Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 06-07-2003, 01:09 PM

Partial post:

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
You yourself seem to revel in people's speculation: by bringing in the idea of comparing (unestablished) DNA evidence from the Ossuary of James and comparing it to DNA from the Shroud of Turin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

?????
I was commenting on the speculations of Shanks and Witherington who want to compare mt-DNA from bones from the James ossuary to mt-DNA from the Shroud to prove that "James" of the James ossuary is the brother of Jesus.

Which is fine on a thread about ......the ossuary but makes no sense when the subject here is: the authenticity of the S of Turin. You brought in OTHER people's speculation and then complained the I was speculating on matters related directly to the authenticity of the Shroud.

It hasn't been established that there's any DNA, let alone usable DNA in that ossuary. Purest speculation .....from the guy who hates......speculation.

Cheers!

leonarde · 06-07-2003, 01:17 PM

Partial post:

Quote:

The question is: what sort of 'evidence' would establish that the Mandylion was the S of Turin??? If someone found an evidently very old document from Constantinople/Istanbul which said in effect 'the Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin' /snip red herring'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"IF", again??!!! The bottom-line here is that you don't have any thing to prove that the Mandylion relic and the Shroud are the same. [...]

I was talking here about what would constitute such evidence but you aren't even interested : to actually think about what would constitute such evidence would force you to rethink your (vague and ethereal) requirements in that regard. That's why you had no substantial reply to my point: the term "Shroud of Turin" has only been used since the Shroud has been kept there. At prior locations it was known by other names (at least sometimes based on the name of the location). So what "evidence" exactly are you looking for? (For if you don't know, then you will never find it -----even if it is starring you in the face!).

Cheers!

Principia · 06-07-2003, 01:31 PM

I see leonard(e) has dropped his "paint liquifying" explanation, and has come back (after "bowing-out") to dish out more "nasty and anti-intellectual" discussions. So since we're just mindlessly trading quotes from off-sites, I thought I'd add in a familiar voice of reason:

Quote:

To the unaided eye, the Shroud image is yellow to orange in most body-image areas, but red in blood-image areas. Microscopically, the image consists of yellow fibers and red particles; the red particles are more abundant in the red blood images, and the yellow fibers are the major colored substance in the body image. A careful microscopical survey of the 22 image tapes and 10 nonimage tapes shows, without exception, tiny red particles in body- and blood-image areas but no red particles on the fibers in the nonimage areas.
[...]
The red particles are found on the fibers of all image tapes and have varying degrees of hydration, color, and refractive index (from about 2.5 to 3.01). These properties are characteristic of the artist's earth pigment, red ochre4. Common worldwide, this pigment has been used by artists for at least 30,000 years. The highest refractive index particles are hydrous, crystalline, highly birefringent hematite with indices of 2.78 and 3.01. The iron earth pigments are hydrous iron oxide ranging in color and refractive index from yellow ochre to red ochre depending on their history. This raises the refractive index and may result in crystallization of hematite, anhydrous Fe2O3. A significant proportion of the Shroud red ochre is hematite, thus accounting for the observed birefringence of many of the individual particles. The composition of the Shroud red ochre was confirmed both by electron microprobe and by X-ray diffraction5.
[...]
The blood-image areas show incrustations of red substance with indications of �spalling�. Many loose particles aggregates, picked from the blood-image tapes, show red particles different in shape and in color from red ochre, but characteristic of the artist's pigment, vermilion (HgS). The most common vermilion pigment is ground mineral cinnabar. The other two are synthetic mercuric sulfides, one a modern wet-process product, and the other, a dry-process form first prepared by alchemists about 800 A.D. The chemical composition of this second red pigment was established by polarized light microscopy (PLM), by electron microprobe, by XRD, and microchemically. The PLM microchemical test requires wet ashing of one of the blood-image sherds to remove the organic binder, dissolution of the Hgs crystals in HIO3, and precipitation of a mercury mirror with metallic copper. All of this is done in a <100 m m diameter droplet on a copper penny as a source for copper. The XRD pattern identified hematite in this blood-image sherd and also showed the strongest lines for cinnabar, confirming vermilion. The research I have done shows varying ratios for the two different pigments, and proves there must have been two different paint applications, one a red ochre paint, and the other, a vermilion paint. The different paint sherds show varying amounts of red ochre relative to vermilion; this also supports the application of two paints. Futhermore, no vermilion pigment particles were observed on any of thousands of body-image tape fibers. It seems therefore reasonable that the Shroud was first painted and then the blood images were enhanced with a vermilion paint.
[...]
I have also found a chapter entitled �Practice of Painting Generally During the XIVth Century� in an 1847 book, in which the author refers to the process as the English or German mode of painting faint images. �Among other methods, common on this side of the Alps, may be mentioned the cloth-painting of the English and Germans, and their peculiar process in tempera. ... In the Treviso record, ... mention is made of a German mode of painting (in water colours) on cloth. This branch of art seems to have been practiced on a large scale in England during the XIVth century ... Yet, after this linen is painted, its thinness is no more obscured than if it was not painted at all, as the colours have no body ... In the beginning of the XVth century, the ordinary tempera painting on cloth was certainly common in the Netherlands ... The peculiarity of the English method appears to have been its absolute transparency; ... As regards to English and German paintings on cloth, there can be little doubt that the thinness of execution for which they were remarkable, though it did not preclude gilding, was adopted with a view to durability. ... Vermilion, minium, lake, ochre, and 'face brown red', are mentioned in the Strassburg MS.�8.
[...]
There is no way, at 50x, that anyone (specifically referencing the STURP team) could recongnize the red particles as Fe2O3 and as red ochre or the HgS as a ninth century vermilion, and no way anyone could see that the pigment particles are cemented into an organic matrix and to the fibers... Heller and Adler10 acknowledge the existence of Fe2O3 and Hgs in blood image areas. Accetta and Baumgart11 state that �Shroud blood comparison with known bloodstains show marked differences.� As I stand accused of misinterpreting (my) otherwise good data, I see that, at least, I am not alone.

Principia · 06-07-2003, 01:34 PM

Quote:

That's funny! I just looked at your II profile and it said nothing about your being a painter. It said you were a musician and even though you listed hobbies or interests "painting" was not among them:

That's funny! I just looked at leonard(e)'s II profile and it said nothing about his being an expert on Shroud research, much less versed in the sciences required to evaluate Shroud evidence critically:

Quote:

Location North America
Interests basketball, current events etc
Basic Beliefs ultramontanist

Principia · 06-07-2003, 01:44 PM

More quotes from yet more voices of reason:

Quote:

While McCrone finds iron oxide and vermilion by light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive x-ray analysis (EDXRA), electron microprobe analyzer (EMA) and both x-ray (XRD) and electron diffraction (SAED) and no blood25, Heller & Adler27 and Heller10 report blood by Biuret-Lowry, fluorescamine, enzyme and albumin tests, anti-sera, hydrazine, Soret band absorption. The radiographic studies performed by the STURP team51, 52, were subject to instrumental and environmental bias and were inconclusive (by the authors' admission) as well as being conducted without reference to the extensive literature on the radiography of artifacts in general53 and painting in specific54. Fischer28 criticizes the latter authors'25-10 methods and advocates other forensic testing, while other scientists (e.g., Frache, Curto and Brandone14, 15) have used the same methods reported by Heller and Adler27 and Heller10 and found no blood but pigment instead. Ignoring for the moment the complexities of these apparent contradictory results it might be constructive to have the sticky tapes (taken by the STURP team from the surface of the Shroud) from the �blood� areas examined by Thomas Loy of the British Columbia Provincial Museum who has developed a method of detecting prehistoric blood residues on lithic tool surfaces dating 1,000 to 6.000 B.C.29. If the tapes contain blood, Loy should be able to detect and compare hemoglobin crystals to species of origin30

Refs:
14 Sox, H. David: File on the Shroud, Hodder & Stoughton, London 1978.

15 Sox, H. David: The Image of the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a forgery?, Unwin, London 1981.

25 McCrone, Walter C.: Microscopical study of the Turin 'Shroud', III. In: Microscope, vol. 29, 1981, p. 19-38.

28 Fischer, John F.: Letter to the Editor. In: Microscope, vol. 29, 1981, p. 69-70.

Principia · 06-07-2003, 01:48 PM

And here we have another:

Quote:

But let me assert that ad hoc, overreaching, counter-arguments to McCrone's conclusions--such as (1) some of the iron oxide particles came from blood iron, (2) most of the red particulate matter is from the blood on the Shroud, (3) most of the red particulate matter is "intimately associated with the image areas because shards of this material have broken off the blood areas and, since image area is always folded against image area, there occurred a translocation of the shards from the blood areas to the non-blood image areas," and (4) the presence of pigment particles on the shroud is due to paint chips falling off the frescoed ceiling and walls of the room use for the Shroud examination--are so far beyond the pale that they are a mockery of analytical thinking. Such explanations are pseudoscientific attempts to keep the possibility of authenticity alive in the minds of supporters who lack the ability to think critically. There is no blood on the Shroud: all the forensic tests specific for blood have failed18 (although some investigators19 unrigorously concluded that blood was present after conducting numerous forensic tests for iron, protein, albumin, etc., which came up positive because these materials are indeed on the Shroud in the form of tempera paint). Old blood is not bright red, and no amount of bilirubin20 can explain that away. Real blood mats on hair, and does not form perfect rivulets and spiral flows. Real blood does not contain red ochre, vermilion, and alizarin red pigments. Real blood and its organic derivatives have refractive indices much less than red ochre or vermilion, and they can be easily distinguished using Becke line movement under a light microscope. McCrone's examination of the red particles on the Shroud samples revealed no blood or blood derivatives.

Refs:
18 JOE NICKELL, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, 1983, 1987 (updated), Prometheus Books, Buffalo.

Hmm... aren't we thankful for peer-review, yet?

Principia · 06-07-2003, 02:10 PM

I also recommend this PPT presentation by Schafersman, who gives pretty much a point by point rebuttal of the STURP summary. Of interest to this thread:

Quote:

"No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils, X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image." (STURP summary)

Schafersman: Red ochre, vermilion, and rose madder pigments have been found on the pigments in the image and blood areas.

(So much for the "definitive" scientific investigation, eh?)

Quote:

"By spectroscopic and chemical tests (conversion of heme to a porphyrin), we have identified the presence of blood in the alleged blood areas of the Shroud of Turin." (John Heller and Alan Adler, 1980, p. 2742)

Schafersman: Heller and Adler's test in this paper was actually inconclusive, since all they did was prove the presence of a porphyrin, of which there are many in nature, including plants. In a subsequent paper, they were deceived by false positive reactions to the presence of iron and protein the "blood" pigment and binder. Walter McCrone's spsecific tests for blood were all negative.

Quote:

"The blood stains are composed primarily of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin." (STURP summary)

Schafersman: There is no hemoglobin, serum albumin, or blood of any kind on the Shroud. The "blood" is composed primarily of vermilion and red ochre pigment. The proteins and albumin detected by STURP were from egg used in the pigment binder.

mfaber · 06-07-2003, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
That's funny! I just looked at your II profile and it said nothing about your being a painter. It said you were a musician and even though you listed hobbies or interests "painting" was not among them[...]

Well, again when your are firmly rebutted, not only insult the person, buyt imply that s/he is lying. You're a prince!
Hey, I'm not a painter and I told you the very same thing. The point is that we're right and your "liquifying paint" argument is toast. The Shroud would be ashes long before the paint "liquified". And paint it most definitely is.

Quote:

Actually this merely states one of many, many, many reasons why, for technical reasons involving the nature of pigments and paints and the way that they depict their subject matter that the S of Turin isn't an artistic rendering (at least of the paint/pigment sort).
Above from: http://shroud.com/piczek.htm

Unfortunately for Isabel, the scientific examination of the Shroud POST-STURP could not confirm the STURP teams findings. They did not follow up on the initial tests like they should have done and conducted other tests to confirm or deny their intital findings. They stopped at the point they had an answer that they wanted and that was a mistake. You don't just accept data that confirms your hypothesis, but do every conceivable test to DISPROVE that hypothesis and the STURP team DID NOT do that.

Quote:

Or better yet, let's look at the final (1981) report (just the last paragraph of the summary of the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project):

Note the DATE===>1981. You act as though this is the FINAL word on the subject. Others have tried to reproduce the STURP teams' findings and found that the STURP teams results don't hold. Peer-review of their work has DISPROVED their findings and if you were honest, you would address the NEWER results instead of just pretending that there is no work out there that has refuted STURP's work. The way to refute the newer findings is to address them directly. You don't do that by posting the work that they refuted.

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Which is fine on a thread about ......the ossuary but makes no sense when the subject here is: the authenticity of the S of Turin. You brought in OTHER people's speculation and then complained the I was speculating on matters related directly to the authenticity of the Shroud.

It hasn't been established that there's any DNA, let alone usable DNA in that ossuary. Purest speculation .....from the guy who hates......speculation.

Leonarde, I was talking to Toto, not to you. Toto asked a question that involved the Shroud AND the James Ossuary (Herschel Shanks and Ben Witherington proposed trying to match DNA from the James ossuary with DNA from the shroud). That makes both our posts on topic.
Here's the link he posted (involves both the Shroud AND the James ossuary):

Ossuary Discussed

Unless you have something relevant to the notion of trying to match mt-DNA from the bones in the ossuary to MT-DNA TAKEN FROM THE SHROUD, then you will not be surprised is I ask you what part of "mind-your-own-business" do you NOT understand? It seems that all you are capable of is snide remarks and insults when the argument goes against you.

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde

I was talking here about what would constitute such evidence but you aren't even interested :

Leonarde, I told you that since the Shroud dates to the 14th century and that is also the time when the first record of it appears. You will have to completely overturn the C-14 dating and so far, there is not reason NOT to take the 3 independent tests that came up with the same date as valid. There is NO connection between the Mandylion relic and Shroud, other than the wishful thinking of those who want to believe IN SPITE of the FACT that the C-14 date refutes the notion that the 2 are the same. What have you got that disproves the work of those three labs? (I thought you understood this when I told you that the C-14 date refuted you notion)

Let's assume that the 14th date is wrong. You will still need to find some of documentation that shows that the Mandylion relic and the Shroud are the same, because they could still be TWO separate items. Of course, if you could date the Shroud back to the 1st Century, then you wouldn't "need" to bring in this other relic in an attempt to bump the date back to a more suitable time by claiming that the two are really the same thing (without ANY foundation), now would you? Like I said, the C-14 date simply refutes that attempt, hands down.

Jackalope · 06-08-2003, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Partial post:

That's funny! I just looked at your II profile and it said nothing about your being a painter. It said you were a musician and even though you listed hobbies or interests "painting" was not among them:

Oh, sorry, I didn't list every single damn craft I've ever taken up in my life. I've used egg white to adhere gold leafing to manuscript vellum, as well. So I forgot to add "calligrapher" on my list as well. Big f'ing deal. That doesn't negate my point that albumin will bake itself on rather than melting.

Quote:

Guess you forgot! Or took it up quite.......recently shall we say?

Hardly. More that I haven't done much in the last 5 years because my hands have aquired progressive damage from rheumatoid arthritis. I've had to ration my strength.

Now, can we get back to the actual point rather than bashing me?

Quote:

But let's look at what Isabel Piczek had to say about the "painting theory" in general (and Isabel Piczek is a professional painter and has been her entire life):

An oil painter. It makes a very large difference, Leonarde. Very few painters work with egg tempera. Oil or even copal is much easier to work with, as one can lay colors over each other. With tempera, one must lay colors side-by-side without overlapping or blending. Therefore, most painters do not bother with the medium unless they're medievalists, like me. My area of expertise is anglo-saxon and irish manuscripts, but I had to learn to use egg tempera to do the gold-leafed carpet pages.

Egg tempera uses egg white as the medium. It's a proteinous binder and does not spread the way oil and resin paint media do. In fact, a sample this old, done on fabric would show almost no sign of the medium at this point. The protein has denatured and locked the pigment particles to the textile fibres. Plus, you obviously didn't look very hard at those microscopic views of the shroud. That's definitely not blood. I guess you never took microbiology, either.

Get over it. The thing's a fake.

keyser_soze · 06-08-2003, 08:40 AM

Which everyone with an IQ over 50 already knew. I would urge you guys to let him troll somewhere else, as he has not brought any evidence to support his claims. Typically, it wouldn't be bad, but he's tried and failed at this here already, and he already knows better. He's just hoping someone who wasn't here the last time will give a 5 minute bite to the ridiculous theory that even the church abandoned already. It's an obvious fake.

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

06-08-2003, 08:40 AM	#100
keyser_soze Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: god's judge (pariah) Posts: 1,281	Which everyone with an IQ over 50 already knew. I would urge you guys to let him troll somewhere else, as he has not brought any evidence to support his claims. Typically, it wouldn't be bad, but he's tried and failed at this here already, and he already knows better. He's just hoping someone who wasn't here the last time will give a 5 minute bite to the ridiculous theory that even the church abandoned already. It's an obvious fake.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.