Shroud of Turin redivivus - Giltil doesn't follow where the evidence leads

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Roy

@Giltil

Those are expected observable features for a man who was tortured and crucified to death like Jesus was.

So was Meacham lying when he said there were no observable defects?

No, not at all. What he means is that there is no observable defects (or anomalies or incongruities or inconsistencies) for a man who was tortured and crucified like Jesus was. It is really weird that you seem to not understand this simple point.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

@Roy

@Giltil

Those are expected observable features for a man who was tortured and crucified to death like Jesus was.

So was Meacham lying when he said there were no observable defects?

No, not at all. What he means is that there is no observable defects (or anomalies or incongruities or inconsistencies) for a man who was tortured and crucified like Jesus was.

So when Meacham says “The body is well proportioned and muscular, with no observable defects” he really means there are lots of observable defects, which are all the result of torture and crucifixion.

How could he possibly know that all the wounds he mentions were the result of recent torture and crucifixion, and not older injuries?

How could he know that, for example, the swollen nose wasn’t the lasting result of a broken nose sustained several years earlier? How does he know that (some of) the flogging marks weren’t remnants of earlier punishments?

Meacham appears to be assuming his conclusion. He is not credible.

(I note that you, like Meacham, are pretending that the disproportionate features shown on the figure do not exist).

@Giltil

It is really weird that you seem to not understand this simple point.

I understand it better than you do.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

@Giltil

think that no one who has read this piece carefully will be able to affirm without completely discrediting himself that there is not the slightest shred of credible evidence supporting authenticity.

As I said, I’ve been reading “shroud” cranks, and the responses thereto, for almost 50 years. I am familiar with the state of the evidence, and have characterized it accurately. No new supporting evidence of any value has come to light in that time.

So you are throwing away the work of STURP, which represents some 150,000 hours of work by respected experts and has led to numerous scientific publications bringing an invaluable amount of knowledge regarding many aspects of the shroud of Turin. By doing so, you are indeed discrediting yourself, definitely.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

I wonder how carefully you have been reading the skeptics posts. Can you cite one instance of admitting a Shroud paper posted by Gil or me is well received? Can you show one instance of any skeptic admitting evidence favours authenticity of the Shroud? Gil and I both have admitted that the Carbon dating is evidence against the Shrouds authenticity.

To recap:

• We have no evidence (and in fact evidence to the contrary) that the carbon dating samples were taken from a ‘patched’ or ‘repaired’ section of the shroud, or was unduely dyed or otherwise significantly contaminated.
• We have no evidence that the presence of cotton fibres is problematical.
• We have no evidence that the ‘vanillin test’ is a valid dating method.
• We have no evidence that the illustration in the Pray Codex is a representation of the shroud.
• We have no evidence that the shroud was the same artifact as the ‘Image of Edessa’ (and similar reports).
• We have no evidence that the shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo have any connection to each other.
• We have no evidence that either contained blood that was of type ‘AB’, as opposed to merely lacking any (viable) antigens (either due to degradation, or simply not containing actual blood).
• We have no evidence that there was a neutron radiation spike.
• We have no evidence that the the vacuumed-shroud-debris samples ever contained a substance that might have been expected to contain nitrogen – so likewise no evidence that any nitrogen was ‘missing’.

(I may have missed a few, but that seems enough to go on with.)

So tell us again how accepting the shroud as authentic is “follow[ing] the evidence”.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

I wonder how carefully you have been reading the skeptics posts. Can you cite one instance of admitting a Shroud paper posted by Gil or me is well received?

As usual, your question is impertinent.

Please address the fact that you blatantly and shamelessly lied about what people have written here. Or don’t. I doubt anyone cares.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

Once again, you avoid evidence.

Hi John
What evidence am I avoiding? Look at my post to Faizal. What I see is skeptics denying evidence. Evidence is not the issue it is interpretation where the disagreement is.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

Please address the fact that you blatantly and shamelessly lied about what people have written here. Or don’t. I doubt anyone cares.

I just supported my claim. The fact that you posted is false.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

My emphasis:

@colewd

@Faizal_Ali

@colewd

The results of the tests are posted in various papers already cited. No mater what Gil or I post the tactic is simply to attack the author if the results are not what the skeptic wants.

You are a shameless liar.

I wonder how carefully you have been reading the skeptics posts. Can you cite one instance of admitting a Shroud paper posted by Gil or me is well received? Can you show one instance of any skeptic admitting evidence favours authenticity of the Shroud?

Note the difference.

@Faizal_Ali doesn’t have to do either of those two things. He only has to cite an instance where a skeptic evaluated the contents of a paper on the shroud rather than attacking the author.

There are lots.

It’s not surprising that, being a shameless liar, you didn’t include your original lie when trying to cover it up.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Roy

@Faizal_Ali doesn’t have to do either of those two things. He only has to cite an instance where a skeptic evaluated the contents of a paper on the shroud rather than attacking the author.

Give me your best shot at this and I will retract or modify my statement if you can show this is true that the contents were really evaluated and not simply dismissed out of hand.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

My comments on the WAXS study come to mind.

But it’s not my job to show your statement was a lie, it’s your job to show it wasn’t. (It was).

Stop being a .

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@colewd

Give me your best shot at this and I will retract or modify my statement if you can show this is true that the contents were really evaluated and not simply dismissed out of hand.

Others in this thread have commented on the use of detection of vanillin as a means to validate an old age for the Shroud. Of course this “method” has not been quantitatively validated using well-established standards. Part of this is probably because vanillin can be generated abiotically over time - for example, see Quantitative determination of vanillin and its detection threshold in sake - PubMed .

This casts serious doubts on this particular test, and IMO renders it completely useless when it comes to its use as an estimator of age.

Awaiting your retraction @colewd .

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

(Yes, I know that’s a seal not a sealion^[1]. Get some more icons.)

---

1. Spelt this way because it was recently introduced into the latest edition of Collins as one word instead of two. So it’s also valid in Scrabble, as are “Bill” and “Cole”. ↩︎

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Art

Others in this thread have commented on the use of detection of vanillin as a means to validate an old age for the Shroud. Of course this “method” has not been quantitatively validated using well-established standards. Part of this is probably because vanillin can be generated abiotically over time - for example, see Quantitative determination of vanillin and its detection threshold in sake - PubMed .

This casts serious doubts on this particular test, and IMO renders it completely useless when it comes to its use as an estimator of age.

Hi Art
I have not idea what point you are trying to make here. Vanillin is only one of the tests cited for measuring the age of the Shroud and don’t know how the paper you cited applies. None the less you cited a paper for your argument and that is a step forward.

A few others here have cited papers as counter arguments so I will modify my statement that there are exceptions to the categorical denial that the skeptics have exhibited here.

@Fazail is one who cited a paper so I apologize to you.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

Give me your best shot at this and I will retract or modify my statement if you can show this is true that the contents were really evaluated and not simply dismissed out of hand.

The possible explanations for this comment of yours:

You have a severely impaired memory and cannot recall the discussion that has occurred in this thread.

You have severely impaired abilities to comprehend the English language and have not understood anything of what has been written in this discussion.

You are a shameless liar.

These are not, of course, mutually exclusive.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Roy

(Yes, I know that’s a seal not a sealion[1]. Get some more icons.)

I was never quite sure if it was a sea lion or a seal ion. They never struck me as particularly lion-like. OTOH, what would the word “ion” have to do with them?

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@colewd

I have not idea what point you are trying to make here.

If vanillin can be generated abiotically, by whatever means, then the detection of vanillin (or lack thereof) in materials cannot be used as a guide for estimating ages of materials. This means that the Shroud/vanillin cottage industry is totally, completely misguided and wrong.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Faizal_Ali

@Roy

(Yes, I know that’s a seal not a sealion[1]. Get some more icons.)

I was never quite sure if it was a sea lion or a seal ion. They never struck me as particularly lion-like. OTOH, what would the word “ion” have to do with them?

You’ve obviously never seen an elephant seal charge.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

The possible explanations for this comment of yours:

The real explanation is I mistakenly made an absolute statement which should be easy to counter which interestingly enough was not. The skeptic behaviour here has been at many times to deny Shroud evidence and attack papers that support authentisity.

Your accusation of lying was not appropriate as you had no evidence of my intent as you demonstrated by the comment above. As a Doctor of psychiatry you should know better.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Art

If vanillin can be generated abiotically, by whatever means, then the detection of vanillin (or lack thereof) in materials cannot be used as a guide for estimating ages of materials. This means that the Shroud/vanillin cottage industry is totally, completely misguided and wrong

Do have evidence it can be generated abiotically in linen? If this is a possible error signal wouldn’t it show a younger than actual age?

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

The skeptic behaviour here has been at many times to deny Shroud evidence and attack papers that support authentisity.

Even without the qualifier “at many times”, that was not your initial claim that led me to conclude you are a liar. You accused people of “attack(ing) the author if the results are not what the skeptic wants.”

And then, removing any doubt about your intended meaning , you later write this:

@colewd

Give me your best shot at this and I will retract or modify my statement if you can show this is true that the contents were really evaluated and not simply dismissed out of hand.

My accusation still stands.