park
In article <33D39C...@erols.com>, Reverend Chuck <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>Gil Rood wrote:
>I used to be a printmaker. I _know_ how to do this.
>
>What more could you need but a found corpse left from a Mafia hit, an old bedsheet, and
>some paint? Sheesh... I could take a road kill tomcat, dip it in paint, leave it
>wrapped in a towel for a week, and voila! The Holy Shroud of Morris!
What's more, you could do it many times, once for each of Morris' 9 lives.
As far as I can tell, religious artifacts don't have to be all that good
or believable - if you BELIEVE enough, that makes it real - sort of like
how the Velveteen Rabbit became real.
--Ted.
--
---------------------------------------------
Ted Park tp...@world.std.com
also <A HREF="mailto:tp...@canuck.com"> tp...@canuck.com </A>
On the web as <A HREF="http://www.beer.org/~tpark/"> Ted's Home Page </A>
Bob Michaelson
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970721...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
>> The fire the shroud was in does not significantly affect the tests
>> either according to the expert testers.
>
>The testers were physicists, not archaeologists. The physicists don't
>actually use the C-14 test as part of their studies, while in contrast,
>by practical experience, archaeologists have learned that C-14 is not
>the sure thing it was originally hoped to be.
>
>"Various factors can throw off the correct calculation of age. For
>instance, a sample m[a]y be contaminated by contact with ancient organic
>material such as coal. Past fluctuations in the atmosphere, such as
>would occur with a volcanic eruption, may also throw off the estimate
>and make the tested material appear older."[Richard Milner, _The
>Encyclopedia of Evolution_, entry "Radiocarbon Dating, the C-14 clock."
>Foreword by evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould.]
>
>The above comment: "The fire the shroud was in does not significantly
>affect the tests either according to the expert testers." I don't see
>how these "expert testers" can say this, since atmospheric fluctuations
>can change the final test results, as stated by Milner, who is, BTW,
>another evolutionist (in his essay, archaeologist Meacham mentioned that
>there are far more instances of forward contamination than of backward
The typical creationist ploy is to quote out of context. Yes, various factors
can change the results of C-14 dating, but by how much? It simply is not
possible to distort the results enough so that a genuine 2,000 year old piece
of cloth appears to date from ~1400 C.E. (Do the arithmetic! I find that if
a 2,000 year old sample is contaminated by modern carbon, you would need about
1.6 times as much contaminant carbon in your sample as original carbon in
order to throw off the date by that much. Of course if the contaminant carbon
were earlier, e.g. from a fire in medieval times, you would need even more!)
If you don't know what you are talking about *quantitatively* your discussion
of errors in C-14 dating will always be nonsense. (If you find that police
radar is subject to errors of 10% would you claim that you shouldn't get a
ticket for going 85 in a 35 mph zone? If you are too lazy to do the
arithmetic, you won't ever be taken seriously).
Bob Michaelson
rmic...@nwu.edu
Reverend Chuck
lraven wrote:
>
> > > If I may jump in at this point. I have in my personal library a book
> > > that claims to prove the shroud is a fake. (Turin Shroud by Lynn
> > > Picknett and Clive Prince - HarperCollins - 1994 - ISBN 0-06-017224-X)
> > > The authors contend that the image was prepared by a photographic
> > > method using egg white and a chromium salt. The authors explain the
> > > method used and the printed images do resemble the shroud image. One
> > > negative aspect to the book is that the authors expound a very
> > > complicated consiracy theory to explain why the fake was not
> > > discovered before now. If anyone is interested I will post a more
> > > complete explainatian of the photographic method.
> > >
> > > Gil
> >
> > I used to be a printmaker. I _know_ how to do this.
> >
> > What more could you need but a found corpse left from a Mafia hit, an old
> bedsheet, and
> > some paint? Sheesh... I could take a road kill tomcat, dip it in paint,
> leave it
> > wrapped in a towel for a week, and voila! The Holy Shroud of Morris!
>
> The problem with this idea is that there's no paint on the shroud.
(snipped out material said nothing this doesn't)
You needn't use actual pigmented paint for your "paint". Anything that would stain the
fabric would work. As I said, I used to be a printmaker. I screwed around with a cheap
process called "monotyping", wherein you build up a low relief plate from whatever thin
materials you can extract texture from. You can use corrugated cardboard, sandpaper,
lace, whatever. You seal your finished plate with water soluble glue, ink it up, wipe
the ink back from the high surfaces, and run a print same way you'd run an etching.
Results have an appearance best described as startlingly photographic.
BTW -- Dead fish make really cool "printing plates". Only prob is, they make a
disgusting mess when you feed them through 5 ton press rollers. Best to cast them in
epoxy and work from there.
lraven
> > If I may jump in at this point. I have in my personal library a book
> > that claims to prove the shroud is a fake. (Turin Shroud by Lynn
> > Picknett and Clive Prince - HarperCollins - 1994 - ISBN 0-06-017224-X)
> > The authors contend that the image was prepared by a photographic
> > method using egg white and a chromium salt. The authors explain the
> > method used and the printed images do resemble the shroud image. One
> > negative aspect to the book is that the authors expound a very
> > complicated consiracy theory to explain why the fake was not
> > discovered before now. If anyone is interested I will post a more
> > complete explainatian of the photographic method.
> >
> > Gil
>
> I used to be a printmaker. I _know_ how to do this.
>
> What more could you need but a found corpse left from a Mafia hit, an old
bedsheet, and
> some paint? Sheesh... I could take a road kill tomcat, dip it in paint,
leave it
> wrapped in a towel for a week, and voila! The Holy Shroud of Morris!
The problem with this idea is that there's no paint on the shroud. Also,
you can't make out the image unless you stand back from it several feet. A
forger would have to have very long arms! The man who lay in the shroud had
all the exact wounds of Jesus as described in the Bible. The shroud can be
scientifically determined to have come from the time of Jesus and the
general area of Jerusalem. Of the numerous wounds which left blood stains
on the shroud (type A human blood, by the way), the serum seperation
indicates that 28 of those wounds continued to bleed fresh blood onto the
cloth, proving that he was very much alive when he was placed in the
shroud. In fact the wound in the right chest area bled so much as he lay on
the cloth that it ran down his side and pooled under the small of his back,
and this wound was on one of the gravitational high-points of the body.
This requires definite blood pressure to occur, and a corpse has no blood
pressure at all. The cloth also shows fresh blood flow at the forehead and
wrists, also gravitational high-points. It has been discovered that a
mixture of aloe and myrrh (which were used at that time for healing wounds,
not embalming bodies) when combined with sweat and body heat (corpses have
no body heat) will cause a chemical reaction which produces a darkening of
the surface fibers of linen cloth, which is exactly what the shroud image
consists of.
The bottom line is the shroud proves Jesus existed and was crucified, but
it also proves he survived the crucifixion, rather than dying and being
resurrected.
Many more details on all this are in the exhaustively researched book 'The
Jesus Conspiracy' by Kersten and Gruber (Element).
--
-- Chris --
I am the laughing raven
Soaring on the winds of change
lra...@chatlink.com
Capella
Gil Rood wrote:
>
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> >If the Shroud is a forged relic, it is the Mother of all Forgeries. We
> >can't even make something like it _today_. If I was a forger out to
> >make some money, I'd take a cloth, splash some blood on it, and sell it
> >in the morning. If you were a forger, would you go to all the trouble
> >of putting an image on the cloth, to say nothing of the anatomically
> >perfect exactitude of the body and wounds and the other unique aspects
> >of the Shroud, e.g., its containing 3-d info and being a negative?
>
> that claims to prove the shroud is a fake. (Turin Shroud by Lynn
> Picknett and Clive Prince - HarperCollins - 1994 - ISBN 0-06-017224-X)
> The authors contend that the image was prepared by a photographic
> method using egg white and a chromium salt. The authors explain the
> method used and the printed images do resemble the shroud image. One
> negative aspect to the book is that the authors expound a very
> complicated consiracy theory to explain why the fake was not
> discovered before now. If anyone is interested I will post a more
> complete explainatian of the photographic method.
>
> Gil
I have that book also. It seems to be very reasonable. It also
mentions that up to the time that the Turin Shroud was made
(~1300 CE) there were dozens of other fake shrouds. One other one
even had an "image" on it. There were also "genuine" feathers from
angels wings, pieces of wood from the cross, and lots of clothing
from Mary's wardrobe.
Sparrowhawk
Hmm...nice thread, but the Turin Shroud can only, ever, at the wildest end
of credibility, prove Jesus existed...sorry, guys, but you're stretching
the evidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Censor (n): An official empowered to examine written or printed matter,
motion pictures, etc., in order to forbid publication if objectionable.
Adult (n): An individual of sufficient maturity to decide what he or she
finds objectionable, and to avoid such material.
Child (n): An individual of insufficient age or maturity to make his or
her decisions on what is objectionable.
Are we all children?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Robertshaw
lraven wrote:
>
> ..The man who lay in the shroud had
> all the exact wounds of Jesus as described in the Bible. The shroud can be
> scientifically determined to have come from the time of Jesus and the
> general area of Jerusalem. Of the numerous wounds which left blood stains
> on the shroud (type A human blood, by the way), the serum seperation
> indicates that 28 of those wounds continued to bleed fresh blood onto the
> cloth, proving that he was very much alive when he was placed in the
> shroud. In fact the wound in the right chest area bled so much as he lay on
> the cloth that it ran down his side and pooled under the small of his back,
> and this wound was on one of the gravitational high-points of the body.
> This requires definite blood pressure to occur, and a corpse has no blood
> pressure at all. The cloth also shows fresh blood flow at the forehead and
> wrists, also gravitational high-points. It has been discovered that a
> mixture of aloe and myrrh (which were used at that time for healing wounds,
> not embalming bodies) when combined with sweat and body heat (corpses have
> no body heat) will cause a chemical reaction which produces a darkening of
> the surface fibers of linen cloth, which is exactly what the shroud image
> consists of.
>
> The bottom line is the shroud proves Jesus existed and was crucified, but
> it also proves he survived the crucifixion, rather than dying and being
> resurrected.
>
How can you continue to spread such drivel. The 'shroud' has been dated
to the 12th century CE. All it proves is that there have been people who
were prepared to create forgeries.
Forget the fucking shroud already! It's a medieval sanitary towel.
Gerry Palo
In article <01bc9937$d82fe600$061b98d0@default>,
lraven <bu...@eructation.onion> wrote:
>
>The problem with this idea is that there's no paint on the shroud. Also,
>you can't make out the image unless you stand back from it several feet. A
>forger would have to have very long arms! The man who lay in the shroud had
>all the exact wounds of Jesus as described in the Bible. The shroud can be
>scientifically determined to have come from the time of Jesus and the
>general area of Jerusalem. Of the numerous wounds which left blood stains
>on the shroud (type A human blood, by the way), the serum seperation
>indicates that 28 of those wounds continued to bleed fresh blood onto the
>cloth, proving that he was very much alive when he was placed in the
>shroud. In fact the wound in the right chest area bled so much as he lay on
>the cloth that it ran down his side and pooled under the small of his back,
>and this wound was on one of the gravitational high-points of the body.
>This requires definite blood pressure to occur, and a corpse has no blood
>pressure at all.
Not true. Frederick Zugibe, a forensic pathologist, shows in detail in
his study on the shroud that blood oozes from wounds after death. He
demonstrates this with actual cadavers. (Frederick Zugibe, "The Cross
and the Shroud"). Had the man been living, with those wounds the shroud
would have been drenched in blood.
>The cloth also shows fresh blood flow at the forehead and
>wrists, also gravitational high-points.
Zugibe demonstrates that the flow from the head and hands would have been
profuse, and that most certainly the body had been washed to produce as
little blood as does appear on the shroud.
>The bottom line is the shroud proves Jesus existed and was crucified, but
>it also proves he survived the crucifixion, rather than dying and being
>resurrected.
This theory of wishful thinking never dies, but it is not demonstrated by
the evidence of the shroud.
BTW, Zugibe also challenges Barbet's theory that the cause of death was
by asphyxiation, and does it rather effectively. Barbet made a number of
significant miscalculations in his studies, and also extrapolated and
manufactured evidence when there was none at hand. Barbet was a
qualified pathologist, but he also was a devout Catholic, and his book
reveals that he was very much motivated by his theology, which does not
necessarily mean he was wrong. Zugibe, on the other hand, keeps a better
separation between religion and patholgy, and the result is that the
gospel accounts are confirmed anyway by the image of the dead man on the
shroud.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
pa...@netcom.com
Gerry Palo
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.970727...@explorer2.clark.net>,
Sparrowhawk <lio...@clark.net> wrote:
>Hmm...nice thread, but the Turin Shroud can only, ever, at the wildest end
>of credibility, prove Jesus existed...sorry, guys, but you're stretching
>the evidence.
Quite true, or more specifically, that he died. In the first centuries of
Christianity the question whether he, the God, actually died was as
important as whether he rose again. Ian Wilson (no Christian, by the way),
whose fascinating books trace the history of the shroud from the time of
Christ up to its rediscovery in the fourteenth century, includes the
period when he believes it was an object of veneration by the Knights
Templar, and before that existed as the "Mandylion". The emphasis of this
object of contemplation, especially in eastern lands, where the tendency
towards a gnostic dualism was always asserting itself one way or another,
and which, while it acknowledged Christ as a divine cosmic being, was
highly dubious or outright rejecting of the idea of his bodily incarnation
and death, would have been a powerful balancing force. The striking thing
about the image on the shroud is the visage of serene, even sublime peace
on the countenance of the dead man, in spite of his horrendous wounds and
the suffering that they indicate.
Jimmy Adams
In article <01bc9937$d82fe600$061b98d0@default>, lraven
>> > If I may jump in at this point. I have in my personal library a book
>> > that claims to prove the shroud is a fake. (Turin Shroud by Lynn
>> > Picknett and Clive Prince - HarperCollins - 1994 - ISBN 0-06-017224-X)
>> > The authors contend that the image was prepared by a photographic
>> > method using egg white and a chromium salt. The authors explain the
>> > method used and the printed images do resemble the shroud image. One
>> > negative aspect to the book is that the authors expound a very
>> > complicated consiracy theory to explain why the fake was not
>> > discovered before now. If anyone is interested I will post a more
>> > complete explainatian of the photographic method.
>> >
>> > Gil
>>
>>
>> What more could you need but a found corpse left from a Mafia hit, an old
>bedsheet, and
>> some paint? Sheesh... I could take a road kill tomcat, dip it in paint,
>leave it
>> wrapped in a towel for a week, and voila! The Holy Shroud of Morris!
>
>you can't make out the image unless you stand back from it several feet. A
>forger would have to have very long arms! The man who lay in the shroud had
>all the exact wounds of Jesus as described in the Bible. The shroud can be
>scientifically determined to have come from the time of Jesus and the
>general area of Jerusalem.
I this can be scientifically determined, why do scientists determine
otherwise (e.g., medieval France)?
> Of the numerous wounds which left blood stains
>on the shroud (type A human blood, by the way), the serum seperation
>indicates that 28 of those wounds continued to bleed fresh blood onto the
>cloth, proving that he was very much alive when he was placed in the
>shroud. In fact the wound in the right chest area bled so much as he lay on
>the cloth that it ran down his side and pooled under the small of his back,
>and this wound was on one of the gravitational high-points of the body.
>This requires definite blood pressure to occur, and a corpse has no blood
>pressure at all. The cloth also shows fresh blood flow at the forehead and
>wrists, also gravitational high-points. It has been discovered that a
>mixture of aloe and myrrh (which were used at that time for healing wounds,
>not embalming bodies) when combined with sweat and body heat (corpses have
>no body heat) will cause a chemical reaction which produces a darkening of
>the surface fibers of linen cloth, which is exactly what the shroud image
>consists of.
>
>The bottom line is the shroud proves Jesus existed and was crucified, but
>it also proves he survived the crucifixion, rather than dying and being
>resurrected.
>
>Many more details on all this are in the exhaustively researched book 'The
>Jesus Conspiracy' by Kersten and Gruber (Element).
--
Jimmy Adams
david ford
lraven <bu...@eructation.onion> on 25 Jul 1997:
> The problem with this idea is that there's no paint on the shroud. Also,
> you can't make out the image unless you stand back from it several feet. A
> forger would have to have very long arms! The man who lay in the shroud had
> all the exact wounds of Jesus as described in the Bible. The shroud can be
> scientifically determined to have come from the time of Jesus and the
> general area of Jerusalem.
"The shroud can be scientifically determined to have come from the time
of Jesus and the general area of Jerusalem." How so?
> Of the numerous wounds which left blood stains
> on the shroud (type A human blood, by the way), the serum separation
> indicates that 28 of those wounds continued to bleed fresh blood onto the
> cloth, proving that he was very much alive when he was placed in the
> shroud.
How was it that the Roman executioners overlooked the fact that Jesus
was still alive? I'd have thought that they were experts when it came
to crucifying, and would have been especially careful when it came to
this particular victim, who was called the king of the Jews.
> In fact the wound in the right chest area bled so much as he lay on
> the cloth that it ran down his side and pooled under the small of his back,
> and this wound was on one of the gravitational high-points of the body.
> This requires definite blood pressure to occur, and a corpse has no blood
> pressure at all.
This "wound in the right chest area," how severe was it-- a scratch, a
gaping hole, what? Also, why would blood flow down someone's side
(i.e., in the armpit to hip direction) while someone was lying down on a
cloth? I'd think that the blood would have flowed toward the ground,
and not traveled in the direction of the hip. Also, what do you think
the "water" in the phrase "and blood and water flowed" is, and is it
true that there is a large amount of serum around the blood that came
from the "wound in the right chest area"?
"This wound was on one of the gravitational high-points of the body."
If the body is laying down on a cloth, the "wound in the right chest
area" would not be a "gravitational high-poin[t]," unless, of course,
the body was tilted, in which case there'd be a question about how well
laid down on the cloth Jesus was.
> The cloth also shows fresh blood flow at the forehead and
> wrists, also gravitational high-points.
Is it true that there are 2 blood flows from the wrists, corresponding
to the 2 different positions assumed by someone during crucifixion,
namely, the "up" and the "down" positions? Also, please describe the
"blood flow at the forehead" more.
> It has been discovered that a
> mixture of aloe and myrrh (which were used at that time for healing wounds,
> not embalming bodies) when combined with sweat and body heat (corpses have
> no body heat) will cause a chemical reaction which produces a darkening of
> the surface fibers of linen cloth, which is exactly what the shroud image
> consists of.
This image formation mechanism was proposed by whom, and when? When you
say "darkening of the surface fibers," what exactly is involved in this
"darkening," and why do you say "surface fibers"? Have any experiments
have been done with dead bodies in an effort to reproduce this effect?
How sharp are the images produced by this method?
> The bottom line is the shroud proves Jesus existed and was crucified, but
> it also proves he survived the crucifixion, rather than dying and being
> resurrected.
How did Jesus get out of the tomb, and when was the escape? Judging by
the Shroud, how severe a flogging did Jesus get?
> Many more details on all this are in the exhaustively researched
> book 'The Jesus Conspiracy' by Kersten and Gruber (Element).
These questions are for Gil, who talked about Picknett and Prince's
book. Who does the book say faked the Shroud, and what years did this
person live? Also, when was the Shroud's existence 1st generally well-
known? Is there any egg white or chromium salt on the Shroud? What was
the method the forger used to fake the Shroud? Did the authors do a
reproduction of just the Shroud's face, the entire front, or both front
and back?
al_klein
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:16:15 -0400, Sparrowhawk <lio...@clark.net>
wrote:
>Hmm...nice thread, but the Turin Shroud can only, ever, at the wildest end
>of credibility, prove Jesus existed...sorry, guys, but you're stretching
>the evidence.
It can't even do that, since it was made 1200 years after he died.
Oh, you meant the negative extreme of credibility.
--
Al
Real email address:
akl...@villagenet.com
Gerry Palo
In article <ZzhyeEAP...@pensive.com>,
Jimmy Adams <jra...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>all the exact wounds of Jesus as described in the Bible. The shroud can be
>>scientifically determined to have come from the time of Jesus and the
>>general area of Jerusalem.
>
>otherwise (e.g., medieval France)?
Both the and the question imply the naive assumption that science is like
a truth machine, and that "scientists have determined" means that all
scientists are in agreement. It also assumes that scientists have no
prejudices or politics or agendas of their own but are completely
objective, and it assumes that they, being trained scientists, are
incapable of fundamental error.
The fact is that there are reputable scientists on both sides of the
question, and the kinds of evidence that point to one or another time of
origin span many different scientific disciplines. I for one am most
impressed by the arguments for the shroud's antiquity and dubious of most
of the arguments for its late origin. But to say that "it can be
scientifically proven" one way or another is to place too much faith in
the capacity of modern science to determine the truth of such a
question. Science with a Capital S is largely a fiction.