Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SkepticalThinker · 05-21-2008, 08:36 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-052008-shroud-of-turin-may21,0,6786081.story

What do you guys think?

The people's Opium · 05-21-2008, 08:45 AM

I'm pretty sure I watched a channel 4 documentary about this a few months ago in which the original Oxford scientists found that the carbon monoxide had no effect on the carbon dating process.

However, regardless of the result I can imagine that there'll be an avalanche of fundies who all use this test as 'proof of God' whether or not it proves anything.

Derec · 05-21-2008, 09:08 AM

Something stinks. There is no John Jackson listed in the directory of University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.

Lógos Sokratikós · 05-21-2008, 09:17 AM

I find the theory interesting, even if not for the sake of the shroud itself. Believers obsessing about the shroud might bring about sharpened criteria for cloth dating.

Toto · 05-21-2008, 10:25 AM

I suspect this thread will end up in Science and Skepticism.

Here's Dr. Jackson:

Quote:

John P.Jackson, Ph.D.
The director and founder of [Turin Shroud Center of Colorado], John P. Jackson, was the leader of the 1978, thirty-person plus, high tech scientific American expedition that examined the Shroud first hand. He holds a Ph.D. in physics from the United States Naval Postgraduate School in 1972 and a B.A. in Religious Studies from the College of Santa Fe in 1976. He has held faculty professor positions at both the U.S. Air Force Academy and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. He was a scientist at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico and a senior scientist at Kaman Sciences... as well as a part-time honorarium professor at the University of Colorado.

So he was a part-time "honorarium" professor at UC - not sure what that means.

Roger Pearse · 05-21-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkepticalThinker

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-052008-shroud-of-turin-may21,0,6786081.story

What do you guys think?

The Shroud of Turin was very profitable commercially to quite a lot of people, prior to it being exposed (although not to the Catholic church, as far as I know, since expositions of the shroud were very infrequent). I think of all the books written on it, for one. Indeed I used to have one, treating "could it be" as equivalent to "it must be", on and on.

Of course that industry collapsed after the C-14 results. There must have been a fair few publishers regretting the lost cash-flow. Could they restart it somehow, they must have wondered? It wouldn't matter on what pretext; just sow a bit of uncertainty and see if they can milk the gullible, that would be the point of it all.

Now that they've manufactured some excuses for 'questioning' the C-14 results, the same publishers can repackage the same old speculative stuff, and sell it with a couple of new chapters.

Follow the money, that's what I say. I think that all this is a commercially-driven scam, of the same kind as the endless republication of the Archko volume ("Some deny it is authentic... buy our book and decide for yourself!!!"). For who else benefits from it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

candyfloss · 05-21-2008, 02:32 PM

Have any "shroud apologists" ever explained why the face and body are not distorted properly to have been wrapped around a corpse?

Solo · 05-21-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkepticalThinker

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-052008-shroud-of-turin-may21,0,6786081.story

What do you guys think?

The Shroud of Turin was very profitable commercially to quite a lot of people, prior to it being exposed (although not to the Catholic church, as far as I know, since expositions of the shroud were very infrequent). I think of all the books written on it, for one. Indeed I used to have one, treating "could it be" as equivalent to "it must be", on and on.

Of course that industry collapsed after the C-14 results. There must have been a fair few publishers regretting the lost cash-flow. Could they restart it somehow, they must have wondered? It wouldn't matter on what pretext; just sow a bit of uncertainty and see if they can milk the gullible, that would be the point of it all.

Now that they've manufactured some excuses for 'questioning' the C-14 results, the same publishers can repackage the same old speculative stuff, and sell it with a couple of new chapters.

Follow the money, that's what I say. I think that all this is a commercially-driven scam, of the same kind as the endless republication of the Archko volume ("Some deny it is authentic... buy our book and decide for yourself!!!"). For who else benefits from it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Of course it is a scam and a well-know one at that. Here is a part of the Shroud Entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia (made in 1912):

Quote:

{Of the famous 1898 'photograph' proof of the Shroud genuinenness}

The image upon the Shroud was therefore a natural negative and as such completely beyond the comprehension or the skill of any medieval forger.

Plausible as this contention appeared, a most serious historical difficulty had meanwhile been brought to light. Owing mainly to the researches of Canon Ulysse Chevalier a series of documents was discovered which clearly proved that in 1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it. The authenticity of the documents connected with this appeal is not disputed. Moreover, the grave suspicion thus thrown upon the relic is immensely strengthened by the fact that no intelligible account, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the previous history of the Shroud or its coming to Lirey.

An animated controversy followed and it must be admitted that though the immense preponderance of opinion among learned Catholics (see the statement by P.M. Baumgarten in the "Historiches Jahrbuch", 1903, pp. 319-43) was adverse to the authenticity of the relic, still the violence of many of its assailants prejudiced their own cause. In particular the suggestion made of blundering or bad faith on the part of those who photographed were quite without excuse. From the scientific point of view, however, the difficulty of the "negative" impression on the cloth is not so serious as it seems. This Shroud like the others was probably painted without fraudulent intent to aid the dramatic setting of the Easter sequence:

Dic nobis Maria, quid vidisti in via
Angelicos testes, sudarium et vestes.

As the word sudarium suggested, it was painted to represent the impression made by the sweat of Christ, i.e. probably in a yellowish tint upon unbrilliant red. This yellow stain would turn brown in the course of centuries, the darkening process being aided by the effects of fire and sun. Thus, the lights of the original picture would become the shadow of Paleotto's reproduction of the images on the shroud is printed in two colours, pale yellow and red. As for the good proportions and æsthetic effect, two things may be noted. First, that it is highly probable that the artist used a model to determine the length and position of the limbs, etc.; the representation no doubt was made exactly life size. Secondly, the impressions are only known to us in photographs so reduced, as compared with the original, that the crudenesses, aided by the softening effects of time, entirely disappear.

Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.

>>>

Jiri

Antipope Innocent II · 05-21-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

"Plausible as this contention appeared, a most serious historical difficulty had meanwhile been brought to light. Owing mainly to the researches of Canon Ulysse Chevalier a series of documents was discovered which clearly proved that in 1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it. The authenticity of the documents connected with this appeal is not disputed."
>>>

As a medievalist, I find it amusing that it was sceptical medieval clerics who first exposed the "Shroud" as a fake, whereas the heyday of clueless "Shroud" belief is ... well, right now.

So which is the age of reason and which is the age of superstition again? :huh:

Minimalist · 05-21-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

said Jackson, a devout Catholic.

Pretty much tells you all you need to know.

05-21-2008, 08:36 AM	#1
SkepticalThinker Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 28	Shroud of Turin To Be Tested Again http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-052008-shroud-of-turin-may21,0,6786081.story What do you guys think?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2008, 08:45 AM	#2
The people's Opium Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Yorkshire England Posts: 163	I'm pretty sure I watched a channel 4 documentary about this a few months ago in which the original Oxford scientists found that the carbon monoxide had no effect on the carbon dating process. However, regardless of the result I can imagine that there'll be an avalanche of fundies who all use this test as 'proof of God' whether or not it proves anything.

05-21-2008, 09:08 AM	#3
Derec Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 15,686	Something stinks. There is no John Jackson listed in the directory of University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.

05-21-2008, 09:17 AM	#4
Lógos Sokratikós Contributor Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virtually right here where you are Posts: 11,138	I find the theory interesting, even if not for the sake of the shroud itself. Believers obsessing about the shroud might bring about sharpened criteria for cloth dating.

05-21-2008, 02:32 PM	#7
candyfloss Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: fayetteville, Arkansas Posts: 282	Have any "shroud apologists" ever explained why the face and body are not distorted properly to have been wrapped around a corpse?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.