Shroud of Turin redivivus - Not following where the evidence leads

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

Among these many undisputed facts, let’s start with a very simple one, which is that the blood stains were deposited on the shroud before the body image.

Before anyone needs to account for it, you need to show that it is a fact.

How do you square this with a medieval forgery ?

The forger painted the bloodstains first?

[Tim]

@Giltil

His purpose, starting from undisputed facts about the Shroud, is simply to show why these facts don’t square at all with a medieval forgery.

So we have somebody who has no expertise whatsoever even remotely relevant to medieval forgeries, spending an hour and three quarters making (what is I suspect) a less-than-ironclad argument about medieval forgeries. That does not seem a productive allocation of my time.

Also, there have been any number of ‘facts’ related to the shroud that I simply wouldn’t have bothered disputing – only to later discover that the ‘evidence’ supporting them is far more tenuous than I would have expected.

So sorry, no I will not accept that any fact is “undisputed” on either your or Hovens’ inexpert say-so.

@Giltil

Among these many undisputed facts, let’s start with a very simple one, which is that the blood stains were deposited on the shroud before the body image.

Where is cast-iron evidence of this purported “undisputed fact” presented? Until I’ve seen it, no I won’t accept it as “undisputed”.

@Giltil

How do you square this with a medieval forgery ?

Lacking detailed and rigorous information on how much blood, belonging to what species, where on the shroud, deposited in what manner, etc, etc, the possibilities are near infinite:

• The weaver accidentally bled on it.
• The cloth-merchant accidentally bled on it.
• The forger accidentally bled on it.
• The forger purposefully spilt blood on it for verisimilitude
• etc
• etc

@Giltil

Maybe you should spend 10 min instead with the segment 33:45 to 42:30?

I did – and got a lengthy, repetitive and not particularly articulate spiel on how amazingly, stupendously thin the image on the shroud is, and that not all the fibres are colored. No useful information like what the chemical composition of the coloring is. Therefore no useful information for determining whether the image could have been forged. And no “documentation” offered for his claim.

I would suggest that this video is only “a must to understand” that half-baked amateur Authenticist apologetics “is an absolute dead end.”

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

Among these many undisputed facts, let’s start with a very simple one, which is that the blood stains were deposited on the shroud before the body image.

Is that an undisputed fact?

And about those “blood stains”:

Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest | Live Science

So much for “undisputed facts.”

@Giltil

Well, for example the fact that what caused the body image is a very subtle change in the chemical structure of the cellulose at the top most part of the fibers.

No, it’s just paint.

The problem is there has been this tiny bubble of pseudoscientists doing shoddy “research” and repeating each other’s false claims that then get amplified by the apologetics echo chamber the people like believe them to be Gospel truth. And practically all of this “research” is done by people who have not had so much as a fleeting, passing glance at the “shroud”, never mind been able to examine it themselves. How could they, since it is kept carefully locked away, never shown to anyone except on very rare occasions when it is displayed for tourists. (The one exception being the STURP group who, unfortunately, was just a bunch of unqualified amateurs. )

That’s not very good epistemology, is it?

[Tim]

@Faizal_Ali

Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest | Live Science

Haven’t been able to find a copy of the paper behind this article. I did however find some of their replies to their critics. This stuck out:

It is important to underline how some of the details on the image on the Turin Shroud are debated and not unanimously accepted. More than one time, the findings on the Shroud turned out to be more like a Rorschach test rather than indisputable facts.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

I would guess that you are not really angry against young earthers. Why? Because they don’t really threaten your world view, for their case is weak. Now why are you angry against those who support the authenticity of the shroud if it is not because they somehow represent a threat to your world view? And if they represent a threat, it is because their case is solid.

That sort of reasoning is just blatantly fallacious all the way through. One can be angry, annoyed, or irritated at something without it being a “threat to their worldview”, whatever the hell that even means. And completely independently of the “strength” of their case. For one, you might consider certain behaviors unethical, yet without being any sort of “threat” to what you believe, or without their case being strong.

I happen to consider racism very bad, and most forms of it make me outright angry. And yet nothing about any case you might make for racism seems to me at all “strong”. There can be no actual justification (neither strong nor weak) for treating other human beings in the way some racists want to (treat others as less than animals, of zero moral worth). Even if they were in some alternate reality really right that some “races” were “inferior” to another on whatever physical or cognitive measure, that still wouldn’t justify racism. Their best case cannot amount even to being weak. It is non-existant. And yet it pisses me off.

I happen to think any sort of crankery and fraudulence is unethical, and it makes me somewhere between sad, irritated, or angry, depending on the particular case, that the world is so chock full of frauds and charlatans, sociopaths, or just plain crazy people, who mislead so many others with their nonsense. The fact is one can have a general problem with the spreading of falsehoods and misinformation of all types, both big and small.

Why do you make such basic errors in reasoning on this subject?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

And in any case I don’t think Faizal is actually angry about Shroud apologists. It’s honestly more comical and even a bit sad. What Faizal was saying is that if he was a Christian, shroud apologists would in that case be making him angry, because they would be making Christians (which he would then have to admit he would be counted among) appear to be idiots by appearing so gullible when they believe basically anything and everything stated as pro-authenticity.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Rumraket

And in any case I don’t think Faizal is actually angry about Shroud apologists

You think wrongly here for Faisal explicitly said he was angry about « Shroud apologists ».
For the records, here is what he said: It is really unfortunate that there are so many people out there promoting this sort of nonsense that makes Christians look like idiots. If I were Christian, I would be even more angry about this than I already am

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

The question in my mind is if a discussion that contains a record number of bald assertions is indicative of people being emotionally attached to a specific outcome.

@Faizal_Ali

No, it’s just paint.

Let them eat paint

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

You think wrongly here for Faisal explicitly said he was angry about « Shroud apologists ».
For the records, here is what he said: It is really unfortunate that there are so many people out there promoting this sort of nonsense that makes Christians look like idiots. If I were Christian, I would be even more angry about this than I already am

No, Gil, he very explicitly made it conditional. That’s what “if” means. I think you owe both @Faizal_Ali and @Rumraket apologies and a retraction.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Roy

The forger painted the bloodstains first?

Why on earth would the forger have painted the blood strains first? It doesn’t make sense at all.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

Among these many undisputed facts, let’s start with a very simple one, which is that the blood stains were deposited on the shroud before the body image.

I hereby dispute this. How do I determine whether that claim is true? How was this established? I’d like to read the original publication where this claim is first made so I can look at the data myself, and what methods were used to determine this.

Thank you in advance.

[Tim]

@Giltil

Why on earth would the forger have painted the blood strains first?

Why not? Are you really claiming to be an expert on the motivations and thought processes of medieval forgers, such that is you can’t deduce the motivation, then no motivation could possibly exist?

(I would note that we still haven’t seen ‘indisputable’ evidence that the blood stains did come first.)

@Giltil

It doesn’t make sense at all.

It does not make sense to you.

This is, by far, the weakest argument for authenticity I’ve seen on this thread to date – and that’s saying something.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Faizal_Ali

@Giltil

Well, for example the fact that what caused the body image is a very subtle change in the chemical structure of the cellulose at the top most part of the fibers.

No, it’s just paint.

It’s not. To adjudicate whether or not the Shroud is a painting, let’s hear from a world-renowned professional artist.

https://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Mercer

@Giltil

If I were Christian, I would be even more angry about this than I already am

No, Gil, he very explicitly made it conditional. That’s what “if” means

What is it that you don’t understand in this simple sentence : If I were Christian, I would be even more angry about this than I already am ?

[John_Harshman]

@Tim

(I would note that we still haven’t seen ‘indisputable’ evidence that the blood stains did come first.)

Or that they’re blood stains.

[Tim]

@Giltil

To adjudicate whether or not the Shroud is a painting, let’s hear from a world-renowned professional artist.

1. Isabel Piczek seems to have garnered little notability outside the Catholic Church – so is hardly “world-renowned”.

2. More importantly, whether she was renowned artist or not, she would appear to have no expertise whatsoever as to whether the the shroud was forged. Her specialty appears to be in media such as stained-glass and mosaic – which is completely irrelevant to questions related to the shroud.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@John_Harshman

Or that they’re blood stains.

It doesn’t matter a whit whether or not they are genuine blood stains. The issue here is why on earth a forger aiming at producing a fake Shroud would have deposited the marks supposedly representing the blood wounds first. It doesn’t make any sense.

[Tim]

No Gil. The real issue is why, after all this purported ‘research’ on the shroud, and the claim that it is “most researched human artifact” ever, do we have so little solid information on it? This would seem to suggest that all the Shroud ‘researchers’ are incompetent failures.

It would appear that just about the only solid information we have on it is:

1. It is, or is intended to resemble, a funeral shroud.

2. It is currently in Turin.

3. The only reliable dating of it is to the 13th to 14th Century.

Against all this uncertainty, the question of ‘why did the forger put the ‘blood’ (or blood-like substance) on first (if it even was put on first)?’ would seem both of little probative value, and lost to the sands of history.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Hilarious. Ignoring my entire post about the utter irrelevancy of someone’s emotional state to “threat” and “strength” of the opposing case, you elect to argue instead about whether Faizal was truly angry already. Did you even read that post above it?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

It doesn’t matter a whit whether or not they are genuine blood stains. The issue here is why on earth a forger aiming at producing a fake Shroud would have deposited the marks supposedly representing the blood wounds first. It doesn’t make any sense.

Hello again. Your undisputed fact is disputed. So can’t be assumed a fact.

Let’s have the evidence for this claim that there is no image underneath the blood stains, provided first, before we begin to speculate on the reasons why.

How was it determined that this claim, that there is no image underneath the blood stains, is true? What methods were used, who did these, on how many blood stains, what proportion of the total area of blood stains were examined, and how? Where are these results published? Have they been replicated and confirmed by others since?