Shroud of Turin redivivus - Not following where the evidence leads

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@colewd

@Faizal_Ali

That leaves only unqualified, incapable, and/or hopelessly biased crackpots among the people still inclined to take is seriously (other than a few who have decided to take the time to debunk their claims e.g. Hugh Farey.)

This is quite a bold claim

It’s borne out by the two shroud proponents here both being unqualified and incapable, as well as hopelessly biased.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Roy

It’s borne out by the two shroud proponents here both being unqualified and incapable, as well as hopelessly biased.

Not to mention that the individual cited as the single best authority in favour of the “shroud’s” authenticity issues fake articles from an address belonging to a bridal boutique. Bill&Gil seem strangely and uncharacteristically silent on that matter, don’t they?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

For example, how many variants of human MYH7 have been shown to exist? How does your ID hypothesis explain that number? You have claimed that it made you think. What is the product of that thought?

This post has nothing to do with MYH7.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

Baloney. It’s a direct refutation of your mendacity:

@colewd

I have rarely seen you support your claims to any depth that I would expect from a research scientist.

And your evasion makes my point.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

Not to mention that the individual cited as the single best authority in favour of the “shroud’s” authenticity issues fake articles from an address belonging to a bridal boutique. Bill&Gil seem strangely and uncharacteristically silent on that matter, don’t they?

Your hypothesis that it is a forgery has one valid piece of evidence which is a C-14 test on a small segment of the shroud. There are now other tests with different results. We cannot duplicate the image even with modern technology. The guy (Farey) you taught as an expert is claiming it was formed by ink.

Who is the crackpot Maybe the guy accusing dozens of scientists of being crackpots.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

Baloney. It’s a direct refutation of your mendacity:

Ok for arguments sake I will give you this. How does this move forward your hypothesis that the shroud is a forgery?

[Gisteron]

@colewd

Your hypothesis that it is a forgery has one valid piece of evidence which is a C-14 test on a small segment of the shroud.

To which your reply is “but how about nuh-uh”.

@colewd

There are now other tests with different results.

You mean the less reliable tests that would, if anything, date the shroud even younger? What about them?

@colewd

We cannot duplicate the image even with modern technology.

We cannot deflate a linen cloth’s carbon date nor transmute blood into gold with modern technology either. What’s your point?

@colewd

The guy (Farey) you taught (sic) as an expert is claiming it was formed by ink.

Again, what’s your point? What ingredient has anybody ever found in the shroud samples (that wasn’t part of the underlying cloth itself) that was inconsistent with some paint mixture or another? More importantly, how does that alter the shroud’s age, judging by which it is far too young to have anything to do with Jesus’ burial?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Gisteron

Again, what’s your point? What ingredient has anybody ever found in the shroud samples (that wasn’t part of the underlying cloth itself) that was inconsistent with some paint mixture or another? More importantly, how does that alter the shroud’s age, judging by which it is far too young to have anything to do with Jesus’ burial?

His theory is inconsistent with the evidence especially the thickness of the image. What is your hypothesis of how the image was formed?

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Roy

@Gisteron

That ignores of course the actual crudeness and disproportions of the picture.

Yes - among other problems, the facial features are displaced, the eyes being far too high compared to the top of the head.

@Giltil (like Meacham) has ignored this, and responded only to the more trivial issues…

Do you have references in the form of peer-review publications that discuss this point?

And by the way, have you considered that the peculiar position of the man of the shroud due to rigor mortis may explain the facial features you are pointing to?

The first hyper-realistic body of Christ based on the Holy Shroud is on exhibit

[Argon]

@Mercer

Exodus 20:4
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”

Oddly, this seems is only strictly followed by Jews and Muslims…

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

And by the way, have you considered that the peculiar position of the man of the shroud due to rigor mortis may explain the facial features you are pointing to?

Contrary to popular belief, rigor mortis is a temporary state and no longer exists 24-36 hours after death.

This raises an interesting problem for you: Since Jesus was supposedly resurrected three days after his death, his body would have to have been maintained in that very unnatural position for the duration of its time in the tomb, and rigor mortis is not an explanation.

I look forward to what will, no doubt, be your very silly and amusing attempts to explain how and why this occurred.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

@Roy

@Gisteron

That ignores of course the actual crudeness and disproportions of the picture.

Yes - among other problems, the facial features are displaced, the eyes being far too high compared to the top of the head.

@Giltil (like Meacham) has ignored this, and responded only to the more trivial issues…

Do you have references in the form of peer-review publications that discuss this point?

Sayeth the person citing the Catholic News Agency.

@Giltil

And by the way, have you considered that the peculiar position of the man of the shroud due to rigor mortis may explain the facial features you are pointing to?
The first hyper-realistic body of Christ based on the Holy Shroud is on exhibit in Spain | Catholic News Agency

Yes. If the picture you just posted is accurate, rigor mortis wouldn’t explain it, it would make things worse.

[Gisteron]

@colewd

His theory is inconsistent with the evidence especially the thickness of the image.

That’s not an ingredient. Nor does this alter the shroud’s age.

It’s okay to not have a response to the questions posed to you, but quoting them only to completely talk past them makes you look disingenuous.

@colewd

What is your hypothesis of how the image was formed?

I have no need of one. As i said right at the beginning:

@Gisteron

If it is the case, that the artifact is too young to have existed at the time of the events it is alleged to be a remnant of, that completely precludes the claim… Until the date can be conclusively dismissed, there is nothing here to talk about.

Concerning the authenticity, the mere fact that the shroud is too young trumps literally all of its other superficial or even sub-surface features. As long as we are stuck with the fact that the item did not exist at the time of Jesus’ burial, there is literally nothing that you can attempt prove about the image that would render the authenticity claim even remotely believable. The argument that it did not even exist at the time alleged is so strong, that I have zero need of any other, and there is zero progress you will make towards convincing me of authenticity until the age problem can be solved in a scientifically viable manner.

[Gisteron]

@Giltil

And by the way, have you considered that the peculiar position of the man of the shroud due to rigor mortis may explain the facial features you are pointing to?

Have you? Since when does rigor mortis re-shape solid bone like it’s plasteline?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Gisteron

Concerning the authenticity, the mere fact that the shroud is too young trumps literally all of its other superficial or even sub-surface features.

o
This is not a competing hypothesis explaining the image. It is simply counting on the dating of a small sample that may have issues.

[Gisteron]

@colewd

This is not a competing hypothesis explaining the image.

Correct. As I said, I have no need of a hypothesis to explain the image. No explanation of the image can undo the fact that the cloth did not exist at the time of Jesus’ burial. It cannot be authentic if it is not old enough, no matter how else the image is explained, or even if it is left unexplained.

@colewd

It is simply counting on the dating of a small sample that may have issues.

Yes, it is counting on actual data we really have, instead of baseless and physically implausible (to put it generously) speculations. What’s your point?

[Faizal_Ali]

@Gisteron

As I said, I have no need of a hypothesis to explain the image. No explanation of the image can undo the fact that the cloth did not exist at the time of Jesus’ burial.

Well, in fairness, if the cloth did have an image that could not be produced by any known process, that would still be something that required explanation even with the fact that we know it did not exist until 13th -14th century.

However, there is no good reason to think it is anything other than a smudgy image some forger painted on a piece of linen. That crackpots and gullible fools believe the fanciful stories of this being some miraculous image containing “3D information” that no one can explain is just part of the reams of nonsense surrounding this relic.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Gisteron

Correct. As I said, I have no need of a hypothesis to explain the image. No explanation of the image can undo the fact that the cloth did not exist at the time of Jesus’ burial. It cannot be authentic if it is not old enough, no matter how else the image is explained, or even if it is left unexplained.

Your position seems to be firm. Your mind is made up and everyone knows your position. Why don’t you find another subject where some discussion might be more fruitful for you?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Gisteron

More importantly, how does that alter the shroud’s age, judging by which it is far too young to have anything to do with Jesus’ burial?

There’s some furious goalpost moves going on here.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Faizal_Ali

Contrary to popular belief, rigor mortis is a temporary state and no longer exists 24-36 hours after death.

This raises an interesting problem for you: Since Jesus was supposedly resurrected three days after his death, his body would have to have been maintained in that very unnatural position for the duration of its time in the tomb, and rigor mortis is not an explanation.

I look forward to what will, no doubt, be your very silly and amusing attempts to explain how and why this occurred.

Jesus died at around 3 p.m. on a Friday and rose again very early on Sunday morning, before dawn, leaving the possibility that the resurrection took place at around 4 a.m., perhaps even earlier. This gives an interval of around 37 hours, perhaps less, between death and resurrection! Hope it helps!