An important issue. I am not normally critical of scientists at all. It is the behaviour of some when dealing with religious objects and phenomena. The shroud dating a case in point. Also.
As regards academic papers and books, the last one I quoted because it has a history trail across a long period. You are fortunate to come in at the end of a long twisting journey which little made sense, with small parts of progress. Most of the intervening papers were just a "dot", and over a period the "dots" connect into lines, and over a longer period the lines become a picture. Some dots were rejected along the way. The best source for the overview picture is books by the same authors, where the authors connect the ideas , discarding some, and covering a far wider range of the subject that is possible in a paper. Nature I gather baulked at the length of the original RC dating article even! Papers are not a place for discussing other that bits of an idea not the whole thing. THe history of correspondence by all players on the shroud dating casts a valuable insight into why the catastrophe happened and the mindset that arrived to it It is only suitable for a book. Books are invaluable.
As to detail points.
You Researched the shroud on this forum? Seriously?
You think this forum trumps 40 years investigation? Shroud.com is the place to find most of it. Warts and all.
But If you meant my link, you have looked at the tip of an iceberg, that relates to just one largely discredited test.
You treat Brittanica as some kind of authority when it suits you when I have already disproved what it says!
which rather proves you have not studied the shroud in sufficient depth.. There is a library of research none of which makes the popular press.
The shroud was illustrated in a document - the Hungarian codex - look it up - that has provenance back to the time it was seen in Constantinople in around 1200 .
That document showed the unusual pattern of damage holes, so it certainly was this shroud, well before the RC date range, and before it was first seen in France.. Charnay was related to the Templar’s. who are responsible for how many relics got back from the holy land. The Simplest hypothesis fits in this case.
I was hoping you would also read some of the books.
Meachams is interesting not least because , first he predicted the problem of dating beforehand that later ensued, but also his commentary on the disastrous storage and restoration not only ruined much of the evidence, but also may have prevented future testing because of the use of such as thymol. It could be ruined for future tests.
Not that I think the church will be in any hurry to repeat the amateur fiasco that was the dating. How could they have confidence it would be better handled now?
My comment on Rogers is simple. If you want to know what HE thinks and why, first study what HE wrote that says what HE thinks and why, and other chemists who corroborate that like Adler, not what his opponents says he thinks and why THEY call it into question. Only Then look at contesting views. Good order. It’s all in his book and adlers.
As regards wilful misrepresentation of RC data for publication in nature that is beyond dispute. The question is why they feigned homogeneity, not whether. I cannot think such behaviour it is common, and most errors are mistakes not wilful, but not in this case and the referee put in charge of good behaviour was Tite, who knew , and whose job was to call that out, did not call it out.
Goves behaviour and that of halls and tite were shocking.
You hint at bias as a motive for discounting the test , yet all of the shoddy practice that rightly brought into question the date would have resulted in the same controversy the opposite way round if an early date was found. Bad science is bad science both ways round. It is not reliable.
The only other wilful misrepresentation of science that I remember was cold fusion in a test tube.
In focussing on hairs of the elephant by taking one paper out of a huge volume of literature , the elephant in the room is being missed.
The elephant is the shroud is not an artwork, it has all the medical pathology expected of a man crucified in exactly the way described for Jesus. That pathology was not only unknown in mediaeval times, it is also partly invisible to the naked eye, and only verifiable by modern chemistry. So the shroud really is the shroud of a crucified man. It matches the other known holy cloths that have never been in contact with it in recorded history. There is no known process for reproducing it even now.
Occam’s razor says that man was Jesus.
There is nothing that opposes that other than a discredited RC date.
All other science like existence of mtDNA from holy land is consistent with that hypothesis.
there are also accounts of mediaeval repairs, but without detail. It was certainly done. So the simplest hypothesis fits.
That is the elephant. The pathology of a crucified man, crucified and tortured like Jesus, the only instance of that method and torture used in recorded history.
Picking at individual hairs will not help.
I’ve never really understood the sceptic determination to prove it false. Jesus was historic, his crucifixion happened. There was a shroud, just like there was a mummy of Tutankhamen. Acknowledging that did not make Tutankhamen God! So why all the effort to dismiss the shroud? Good science Is fine. But sceptics went way beyond that in trying to dismiss it.
Lesson for life. If it looks like poo, smells like it , tests say it is poolike, I wouldn’t try tasting it ,or treading in it, thinking the previous statements and lack of an academic paper are not rigorous enough to prove the above to a sceptics satisfaction!
Mike, I've done a LOT of work in researching this on this forum. And every time you blow it off and denigrate it.
Please show a MODICUM of respect for other people.
The article I cited explicitly discussed the outliers.
So I can only get the "truth" if I read
exactly what you want me to read?
That sounds pretty reasonable.
Where did you get this? Because here's what the people at Encyclopedia Brittanica say:
"The shroud first emerged historically in 1354, when it is recorded in the hands of a famed knight, Geoffroi de Charnay, seigneur de Lirey." (
SOURCE)
Don't like those folks? How about the Catholic Encyclopedia?
"The cloth now at Turin can be clearly traced back to the Lirey in the Diocese of Troyes, where we first hear of it about the year 1360. " (
SOURCE)
Are both of those sources corrupt liars?
So all scientists who disagree with you are corrupt or don't do science real good.
You act like these things are laws of thermodynamics. As if no possible error could be in the measurement or something else couldn't happen.
Funny how you can find EVERY CONCEIVABLE ERROR in data you don't like but you NEVER seem to see potential error in any data that confirms your faith.
