Page 25 of 116

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:44 pm
by Pierson5
sandy_mcd wrote:
Pierson5 wrote:Hey Bibby, ... it would be very interesting to see you "step into the lions den," and see where the debate goes from there.
True, you don't learn much with a bunch of fellow travelers as judge and jury cheering on your every statement.
I think it would be quite an interesting debate. Bippy definitely has a much better understanding of the literature for the authenticity of the shroud than I do. The individuals on that forum also have a better understanding than I do of the evidence against it.

As for everyone's comments about "They still believe "X," haha!" You are no better than they are, apparently. If they are wrong, show them the scientific data that demonstrates this. Be the better person and don't result to ad hominem attacks. Present the evidence for your side. Even if you don't convince your target, the third parties spectating may be interested in the evidence. If you present evidence, and the other side just resorts to ad hominem comments, it will be obvious to the spectators who has a better argument.

Also, it's not an "atheist" forum. It's a skeptical forum. Many skeptics are atheist, sure. Many are theists as well. Jabba (pro-authenticity) I'm sure considers himself a skeptic and obviously a theist. I've seen plenty of articles written by theists who do not accept the authenticity of the shroud. "Typical atheist forum" and then laughing at what they accept as reliable evidence doesn't really accomplish anything. I would consider that an ad hominem attack and is no better than the comments some of them make.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:12 pm
by Swimmy
They still believe "X," haha!" .


Well. When one still keeps holding on to the idea that paint makes up the image and that there is no blood on the shroud I can't help but laugh. Or thinking McCrones work is reliable. Very amateur stuff.



It's a skeptical forum. Many skeptics are atheist, sure. Many are theists as well. Jabba (pro-authenticity) I'm sure considers himself a skeptic and obviously a theist. I've seen plenty of articles written by theists who do not accept the authenticity of the shroud. "Typical atheist forum" and then laughing at what they accept as reliable evidence doesn't really accomplish anything. I would consider that an ad hominem attack and is no better than the comments some of them make
I've been to dozens of atheist...I mean skeptical forums and they are all the same. After reading some of the comments on the forum its easily to conclude that it is no different from the others.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:55 pm
by Pierson5
Swimmy wrote:
They still believe "X," haha!" .
Well. When one still keeps holding on to the idea that paint makes up the image and that there is no blood on the shroud I can't help but laugh. Or thinking McCrones work is reliable. Very amateur stuff.
Well, why not go in there and link some citations (research shows it IS blood, research shows McCrones work is false). If it's amateur stuff, it shouldn't take very long to pull up a couple publications. Help Jabba out :ebiggrin:

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:07 pm
by Swimmy
Pierson5 wrote:
Swimmy wrote:
They still believe "X," haha!" .
Well. When one still keeps holding on to the idea that paint makes up the image and that there is no blood on the shroud I can't help but laugh. Or thinking McCrones work is reliable. Very amateur stuff.
Well, why not go in there and link some citations (research shows it IS blood, research shows McCrones work is false). If it's amateur stuff, it shouldn't take very long to pull up a couple publications. Help Jabba out :ebiggrin:
I've learned long ago its a fruitless endeavor to have a discussion on these "skeptic" forums. The reality is they aren't look for answers or evidence. The fact that they are still denying that blood is on the shroud and rely on McCrone as a reliable source is very telling that they are unwilling to concede where they are obviously wrong. This isn't the first time I argued with atheist shroud skeptics on their own turf. The end result is them reduced to trolling. "The shroud is a forgery cause I said so!"




McCrones work has been demonstrated to be false some where in this thread. It seems you are ignoring what has already been discussed pages ago.

I think this quote sums up the facts.
Walter McCrone found paint. Did you mention that Mark Anderson, who worked for McCrone, examined the fibers using laser microprobe Raman spectrometry and found that what McCrone thought was (inorganic) paint was in fact an organic substance. It was not paint! Or did you mention that the shroud (and not just fibers) had been observed with visible light spectrometry, ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography and no paint was found? Did you mention that later, pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry tests on individual image-bearing fibers, conducted at the Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at the University of Nebraska and that scientists there were unable to detect any paint particles or painting medium? To repeat myself, this is the stuff of real forensic science. You should know better. If you wish to take a skeptical stance on this matter do so with facts and scientific principles, not uninformed mockery.
Also McCrone failed miserably at trying to recreate shroud. BTW why hasn't anyone replicated the shroud successfully? Surely with all the scientific advances we have today this could easily be done. This what I love about the extreme skeptics who claim its a medieval forgery. They don't back up their claims and explain how against all precedent it was made. They don't even know how to reconcile all the implausibilities that needed to occur for the shroud to be a forgery without looking ridiculous.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:21 pm
by RazorSwift
Can I give a shameless promotion?

This is a great interview of Barrie M. Schwortz:

http://razorswift.wordpress.com/2011/08 ... n-is-real/

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:01 am
by Swimmy
RazorSwift wrote:Can I give a shameless promotion?

This is a great interview of Barrie M. Schwortz:

http://razorswift.wordpress.com/2011/08 ... n-is-real/
The Shroud of Turin is first century linen manufactured in the ancient method, not woven in the medieval or modern method.

It bears the image of a man front and back that was scourged. It has about 120 blood stained markings, wounds that are dumbbell shaped which are consistent with the flagrum of a Roman whip with 3 throngs and dumbbell shape weights at the end of it.

The individual had been speared in the side. With ultra violet florescent photography it can be seen that there’s a large serum stain surrounding the blood which is invisible to the naked eye (this can’t be faked with medieval technology).

The man was clearly crucified, the exit wound (from the nail) was at the palm, and at an angle, which happens to be forensically (as attested by 3 forensics experts, how long have forensics existed?) accurate to that of a crucified victim.

There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown of thorns. There’s only one place in recorded history where Romans placed a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.

The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information, in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can render this (this can’t be faked with medieval technology).

The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a photographic negative does (this can’t be faked with medieval technology). Schwortz said that you can’t make a photographic image without silver -in a certain form- but when the shroud was fully examined and tested, no trace of silver was found.

Schwortz explained how the Luigi Garlaschelli made shroud (which was said to “debunk” the shroud of Turin) is not even a close replica. “LG” claims that the image was made by red iron oxide pigment, but it was found in minute insignificant quantities on the various parts on the cloth (on the image, and other areas). The scientific tests (via Pyrolysis Mass Spectrometry) concluded that there was no manganese, cobalt properties and other data to confirm LG’s claim. No image to date, has been close to having the same physical and chemical properties as the shroud, no one has came even close. Note: Here’s the peer reviewed paper on the study http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proce…mburgerWeb.pdf

Schwortz mentioned a face cloth (The Sudarium of Oviedo Spain) -which dates back to the 6th century without a break in its historical record- and it has blood stains that are congruent (matching up exactly) to the head of the shroud. This is the matching burial face cloth to the shroud. This can be witnessed on the History Channel Documentary I cited earlier.

He brought up the old Hungarian manuscript called the “Hungarian Pray Codex” that depicts the picture of the shroud including the “L shape” burn marks on it, herring bone weave of the cloth, and certain blood stains that parallel those on the shroud. The date of this codex is from 1191, when the carbon date test (more on this later) said that it can’t be from any earlier than 1260-1390.

In the year 2000, some researchers brought some information to the table, questioning where the sample was taken from on the shroud; the sample that was used for the carbon dating test. It was found that that area of the cloth was chemically different, it had been repaired, cotton was rewoven into it, and dye was added to the surface after it was rewoven to match the rest of the color of the cloth. This information was published in 2005 in a peer reviewed scientific journal called the Thermochimica Acta Volume 425, Issues 1-2, Pages 189-194., by the man (and corroborated by associate Raymond N. Rogers) who was the head chemist (of Schwortz’s team, Robert Villarreal of Los Alamos National Laboratory) showing that the sample dated, was not an original piece. The paper concludes: “Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.”http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF There have been multiple peer reviewed papers since this one, that have confirmed this analysis.

Another reason why the carbon test wouldn’t likely work anyways, is because the accuracy is compromised by 100′s of years of people handling the shroud (leaving their DNA), the fires it went through (adding carbon) etc. In effect, it’s “tainted”.

Schwortz explained that through analysis, the blood stains were already on the shroud before the image was formed. That would mean that the “forger” would have to put the blood stains on forensically correct before he/she put the image on the cloth. We still couldn’t do that today.

Schwortz explained that when putting the shroud under 10x magnification it was shown that there were no brush strokes, particulates, no paint, no medium etc. Another proof showing the image was not made by ink.

From the 3D rendered holographic of the shroud image, it was shown that the individual was in rigamortis. This was confirmed by forensic experts as well.


Which goes back to what I said in my last post
This what I love about the extreme skeptics who claim its a medieval forgery. They don't back up their claims and explain how against all precedent it was made. They don't even know how to reconcile all the implausibilities that needed to occur for the shroud to be a forgery without looking ridiculous.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:57 am
by RazorSwift
Which goes back to what I said in my last post

This what I love about the extreme skeptics who claim its a medieval forgery. They don't back up their claims and explain how against all precedent it was made. They don't even know how to reconcile all the implausibilities that needed to occur for the shroud to be a forgery without looking ridiculous.
I hear ya, skepticism for the sake of skepticism.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:34 am
by bippy123
Pierson, the thing is that I did step into the lions den many times before but that was under another screen name and in a very hostile environment (let's say 25 atheists for every 2 to 3 theists), and their arguments almost always turned to them denying peer review research and accepting non peer reviewed research that favored their side. And your right, there are some Christians that are skeptics of the shroud, but almost every single time these are the Christians of the Kent Hovind type or some of his followers, who usually bring up the same ole tired argument in which they claim that Jesus was buried in strips and not a strip or that Jesus had a chuck Norris haircut.

I can see that Swimmy has experienced the way that skeptics of the shroud debate against it by checking science and reason at the door.
Swimmy has seen how many times they try to recite Mccrone's research about the shroud being a painting, but mccrone couldn't get one paper to pass peer review on the shroud. When this is brought up skeptics say that peer reviewed research doesn't matter. Mccrone lost it so badly that he started accusing the sturp team of being behind a conspiracy to not allow him to pass peer review in any journal loool. But skeptics won't mention that Ray Rogers was the man that was responsible for bringing mccrone into sturp because of his recommendation . Ray Rogers as a man of science never imagined that Mccrone would abandon the peer review process as well as break protocol with the rest of the sturp team.
Can we guess who was the only atheist on the sturp team. You guessed it, Walter Mccrone.

As I said before I was initially a skeptic of the shroud and attacked it by looking at it through the eyes of a skeptic. The more I dug into it the more I started to believe in it's authenticity. I know almost all the arguments against it because I used them against myself.

I had this same discussion about the shroud with my brother in law who is an atheist . He brought up the 88 c-14 dating and I brought up Ray Rogers , but as soon as I brought up the 3d information , the xray info and other information that pointed towards the resurrection he switched the conversation to investing in copper pennies.
He became a bit uncomfortable because he became an atheist because it allowed him to do whatever he wanted to do.

I've been on vey hostile forms, and like Swimmy said I went through the same exact thing he did.
There aren't many Christians who have truely researched it that would consider it to be a forgery.


What I'm waiting to see are the results from the holographic research in holland. I bet something will come out of there within the next 5 to 10 years but when it happens it's gonna be news of global proportions.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:45 am
by bippy123
RazorSwift wrote:
Which goes back to what I said in my last post

This what I love about the extreme skeptics who claim its a medieval forgery. They don't back up their claims and explain how against all precedent it was made. They don't even know how to reconcile all the implausibilities that needed to occur for the shroud to be a forgery without looking ridiculous.
I hear ya, skepticism for the sake of skepticism.
The shroud is a forgery because THEY SAID SO. SO THERE!!!!!!!!
From what I have seen Stephen Jones has the best shroud site outside of shroud.com
Because of his unbiased, open minded research. Very accurate and he's got over 18 years of research on the shroud.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:51 am
by bippy123
RazorSwift wrote:Can I give a shameless promotion?

This is a great interview of Barrie M. Schwortz:

http://razorswift.wordpress.com/2011/08 ... n-is-real/
Schwortz has the top shroud site hands down. He's been there from the first days of Sturp. Great interview also.
You guys have turned into some pretty good shroud researchers :)

If you guys want another weapon against skeptics that is extremely difficult to debunk check out Stephen Jones article on the iconographs of Christ which begins with the Christ Pantocrator dated from the 6th century which has so many points of congruency with the shroud that the artist renderings had to have come from the shroud.

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... 6.html?m=1
Stephen Jones is rapidly rising as one of the top online shroud blogs.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:15 pm
by Philip
What I'm waiting to see are the results from the holographic research in holland. I bet something will come out of there within the next 5 to 10 years but when it happens it's gonna be news of global proportions.
Bippy, I'm not so sure. There already are lots of powerful evidences for Christianity, but the majority of the global media may well just ignore spectacular Shroud proof or simply dismiss it in some way or another - or by not truly addressing what the evidence might say. Evidences can be powerful to people who are truly open to listening and examining them. But as for determined refusers to belief, NO evidence is powerful enough. And I don't think that it's that somewhere down deep they don't know that God exists (see Romans 1), it's that they have either greatly repressed it, or believe it's true but refuse to deal with it (don't want to change), to repent, embrace and follow Christ.

Again, Jesus did many fantastic miracles in front of people who failed to repent and TRULY believe. He rose from the dead. What more evidence did they need? God brought Israel out of 400+ years of Egyptian bondage without them having to draw the first sword - through amazing miracles, leads them my fire and cloud, parts the Red Sea, drowns Pharaoh's army, and how long is Moses out of camp before the very witnesses and beneficiaries of these powerful evidences are already building a Golden Calf to worship? Not long! Proof of the Shroud being authentic - it will have its limits. People so often have such hard hearts. It's just that the more I've practiced apologetics, I realize that its power is only as strong as the filter that prevents their truths from getting through. An awful lot of people have their spam filters set so as to prevent any relevant truth from getting through.

But Bippy, you just keep up what you're doing, as there are also MANY people who WILL listen. You've done a marvelous job so far!

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:12 pm
by Pierson5
Bippy, didn't Mccrone get his work published in a couple of journals?
Experimental details on the tests carried out by McCrone are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: The Microscope 28, p. 105, 115 (1980); The Microscope 29, p. 19 (1981); Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.
I'm not trying to debate you, as I don't have the time to carefully examine the evidence of both sides (I wish I did). But it does appear he has published his work.
bippy123 wrote:What I'm waiting to see are the results from the holographic research in holland. I bet something will come out of there within the next 5 to 10 years but when it happens it's gonna be news of global proportions.
If it's authentic, what should we expect the results to be? What if it's not authentic? I know you are pretty familiar with the research, just curious. A powerful part of the scientific method is the ability to make accurate predictions.


Swimmy,
Couldn't you just have easily posted that in the other forum? As I said, I don't have time to critically examine the evidence for both sides. I know it's unlikely to convince anyone who is dedicated to one side or the other, but the 3rd party (spectators) who may be on the fence are convincible if the evidence is solid. I would consider myself to be in that group. As of now, I have seen strong arguments from both sides, but in separate places. I may not have time to delve into the nitty gritty research on both sides, but I certainly have time to read the arguments put forth by the people who have. As Sandy said, the evidence goes unchallenged in this thread. It would be interesting (to me anyway) to see who's evidence comes out on top, that's all.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:33 pm
by bippy123
I have never heard of the other 2 journals Pierson and are u sure that these are peer reviewed. I doubt they are.
I see that you brought up the microscope magazine again. We allready talked about that magazine.
Would you care to let us know who the owner of this magazine is?
That's right, non other than good ole non peer reviewed Walter mccrone.

I have no desire to debate anyone who is still bringing up Walter Mccrone's work and if they are doing this then debating them is a complete waste of time since they aren't honest enough to tell you guys on that forum that Mccrone's magazine isn't peer reviewed and he's the owner and editor of the magazine.

Pierson I allready posted this to you in one of my first responses to you here if you don't remember .
The fact that you are currently on the fence about the shroud means that you have changed your position since you were totally convinced it was s fraud a few months back.

My advice is to make time for shroud research my friend. Can you honestly tell me there is a more important subject for you and your souls future ? :)

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:56 pm
by Swimmy
Swimmy,
Couldn't you just have easily posted that in the other forum? As I said, I don't have time to critically examine the evidence for both sides. I know it's unlikely to convince anyone who is dedicated to one side or the other, but the 3rd party (spectators) who may be on the fence are convincible if the evidence is solid. I would consider myself to be in that group. As of now, I have seen strong arguments from both sides, but in separate places. I may not have time to delve into the nitty gritty research on both sides, but I certainly have time to read the arguments put forth by the people who have. As Sandy said, the evidence goes unchallenged in this thread. It would be interesting (to me anyway) to see who's evidence comes out on top, that's all

Pierson, I was a skeptic awhile ago. I didn't believe the shroud was authentic or had anything unique until I did research.So yes it has been challenged. I also put fourth questions earlier in this thread Challenging the claims about the blood.


But the issue with the shroud being a Medieval forgery.... That ship has sailed. Only skeptics with a agenda still hold on to this

LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD. Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:40 am
by bippy123
Pierson as far as the other German link it appears to be nothing but a German version of a skeptics journal. You bothered to research enough to find these links yet you didn't go further.
Go through the debate and you will see how silly the skeptics there made themselves out to be.
They kept calling Ray Rogers a biased pro shroudie even though he is an agnostic who initially believed that the shroud was a forgery from the middle ages who stated that he is a man of science who doesn't believe in miracles or the supernatural lol.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rel ... =1&;page=1

Free republic had a great debate about mccrone with skeptics that was between 2007 and 2008
And in this article they basically called heller and Adler psuedoscientist all though Adler is an expert in the field of blood chemistry and had his research on the shroud blood peer reviewed.

They are a skeptics journal that are defending Mccrone's non peer reviewed work in the microscopic , which mccrone owns and edits against world reknowd blood chemists who did have their work peer reviewed in legit peer reviewed journals. No wonder why educate skeptics don't use mccrones work as evidence. It's actually pseudoscience at best.

From a poster in the free republic
It appears to be the German equivalent of the Skeptical Inquirer.

The article itself is about Richard Feynman's 1974 CalTech Commencement speech on "Cargo Cult Science" The includes the scientists investigating the Shroud of Turin as a prime example of Cargo Cult science in the light of the "impeccable work" done by Walter C. McCrone as reported in their own journal in 1988... and compares them to people like Erich von Daniken, etc. It calls the critics of McCrone psuedoscientists. Feynman did not refer to Shroud studies in his 1974 speech.:

German - "Walter McCrone benutzte möglichst einfache, gut erprobte und adäquate Untersuchungsmethoden, was teils – mangels Medienwirksamkeit – gegen ihn verwendet wurde. Er betrieb Archiv- und Quellenarbeit zu Herkunft, Alter, Stil und Herstellungsweise des Tuches, verglich Proben vom Grabtuch mit eigenem Blut auf Textilien (wobei er deutliche Unterschiede feststellte) und konnte mit polarisations- und elektronenmikroskopischen Methoden Farbpigmente auf dem Grabtuch nachweisen[4]. "
English - "Walter McCrone used simple, well tested and adequate research methods, what was used partly - for lack of medium effectiveness - against him. It operated file and source work to origin, age, style and mode of production. Older, style and mode of production of the cloth, it compared samples of the grave cloth with own blood on textiles (whereby it determined clear differences) and could prove with polarization and electron microscopic methods [found] pigments on the shroud..."
German - "McCrone interpretierte das Grabtuch als mittelalterliche Tuchmalerei; seine Datierung wurde auch durch eine später erfolgte C14 Altersbestimmung bestätigt. "

English - "McCrone interpreted the grave cloth as medieval cloth painting; its dating was [confirmed] also by a [later] C14 age determination [test] taken place.
It goes on to comment that McCrone's simpler techniques were better than the Cargo Cult scientist critics sophisticated "Complex" tests and machines because McCrone proved the Shroud a medieval fake.

All-in-all, I don't think that "Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988" is a peer-reviewed scientific journal...