Is the Shroud of Turin Jesus' burial cloth?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am not doing your work for you my friend. Its out there.

Mountainmike, is that you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

All you did was say that equipment was faulty. You did nothing to show that your claim was right.

If the comments about Bishop Darcis are wrong, then show the evidence that they are wrong.

If the shroud isn't an artwork, then show that it is a genuine thing.

Don't just say. Show.

Iit's not going to happen - we've been through the shroud saga with Mike more than once (e.g. 5 years ago). The result is always that anything that doesn't support its authenticity is the result of error, stupidity, or fraud, and anything that supports it is the result of impeccable research, competence, and integrity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, it means I refuse to read books unless I have a reasonable expectation of them providing a valid point. All the studying I have done on it indicates that it's a medieval forgery, so I doubt any source you can provide is going to change my mind. If you have a source that will change my mind without requiring any financial outlay on my behalf, then present it. But I'm not going to spend my own money on something which is unlikely to be convincing. I've got better things to spend my money on, like bills and rent. If you want to spend YOUR money so I can read it, then go right ahead. But don't accuse me of being closed minded just because I don't have money to throw around on what I expect will be unconvincing.

We had a thread on books: On the importance of books... I suggested that forums require special consideration: #22.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... In those posts you frequently throw about invectives against those who do agree with your preferred shroud origin, particularly sneering about sceptics [sic] and "atheists" ...

I particularly liked the "credulous sceptics" oxymoron...

 

[Mountainmike]

Iit's not going to happen - we've been through the shroud saga with Mike more than once (e.g. 5 years ago). The result is always that anything that doesn't support its authenticity is the result of error, stupidity, or fraud, and anything that supports it is the result of impeccable research, competence, and integrity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And yet despite all the blather. Repeated repeated

Not one of you has come up with a contest to the science even that done back in sturp, heller Adler etc.
-It really is the pathology of a crucified man
- The forensic correspondence of a cloth whose provenance is most of a Millenium older.
-The physiochemical dates that indicate first century.
- The lack of a means to fraudulently duplicate the mark.
- The date now proven was fiddled on equipment that failed validation, in which the daters ignored the protocol.A non homogenous date is in good practice no date at all. Even the linen of the sample area is different in character to rest of the shroud. The cotton should not be there.

if ever you challenge the actual science , I’m happy to discuss science, not your prejudice.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Iit's not going to happen - we've been through the shroud saga with Mike more than once (e.g. 5 years ago). The result is always that anything that doesn't support its authenticity is the result of error, stupidity, or fraud, and anything that supports it is the result of impeccable research, competence, and integrity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hence why I've got him on ignore.

 

[Lost4words]

Truly wonderful to know that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the one used by Jesus.

He left it for us all.

Amazing.

 

[Kylie]

Truly wonderful to know that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the one used by Jesus.

He left it for us all.

Amazing.

Belief is not proof.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't recall referring to STURP as "fringe" rather I noted the WP article on fringe theories about the shroud and the similarity to some of your previous claims. I have no idea who is in STURP, nor do I care.

STURP is the Shroud of Turin Research Project.

It may be worth noting: Joe Nickell of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has pointed out that "STURP’s leaders served on the executive council of the Holy Shroud Guild, which is devoted to the “cause” of the reputed relic."

Also, "STURP included no experts on medieval art, archaeology, or textiles."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hence why I've got him on ignore.

I understand.

 

[Mountainmike]

STURP is the Shroud of Turin Research Project.

It may be worth noting: Joe Nickell of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has pointed out that "STURP’s leaders served on the executive council of the Holy Shroud Guild, which is devoted to the “cause” of the reputed relic."

Also, "STURP included no experts on medieval art, archaeology, or textiles."

Why do none of you study STURP yourselves, instead of quote wackos view of it, or make false statements about it.?

You try to use the name Joe Nickell on a science forum?
Dont make us laugh - his attempt at faking the shroud was risible. Like all the other silly face photos out there, he either did not look at -or understand - the shroud chemistry, nor did he match it in any regard.. So anything he says is irrelevant. Some of his pseudo science related to other relics is even worse.

That is the problem . Not one of you study shroud science. Not one. Ever.
You only ever google "shroud sceptic" and quote whatever garbagfe you find. Like Nickell.


Meanwhile in ACTUAL shroud history.

Meacham was attached to STURP (albeit after the first examinations) who was the ONLY archeologist involved who had done a lot of dating. He was involved in all the protocol discussions and conferences
wrote several papers about the shroud dating BEFORE it was dated from 1981. Read his papers.

Noting BEFORE the test, he stated that no such test could be definitive, citing examples of previous problems, and stated that even to be useful it had to follow basic protocols of multiple area test and also chemical characterisation. The isotope measurers (I refuse to call them daters) ignored the entire protocol. Read "rape of the shroud" to see his assessment of the fiasco that ensued. That is the view of archeology.

Mechtild Fleury Lemberg was a textile specialist attached to STURP, and unlike those who attended the sampling ( one of whom got there late, so did not even see the sampling) she actually knew something about the shroud.

Meanwhile. The AMS validation failed. And the shroud test figures were fiddled to get conformity. Non homogeneity is the same as "no date possible". NOthing anyone says will alter that. Or the fact the so called daters clearly did not know the difference between systematic and random error. The test was a fraud.

Will just one of you
STUDY THE SHROUD SCIENCE

Not least the shroud was clearly seen well before that and not in france.

From now on, I will only respond to those who quote actual shroud science.
eg what you find wrong in what heller, adler, rogers (or subsequent) stated in papers and the book sthat follow them.

I will not comment on silly faces made by nickell, or silly doll experiments by Kylie. They are not science.

For anyone that is actually interested in body metrology on the shroud, there was a study done by sturp using representative male body statistics that found no such problems. Not silly doll pseudoscience.

It speaks volumes for the lack of scientific awareness or ability on this forum, that the rest seem to acknowledge the silly doll experiment, unaware of actual body metrology done at the time of sturp.

We differ in two things.
1/ On balance I think the shroud is real.
2/ I am the only one that has studied all the science.
1/ is the consequeence of 2/

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

if ever you challenge the actual science , I’m happy to discuss science, not your prejudice.

Been there, done that, in threads passim.

As I said, you accept and elevate that which supports your view, and reject and denigrate that which doesn't - and all with a totally unscientific certainty. It's cherry-picked cargo-cult science.

 

[Mountainmike]

Been there, done that, in threads passim.

As I said, you accept and elevate that which supports your view, and reject and denigrate that which doesn't - and all with a totally unscientific certainty. It's cherry-picked cargo-cult science.

You never once commented on what you find wrong with sturp science.
You quote nickell that proves you do not care. You accept and elevate that which supports your view, and reject and denigrate that which doesn't - and all with a totally unscientific certainty. It's cherry-picked cargo-cult science.

Adler, heller rogers and many since are real science and forensics. Get used to it.

Meanwhile. I do not have a skin in this game. It is not a problem for faith if it is real or false. I am not seemingly obliged to discount it because of atheist faith.

So...by way of example when DNA analysis/ science of the "bleeding statue of civatecchia" called it out as a fraud, I am happy to accept that, and I am annoyed at such things adding to the haze of pious frauds.

By the same token, when the forensics of the "bleeding statue of cochambamba" declare it real, blood , flesh and inexplicable with no reasonable mechanism for fraud, I am happy to accept that too.

It is called being evidence led.

I repeat.

We differ in two things.
1/ On balance I think the shroud is real.
2/ I am the only one that has studied all the science.( I should say almost all, for things I may have missed)
1/ is the consequeence of 2/

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why do none of you study STURP yourselves, instead of quote wackos view of it, or make false statements about it.?

Once again you jump to false conclusions. I have read the STURP report. I have made no false statements about it; I have quoted other sources for context (look for italics within double quotes).

As for Joe Nickell, it's a clear fallacy to suggest that "anything he says is irrelevant" just because you don't like something he did. Again, unscientific in logic and attitude.

 

[Mountainmike]

Once again you jump to false conclusions. I have read the STURP report. I have made no false statements about it; I have quoted other sources for context (look for italics within double quotes).

As for Joe Nickell, it's a clear fallacy to suggest that "anything he says is irrelevant" just because you don't like something he did. Again, unscientific in logic and attitude.

It is not i "dont like" Nickell. Nickell does pseudoscience. Not science. Yet you quote him.
Having waded through several of his books that are complete piffle. I will not waste more time on him.
His analysis of one blood sample was "that it did not look much like blood to him ( stood at least a meter away) so it was a fraud". Nickell makes a good living telling sceptic suckers what they want to hear.

Sturp did many reports. So your phrase "the sturp report" already casts doubt.

And you do what do what sceptics do.
Imply a haze of objections. Never seemingly able to quote a single one.
And every time I ask, it is the same.

None of you know the science, are able to quote from the science, or have a valid objection to it.
Which of adler, hellers (et al) papers PRECISELY do you object. And what SPECIFICALLY do you object to? It must be easy for you to name one!

I repeat.

We differ in two things.
1/ On balance I think the shroud is real.
2/ I am the only one that has studied all the science.( I should say almost all, for things I may have missed)
1/ is the consequeence of 2/

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You never once commented on what you find wrong with sturp science.

Like I said, I've participated in threads on the topic.

You quote nickell that proves you do not care. You accept and elevate that which supports your view, and reject and denigrate that which doesn't - and all with a totally unscientific certainty. It's cherry-picked cargo-cult science.

More fallacious reasoning. If you think the quote was incorrect and STURP’s leaders did not serve on the executive council of the Holy Shroud Guild, just say so. Don't shoot the messengers, address the message.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is not i "dont like" Nickell. Nickell does pseudoscience. Not science. Yet you quote him.

I said nothing about whether you dislike Nickell, but whether you dislike something he did.

If you think the Nickell quote I posted was incorrect and STURP’s leaders did not serve on the executive council of the Holy Shroud Guild, just say so. Address the message, not the messenger.

 

[Mountainmike]

Like I said, I've participated in threads on the topic.

More fallacious reasoning. If you think the quote was incorrect and STURP’s leaders did not serve on the executive council of the Holy Shroud Guild, just say so. Don't shoot the messengers, address the message.

Last chance.
What precisely do you object to in the science of the shroud as done by STURP and since.
I assume you have none, if you cannot state one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Last chance.
What precisely do you object to in the science of the shroud as done by STURP and since.
I assume you have none, if you cannot state one.

I notice you didn't address my point - do you think the quote was incorrect and STURP’s leaders did not serve on the executive council of the Holy Shroud Guild?

 

[Lost4words]

Belief is not proof.

God bless you my friend