Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 02-18-2010, 08:30 PM

Hi Pete,

Indeed good for the "Holy Relic Tourist Industry". And a lucrative source of income it is I would wager. Damn that carbon dating. That was a big mistake, never do that again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

One has to figure the shroud is not legitmate, but the pro arguments are not easy to defeat.

T{snip}

Besides its good for the "Holy Relic Tourist Industry".

rob117 · 02-18-2010, 11:27 PM

More on the recent reproduction by Garlaschelli back in October:

here

While his experiment looks convincing to me, the objections of the above link, albeit from an obviously biased Catholic website, do give one pause:

Quote:

The first item that gives the Jacksons reason for pause was the forum in which Garlaschelli presented his news. Garlaschelli spoke at a paranormal conference, and his project was financed by an agnostic and atheist group. The secular press reported his statements as being made by a team of scientists, when in fact no one outside Garlaschelli’s group has been able to examine his production...

Rebecca Jackson noted that the shroud Garlaschelli purports to have created has not been reviewed by anyone else, and that Garlaschelli used sympathetic media to publicize his work.

“He doesn’t bring anything for peer review. He announces it to the international press, banking on a secular environment,” said Rebecca Jackson. “They picked it up like wildfire, but they should have discerned a little more.”

This sort of thing would easily be eligible for publication in a peer-reviewed journal like Science. I wonder why he hasn't tried to publish it there.

Again, slightly disturbing.

semiopen · 02-19-2010, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi rob117,

It is not surprising to me that an orthodox Jewish photographer working for an organization supporting the authenticity of the shroud finds it authentic. He probably believes many things that lack scientific evidence. Orthodox Jews do not challenge the existence of Jesus, only his supernatural nature.

Ray Rodgers is quite interesting. Since, he was hired in 1978 as Director of Chemical Research for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), until his death in 2005, he never deviated from his support of the authenticity of the shroud. Geology Professor, Steven D. Schafersman and Chemist Walter McCrone (1916-2002) were highly critical of his work.

Schafersman notes this:

Quote:

As pointed out by Antonio Lombatti (personal communication), editor of Approfondimento Sindone, the skeptical international journal of scholarship and science devoted to the Shroud of Turin, only after one month of careful study on where to cut the linen samples for dating were the samples removed from the Shroud. This process was observed personally by Mons. Dardozzi (Vatican Academy of Science), Prof. Testore (Turin University professor of textile technology), Prof. Vial (Director of the Lyon Ancient Textiles Museum), Profs. Hall and Hedges (heads of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory) and Prof. Tite (head of the British Museum research laboratory). There is no way these scientists and scholars could have made such an error and failed to see that the cloth samples they removed was really from a patch, "invisibly" rewoven or not.

Apparently. we have to believe in a fourth miracle, that 16th century repairers without the aid of microscopes (invented 1590) would be able to replicate 1st century technology so exactly that they could produce a patch that could fool 20th century textile experts into believing it was part of the original fabric.

An inquiry into how much money Ray Rodgers received each year as the Director of Chemical Research for the Shroud of Turin Research Project might clear up why he was such an enthusiast for the authenticity of the Shroud.

As far as the stitching pattern, textile expect Flury-Lemberg who dismissed the idea that the shroud had been patched (which directly contradicts Ray Rodgers conclusion) said this:

Ms. Flury-Lemberg notes the similarity of the Shroud to a 12th century manuscript illustration, the Pray Codex http://www.shroudforum.com/exhibit/praycodex01.htm. Ms. Flury-lemberg takes this are proof that the 12th century illustrator saw the shroud. She does not consider that it is at least as likely that the illustrator was depicting shrouds of the 12th century and the 13th or 14th century forger was simply using similar shrouds from his time period. Thus the coincidences of this pictures and the shroud are additional proof that we are dealing with a late medieval production.

She also says that the weave is similar to a piece of cloth that was found at Masada, so it is not impossible that the weave could have come from the First century. Exactly how they are similar she does not say. Her statement that this was extraordinary quality for antiquity might suggest that it was very uncommon for the time and therefore highly unlikely to be from that time period.

Incidentally, Ms. Flury-Lembeck, who worked on the cloth in 2002 has said that she always always doubted the results the carbon-14 dating tests carried out on the shroud in 1988, not because the area was patched as Ray
Rodgers later concluded in 2005, but "The fact that the shroud has been exposed to its surroundings could have falsified the data," (an odd conclusion showing that as much as she knows about textiles, she apparently knows little about carbon-14 dating). The idea that the cloth had been contaminated by x, y or z elements was put forward repeatably by Shroudists without any evidence in order to discredit the carbon 14 testing, from 1988 to 2005. It was Ray Rodgers, the year that he died from cancer who brought forth the scientific evidence to prove the incredible story of the samples being from a patch that went unnoticed by the people who selected the samples.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

Regarding scientists who are subject to the same social pressures as everyone else, you are right, especially since most of the scientists involved, including those who believe it is a fraud, are practicing Catholics. However, I don't know how to explain the pro-authenticity position of Ray Rogers, who explicitly says he "doesn't believe in miracles" and that the shroud was produced "naturally." Additionally, there's the case of Barrie Schworz, the official documenting photographer STURP, who believes the shroud is genuine and yet somehow, paradoxically, has remained an Orthodox Jew, in addition to the Hebrew University botanists who allegedly found evidence of Palestinian pollen on the shroud and yet are presumably not Christian.

Additionally, as has been said before, it has been claimed (in peer-reviewed publications) that the C14 dates were in fact from a "repaired" area of the shroud, that there is documentary evidence for the shroud's existence before the 14th century under other names (e.g. a picture in a 12th-century Hungarian manuscript that allegedly shows some of the "damaged areas" on the shroud, an image in Constantinople that was venerated there, etc.), and that the proof of forgery in the 14th-century manuscripts could have been propaganda from neighboring dioceses whose economies were fueled by pilgrimages for their own relics that competed with the shroud. Additionally, two textile experts (Mechthild Flury-Lemberg and Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium) claim that the 3:1 weave of the shroud is in fact found at the fortress of Masada in the first century and is "consistent with Syrian design." Joe Nickell, who claims that the 3:1 herringbone weave is not known from Palestine at the time of Jesus, is not a textile expert. He's an English professor. Ordinarily, I would be more inclined to believe statements about a certain field of knowledge by someone trained in that field of knowledge than by someone not trained in that field.

The reason I am disturbed (as a skeptic) is because this seems a lot more difficult for me to just dismiss than creationism. Creationism doesn't get into peer-reviewed biology journals. "Shroud science" apparently does get into peer-reviewed chemistry and optics journals. In fact, it seems like the vast majority of the peer-reviewed research I can find is pro-authenticity.

While I understand that peer-review can be faulty and that scientists can make mistakes, I have been conditioned, as a skeptic, to believe that one of the main things that distinguishes science from pseudoscience is absence of the latter in reputable peer-reviewed journals. In the case of the shroud of Turin, almost all of the detailed skeptical refutations of the authenticity claims (including the ones you brought up) appear outside of peer-reviewed journals. It seems, at least at first glance, intellectually dishonest to me to reject information that appears in peer-reviewed journals in favor of information that does not, especially when some of the statements (e.g. the differing interpretations of the 3:1 herringbone pattern) blatantly contradict.

Of course even if the shroud was in Palestine before the 14th century does not make it authentic. It could have been painted in the 4th, 5th, or 6th centuries, as the relic trade was just as booming then (in the newly-Christianized Roman Empire) as it was in 14th-century Europe.

Nice post Philospher Jay. Best I've read on this subject.

I did some research on this; its not easy to wade past the shroud sites and there are not many convincing skeptical responses (only a couple of people). The shroud arguments all seem solid at first glance but fall apart on close investigation.

Flury-Lemberg is still alive, and I've made a half hearted attempt to find her email address to ask her what her current opinion is.

Regarding the primate blood and type AB; AB is not found in gorillas or chimps. Rob's instant response to my post on the subject makes me wonder about his motives. It is an interesting subject and some intelligent people defend the shroud, but it seems more a mental exercise than anything else. This is of some importance because one of the SLURP guys thought the blood was primate, in which case it couldn't be AB. This is a key disagreement which shroud sluts tend to ignore.

rob117 · 02-19-2010, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Nice post Philospher Jay. Best I've read on this subject.

I did some research on this; its not easy to wade past the shroud sites and there are not many convincing skeptical responses (only a couple of people). The shroud arguments all seem solid at first glance but fall apart on close investigation.

Flury-Lemberg is still alive, and I've made a half hearted attempt to find her email address to ask her what her current opinion is.

Regarding the primate blood and type AB; AB is not found in gorillas or chimps. Rob's instant response to my post on the subject makes me wonder about his motives. It is an interesting subject and some intelligent people defend the shroud, but it seems more a mental exercise than anything else.

You are correct about AB blood in chimps and gorillas. Chimps have both A and O; gorillas have B and O. I have no clue about the exact path of evolution of the different alleles; however, both A and B, which are essential for type AB blood, exist in related primates, even if both types do not necessarily exist in the same species. This could indicate independent development of the alleles, or could indicate that certain of the alleles were lost in other species. I have no clue what geneticists think apart from what was mentioned (and cited) in the wikipedia article.

Again, let me state that I am an agnostic and I highly believe the shroud is a forgery. It's probably a 14th-century forgery, but even if the radiocarbon dates turn out to be wrong, it could easily be a 6th century forgery, or a 10th century one. I also, like most skeptics, distrust the motivations of STURP, and I note that, aside from Schwortz and Rogers, they were all believers, as are all those outside of STURP who have published to dispute the radiocarbon dates. Aside from McCrone, nobody has responded to the accusations against the radiocarbon dating.

My reason for being disturbed, as I said, is twofold. Number one, the proponents of the shroud do seem to have strong evidence. The response of skeptical websites to these claims is generally emotionally charged (just read any of Joe Nickell's articles) and the authors are not experts in the field they are disputing. The main exception to this is McCrone. Number two, claims to recreate the shroud, while they seem convincing to me, do not appear in any peer-reviewed publication on Google Scholar. I would think peer-reviewed publications would be happy to publish these attempts, yet it seems the recreators of the shroud don't even try.

To be honest, my motives for looking so far into this is that any purported evidence for Christianity has the potential to profoundly disturb me. I believe the Judeo-Christian god as depicted in both the Old and New Testaments is a petty, capricious, and inhumane being. The idea that this being has control of the universe is horrifying to me. Unlike many here who were deconverted after spending years desperately wanting to believe in God, I admit that I have never believed in God, nor have I ever wanted to. Despite this, I have a profound nagging fear of eternal damnation that comes from a combination of diagnosed OCD and extensive debates with fundamentalists while I was a teenager. And as creationists only see what I want to see, I am afraid that, in this case, it might be me, and other non-believers who are only seeing what they want to see. Non-believers are just as susceptible to this as believers. The bollocks theories about a "mythical Jesus" that would be laughed out of a mainstream journal but appear to be taken with so much credibility on this board are a testament to this.

So yeah, that's my motive.

Huon · 02-19-2010, 12:08 PM

The archives of the french département (district) Aube, in the town Troyes, (series 9 G) preserve the first written traces mentioning the existence of the shroud of the collegiate church of Lirey. A collegiate church is administered by a college of canons, who are in charge of all the aspects of the management of the church (religious, and economic). The founding of a collegiate church gives the founder no right to nominate its members unless he has received a special papal authorization to that effect. For the erection of collegiate institutions, the authority of the Holy See is necessary. A collegiate church usually does not depend of the local bishop. So, the collegiate church of Lirey was not dependent of the bishop of Troyes.

Around 1350, the shroud appeared in Lirey and was shown for the first time in 1357. The chevalier (knight) Geoffroy de Charny who was the lord of the village, obtained in 1353 a pension from the king of France John II the Good to build the collegiate church of Lirey. The church was built and the shroud preserved inside it. To help pilgrimages, Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254) granted indulgences to the pilgrims. In 1356 Geoffroy de Charny was killed at the battle of Poitiers. His son Geoffroy II de Charny succeeded him and died in 1398.

In the archives, one can find a papal bull edicted by Pope of Avignon Clement VII (1378-1394). This bull tries to put an end to a conflict between Geoffroy II (plus the collegial church canons) and the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis.
The bishop did not get any money from the collegiate church.

Many times had Pierre d’Arcis forbidden the exposition of the shroud, which he considered to be a recent forgery. In 1389, the Pope had authorized the exposition. Pierre d’Arcis, the bishop of Troyes, published a text of his predecessor, Henri de Poitiers, in which it was described how the shroud had been painted. The painter had confessed the whole story to bishop Henri de Poitiers.

In january 1390, Clement VII published an arbitration, promulgating four similar acts, one for the bishop of Troyes, one for Geoffroy II de Charny, and the other two for two neighbouring bishops. Two of these documents are preserved in the archives of Aube.

After having reminded that the exposition of the shroud is legitimate, and reminded the stages of the conflict, the Pope compels the person responsible for the exposition to say clearly and intelligibly in loud voice "this figure or representation is not the true shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but only a painting or a picture which represents him". The pope’s decision forbids also that the ceremonies be too sumptuous, as this could incite the fidels to believe in the authenticity of the relic.

The shroud of Turin is an image (an icon), not a relic.

James Brown · 02-19-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

The response of skeptical websites to these claims is generally emotionally charged (just read any of Joe Nickell's articles) and the authors are not experts in the field they are disputing. The main exception to this is McCrone. Number two, claims to recreate the shroud, while they seem convincing to me, do not appear in any peer-reviewed publication on Google Scholar. I would think peer-reviewed publications would be happy to publish these attempts, yet it seems the recreators of the shroud don't even try.

The phrases "Joe Nickell" and "emotionally charged" don't go together, from what I've read of his work. I have found him to be very dispassionate in his investigations.

I really think you're concerned about nothing. People haven't been able to analyze countless miracles. How certain are you that peer-reviewed publications are hungry to publish scientific recreations of the Shroud? How certain are you that Shroud skeptics might be inclined to publish but they don't for sinister reasons?

I think that you might be setting the bar a bit high; I like peer-reviewed evidence for positive claims, but I don't expect it for the debunking of woo. For example, people claim that NASA faked the moon landings, and one man cites a picture of a moon rock with a letter 'C' appearing on it as evidence that the rock was created for a movie set. Well, that idea is easily debunked by saying the 'C' is a hair on the film, and that other pictures of the same rock don't have a 'C.' But it doesn't take a peer-reviewed article to point that out.

Toto · 03-24-2010, 04:20 PM

Cloth of gold

Quote:

In the age of Dan Brown and Da Vinci-mania the story of the Shroud is also the perfect potboiler, with something for everyone – including amused sceptics who'll appreciate its cameos from the Knights Templar and even the Renaissance man himself.

...

But more significantly, in January 2005, came the news that really gave the Shroud industry a new lease of life. A retired chemist called Raymond Rogers, formerly of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the US, produced in another science journal, Thermochimica Acta, evidence that 1998 carbon-dating result had been botched because the researchers had tested patches contaminated with material used to repair the medieval fire damage. This has been disputed.

...

Scratch below the surface, though, and Rogers' claim to be a neutral observer, or even a Shroud-sceptic, soon crumble. He has published other pro-authenticity papers, and is a member of pro-authenticity Shroud of Turin Research Project. And other scientists raise their eyebrows at the mention of Rogers' vanillin-dating method. Luigi Garlaschelli, a University of Pavia chemistry professor who last year claimed that Shroud-like images could be made by rubbing a linen-covered mask with acid-containing pigment, says Rogers' technique "is not any way a reliable method for estimating an object's age".

Toto · 03-30-2010, 10:43 AM

:banghead:

The Real Face of Jesus on the History Channel

Quote:

Using cutting-edge technology on the famed Shroud of Turin, a team of computer artists has uncovered what they say may be a portrait of the true face of Jesus.

...

Viewers should be prepared: The results achieved through the convergence of science and religion doesn't resemble the popularized images of Jesus.

This is no more scientific than computerized astrology predictions.

ramoss · 04-02-2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Regarding the primate blood and type AB; AB is not found in gorillas or chimps. Rob's instant response to my post on the subject makes me wonder about his motives. It is an interesting subject and some intelligent people defend the shroud, but it seems more a mental exercise than anything else. This is of some importance because one of the SLURP guys thought the blood was primate, in which case it couldn't be AB. This is a key disagreement which shroud sluts tend to ignore.

Other than the fact that the 'blood' was never able to be found except by someone whose analysis technique is .. hum.. less than accurate, blood degrades over time, and after a bit of time, all tests as 'AB' no matter how it started to begin with. The fact that people who did the article on that didn't know that basic fact shows their lack of technical skills.

semiopen · 04-03-2010, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramoss

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Regarding the primate blood and type AB; AB is not found in gorillas or chimps. Rob's instant response to my post on the subject makes me wonder about his motives. It is an interesting subject and some intelligent people defend the shroud, but it seems more a mental exercise than anything else. This is of some importance because one of the SLURP guys thought the blood was primate, in which case it couldn't be AB. This is a key disagreement which shroud sluts tend to ignore.

Other than the fact that the 'blood' was never able to be found except by someone whose analysis technique is .. hum.. less than accurate, blood degrades over time, and after a bit of time, all tests as 'AB' no matter how it started to begin with. The fact that people who did the article on that didn't know that basic fact shows their lack of technical skills.

Thanks for that insight, do you have a reference.

Does chimp and gorilla blood will also degrade to AB?

The Sudarium of Oviedo (I call it the shmata of Oviedo) is often cited for its type AB blood and this is compared to the type AB blood allegedly on the shroud.

This shroud slut link
http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

says

Quote:

The sudarium alone has revealed sufficient information to suggest that it was in contact with the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin.

The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

If this degradation happens, this totally refutes the AB claim. I love this stuff.

02-19-2010, 12:08 PM	#35
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	The history of the so-called Shroud of Turin The archives of the french département (district) Aube, in the town Troyes, (series 9 G) preserve the first written traces mentioning the existence of the shroud of the collegiate church of Lirey. A collegiate church is administered by a college of canons, who are in charge of all the aspects of the management of the church (religious, and economic). The founding of a collegiate church gives the founder no right to nominate its members unless he has received a special papal authorization to that effect. For the erection of collegiate institutions, the authority of the Holy See is necessary. A collegiate church usually does not depend of the local bishop. So, the collegiate church of Lirey was not dependent of the bishop of Troyes. Around 1350, the shroud appeared in Lirey and was shown for the first time in 1357. The chevalier (knight) Geoffroy de Charny who was the lord of the village, obtained in 1353 a pension from the king of France John II the Good to build the collegiate church of Lirey. The church was built and the shroud preserved inside it. To help pilgrimages, Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254) granted indulgences to the pilgrims. In 1356 Geoffroy de Charny was killed at the battle of Poitiers. His son Geoffroy II de Charny succeeded him and died in 1398. In the archives, one can find a papal bull edicted by Pope of Avignon Clement VII (1378-1394). This bull tries to put an end to a conflict between Geoffroy II (plus the collegial church canons) and the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis. The bishop did not get any money from the collegiate church. Many times had Pierre d’Arcis forbidden the exposition of the shroud, which he considered to be a recent forgery. In 1389, the Pope had authorized the exposition. Pierre d’Arcis, the bishop of Troyes, published a text of his predecessor, Henri de Poitiers, in which it was described how the shroud had been painted. The painter had confessed the whole story to bishop Henri de Poitiers. In january 1390, Clement VII published an arbitration, promulgating four similar acts, one for the bishop of Troyes, one for Geoffroy II de Charny, and the other two for two neighbouring bishops. Two of these documents are preserved in the archives of Aube. After having reminded that the exposition of the shroud is legitimate, and reminded the stages of the conflict, the Pope compels the person responsible for the exposition to say clearly and intelligibly in loud voice "this figure or representation is not the true shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but only a painting or a picture which represents him". The pope’s decision forbids also that the ceremonies be too sumptuous, as this could incite the fidels to believe in the authenticity of the relic. The shroud of Turin is an image (an icon), not a relic.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.