Shroud of Turin

from another thread: I will be interested in seeing the evidence for this.

---

Common sense isn't

That was what I had heard. Then some suggested that several independent tests were all wrong. Amazingly the error was just enough to date the shroud at about the time it first appeared in history. An utterly astonishing result such a convenient error would be.But since WT says there is some evidence that the thing is old enough I'd be interested in seeing what there is.

---

Common sense isn't

bump de bump bump. For those who want to support what they assert.

---

Common sense isn't

Estimated how? And this is after the rigorous cleanings that were done? Wouldn't 40% be a little bit noticable? Was it only "noticed" after someone didn't like the dates that were determined?

---

Common sense isn't

You think that is seeing for ourselves? All we can see are images that have been processed in some way. The original images of the shroud don't seem to show the coin images. How did those images get "enhanced"? What was done to do that?How are the "resolution" questions answered? Why isn't the entire image amenable to such enhancement?The "enhancement" looks a lot like added lines to emphasize a pattern that the person thinks they see. That is not how image enhancement is done. I would like a detailed description of the enhancement algorithms and why they didn't enhance the image around them.Without the 'enhancement' there is no image.

---

Common sense isn't

Yes and it is very interesting that with all these apparent sources of error the dates all come up pointing the same time frame that the darn thing first cropped up in history.Are the "old" shroud supporters actually suggesting that this is just a coincidence? It could be of course. But that is reaching rather a lot isn't it? Has anyone got any comments on this aspect of the dating?

---

Common sense isn't

There seems to be only two issues with the dating:
1) The possibility of contamination
2) Single feature datingOthers here have refered to the amount of contamination that would be needed to move a 1300's date back to the first century. Given the treatment that each of the labs gave the fabric to remove contamination can someone show how there can be so much contamination AND it not be noticed by any of 3 independant labs?The list of contaminants given include some that would move the date back in time before 1300's, including washing it before it was used as a burial shroud.What does this dating of a "single feature mean". Each of the labs had other samples to date. They did not know what any of them were. The other dates were correct based on other evidence. Why does that work for those other samples?If single feature means taking only one piece of evidence then the historical records of the shroud first appearing around the 1300's is separate evidence. Others have suggested that it appeared earlier. Why do they think this other artifact was the shroud? Odd that this would come up now and not decades or centuries ago? What new research was done? What scientific tests? Odd, I've read reports that the image is, in fact, painted on. Who claims that it is painted on? Who claims otherwise? In each case why do they claim that based on what evidence?

---

Common sense isn't

Well, let's see:
absolute - nope, but by the time things are handled by the media that is the way it comes across. Most people aren't used to something that is pretty much for darn and completely sure being called "possibly" or "indicated" so that kind of wording gets dropped. A lot of the time it shouldn't be.definitive - what has been done is about as good as we are going to get. Perhaps, with completely non-descructive tests the church might allow another go at it but not real soon. However, the tests were done very carefullly and are hard to disagree with.uncontested -- nope, since lots of folks want to contest the results. However, contested very well? Not that I've seen so far. We have this handwaving about contamination but no one has explained just how much of what contamination would have to be there after a careful preparation that would skew the results just exactly enough to co-incide with the shroud appearance in the first place.So he has a point to make about the news article but it doesn't say anything about the shroud's dating in any convincing way.

---

Common sense isn't

WT, the validity of the shroud dating is not what is being talked about in the post you don't like. Just saying that someone says such and such isn't really evidence that is going to be very convincing. That is the point being made. I don't care all that much what Dr. S has to say. I want to know why he thinks it is correct. I want to see him go from the data he has to a logical conclusion.So just saying he says so isn't useful. Why does he say so?That is the point about argument from authority. He doesn't do a good job of backing up his conjectures AND he doesn't have the authority in the area of concern in the first place. You may continue to do that kind of thing but it won't convince anyone who wants to think for themselves. Isn't that what you want to get someone to think about it?

---

Common sense isn't

Doubt? No I don't think so. Only if you really, really were desparate to beieve the shroud is authentic to bolster a weak faith would you grasp at the straws your doctor is clutching. The idea that contamination could produce the results given is arm waving. As noted when the details are looked at it couldn't have.He never explains the reproducibility of the separate labs work or anything else. He just preaches.

---

Common sense isn't

Now, that is something interesting. Are you saying that this study team, formed to answer such an interesting question actually took and dated pieces of the shroud that were added on to repair it? Why is there all the fuss over contamination and all the nonsense then if it isn't clearly part of the original shroud? Why not just point that out? And, no one pointed this out before the dating was done?

---

Common sense isn't

I went back to your post and found the note about the salvage. Why was it missed? Because it is a little tiny throw away line. If it implies anything important why is that?Would you, in your own words, reiterate what the issue are? It seems the contamination is the biggy. At least that is given a lot of "ink".However, a whole bunch of things are thrown into the pot. Some contaminants mentioned would date from the first century. Why in the world would a thoughtful individual bring those up since they wouldn't affect the result.Why haven't you supplied any discussion of the amount of completely modern contamination that would be required to move the measured date so far?It seems your source is big on assertion and very light on details, evidence and logic. Perhaps a bit like Milton?In addtion perhaps you should pull apart the claims you are posting and pick what you believe to be the most important. One that is made a big deal of is the fire the shroud was subject to.Please search for this sentence
"A more subtle form of contamination, whereby the carbon atoms of the cellulose are exchanged or carboxylated with those from a hot carbon dioxide atmosphere, has been proposed as possibly having taken place during the fire to which the shroud was historically exposed when kept at Chambry"
at this site
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/hedges.html
supplied by her royal majesty earlier. It seems that that idea isn't viable.Do you have any others?

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-14-2004]

Agreed.The shroud being a fake doesn't disprove Jesus. In fact, the shroud dating to the first century only proves it is an old cloth. So it wouldn't be enough, by itself, to prove anything either.

---

Common sense isn't