ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags pareidolia , shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 8th March 2012, 10:55 AM   #81
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 733
Catsmate1 posted this link earlier in the thread, now seems like a good time to re-post it. It is about the claims that the dating process was invalid, and shows just how wrong those claims are.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...om_whole_cloth
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 11:03 AM   #82
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,788
Originally Posted by azzthom View Post
Catsmate1 posted this link earlier in the thread, now seems like a good time to re-post it. It is about the claims that the dating process was invalid, and shows just how wrong those claims are.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...om_whole_cloth
That's a good summary, I posted it myself in the other shroud thread, though it doesn't cover some of the more recent nonsense promulgated by the shroudies.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 11:11 AM   #83
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
That's a good summary, I posted it myself in the other shroud thread, though it doesn't cover some of the more recent nonsense promulgated by the shroudies.
Yes indeed, it even summarises the evidence suggesting the shroud is actually a tempera painting. Most importantly though, it highlights the shortcomings in Rogers' case.
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 11:13 AM   #84
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Jabba, I'd like to ask a different sort of question, if it's okay with you. I am a Christian. As such, as I hope you can understand, I am every bit as concerned over the prospect of people being fooled by a forgery as the average skeptical atheist.

1) Do you agree that if it should turn out that the Shroud of Turin is a forgery, that the act of forgery was blasphemous? And that in that case, do you agree that venerating the Shroud, however well-intentioned, would be mere idolatry? Or do you think some good comes, or could come, from treating a forgery as if it were a genuine miraculous relic?

2) No, those aren't the important questions yet, but they're explaining where I'm coming from, why I'm asking questions in the first place. I understand that you personally believe the Shroud of Turin is not a forgery.

3) The important questions I want to ask are about what if you are correct, and the Shroud genuinely bears an image of the incarnated Christ.

4) In that case, what does it mean? What does the Shroud tell us? What is it for? Why is it important?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Myriad,

- I think you'll find that you and I really are on the same side -- and, it's great to hear from you!

- I've numbered your paragraphs above for easy reference.
- Re #1: Yes. If it we know, or suspect, that the Shroud was created by human hands, we should present it that way. Presenting it as if it were clearly real, when we don't essentially know that it's real, would be blasphemous.
- Re #2: I think that, so far, the great preponderance of evidence supports its authenticity.
- Re #3: I'm not really a Christian, though I would like to be. I'm clearly biased in that direction. The more I think that the Shroud really was Jesus' burial cloth, the more encouraged I am. If science can eventually explain how it came about, and there was nothing supernatural about it, I would still be greatly impressed, and thankful, so long as it appears to be real.
-Re #4: Seeing that this is essentially the only example of such an item, and that it appears to be an imprint of Jesus, it suggests that there was something very special about Jesus even if Science can explain it... Something like that...
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 11:34 AM   #85
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 11,146
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-Re #4: Seeing that this is essentially the only example of such an item, and that it appears to be an imprint of Jesus, it suggests that there was something very special about Jesus even if Science can explain it... Something like that...
Something like what? How "very special" does something have to be in order to leave an imprint through the operation of non-supernatural forces, as you concede? Not all that special, I would imagine.

And if there is indeed only one such object, and if it is non-supernatural and potentially understood by science, and given also the untold hordes of people crucified by the Romans, and the Persians also I believe, over many centuries - what is the probability that this single figure is indeed Jesus, and not someone else?
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 11:43 AM   #86
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Hey Jabba,

Consider all the points you made below but apply them to the Quran instead of the Shroud….. how much credence would you give to the argument presented below….. would you perhaps argue that most of the claptrap given below is crap?

The below are the points you made in defense of the shroud but modified to be about the Quran which Moslims believe is just as much of a miraculous proof of their religion as you seem to think about the shroud.

Can you see how all the points are devoid of any merit? It might be a lot easier for you to recognize the fallacies and unsubstantiated claims in the stuff below once you are disabused of the utter brain numbing bias that you apparently have regarding Jesus.

When posed in terms of something you are not so emotionally biased about you may be able to see how FALLACIOUS and FAULTY the points you make are.

P.S. I modified your posts to make them applicable to the Quran ….
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-Re #4: Seeing that this is essentially the only example of such an item, and that it appears to be the work of Allah, it suggests that there was something very special about Mohammad even if Science can explain it... Something like that...
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 1.3. The few other specific tests that would seem to indicate that the Quran was not authentic can also be explained and discounted.
- 1.5. And then, of the numerous “peer-reviewed” articles on the Quran, very few have argued against authenticity.
- 2.1. The Quran has been scientifically studied for centuries, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 1400 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
- 2.2. We know that the Quran existed in 680 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 680 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.
- 2.3. All relevant details of the Quran fit with Biblical narrative. And where details depart from “tradition” (tradition not always reflecting, or being faithful to, Biblical narrative) they do fit precisely with recent scientific, archaeological and historical discoveries…
- 3.2. Clearly, the most likely explanation of the Quran and apparent amazing composition is that it constitutes the revelation of the words of Allah by the angel Gabriel to Mohammad.
- 3.3. And, in that regard, the probability that this man could be someone other than the historical Prophet of Allah would appear to be extremely low…
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain

Last edited by Leumas; 8th March 2012 at 11:48 AM.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 04:52 PM   #87
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,788
Originally Posted by azzthom View Post
Yes indeed, it even summarises the evidence suggesting the shroud is actually a tempera painting. Most importantly though, it highlights the shortcomings in Rogers' case.
Exactly. Especially his "The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic" lie, the cotton content lies and his omission of McCrone's analysis.
However it doesn't cover other areas, such as the shroud's commonality of style with other medieval artwork, the cloth's history (utter lack of references prior to mid 14th century), the dubious dealings of the
de Charny family, the relic trade in general, the confession of the reputed forger, et cetera.

Joe Nickell has another article, an interview, here where his discusses some aspects of the shroud not covered in the CSICOP article, including the decidedly dodgy pollen allegedly found by Max "Hitler diaries" Frei and cited by some shroud believers.
Walter McCrone's work is available here on his website.

Really I can't see how any intelligent, open-minded, person could think the cloth is anything other than a fake.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 05:04 PM   #88
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,788
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
If it we know, or suspect, that the Shroud was created by human hands, we should present it that way. Presenting it as if it were clearly real, when we don't essentially know that it's real, would be blasphemous.
The shroud is a medieval fake relic. Blasphemy is an irrelevant concept except to believers

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I think that, so far, the great preponderance of evidence supports its authenticity.
Utter nonsense. As you've had explained to you the evidence shows the shroud was created in the in fourteenth century; while believers don't like this fact, and attempt to obfuscate the issue, it is reality.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm not really a Christian, though I would like to be.
Why? Christianity is just as nonsensical as the particular fake relic.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm clearly biased in that direction.
Obviously.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The more I think that the Shroud really was Jesus' burial cloth, the more encouraged I am.
Sorry to disappoint you be it isn't; and (at the risk of going off topic) there's damn all evidence Jesus actually existed.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
If science can eventually explain how it came about, and there was nothing supernatural about it, I would still be greatly impressed, and thankful, so long as it appears to be real.
Science has suggested several methods to create it. Of course the restrictions imposed by the church authorities on examination of the cloth ake it difficult to be sure. McCrone's examination and analysis back in 1979 showed it was painted.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Seeing that this is essentially the only example of such an item, and that it appears to be an imprint of Jesus, it suggests that there was something very special about Jesus even if Science can explain it... Something like that...
There are myriads of fake religious relics and examples of religious artwork; the only thing special about this piece of cloth is the vehemence of some people in denying the reality of its origin.
Just like Jewish history was littered with messianic rabbis and false prophets.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 05:16 PM   #89
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Exactly. Especially his "The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic" lie, the cotton content lies and his omission of McCrone's analysis.
However it doesn't cover other areas, such as the shroud's commonality of style with other medieval artwork, the cloth's history (utter lack of references prior to mid 14th century), the dubious dealings of the
de Charny family, the relic trade in general, the confession of the reputed forger, et cetera.

Joe Nickell has another article, an interview, here where his discusses some aspects of the shroud not covered in the CSICOP article, including the decidedly dodgy pollen allegedly found by Max "Hitler diaries" Frei and cited by some shroud believers.
Walter McCrone's work is available here on his website.

Really I can't see how any intelligent, open-minded, person could think the cloth is anything other than a fake.
Excellent links, much appreciated. I agree entirely, the mental gymnastics performed by the shroudies are truly staggering.
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 11:19 PM   #90
Filippo Lippi
Graduate Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,997
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Thanks Craig -- just the opening I've been waiting for! The following would be my "opening statement." I'll get to some of the specifics in my next post if so desired.

I believe that — Contrary to current popular opinion — the preponderance of evidence clearly supports the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin… (By “authentic,” I mean only that the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus. “Authenticity,” here, does not require that anything “supernatural” be involved.)
Here’s a very brief summary of why I believe that the Shroud is authentic.

1. Despite what appears to be the current popular opinion, real evidence against Shroud of Turin authenticity is actually quite meagre. I.E.,
- 1.1. Enthusiastic skeptics do not realize how much their enthusiasm depends upon “authenticity” (in regard to the Shroud) requiring supernatural intervention — and consequently, do not realize just how meagre their real evidence is.
- 1.2. The only significant evidence against authenticity has been the 1988 carbon-dating which concluded that the 13th century marks the earliest possible origin of the Shroud. However, closer scrutiny since 1988 has indicated that the carbon dating, itself, was invalid…
- 1.3. The few other specific tests that would seem to indicate that the Shroud was not authentic can also be explained and discounted.
- 1.4. Numerous scientists have done “hands on” research on the Shroud itself (or, on “takings” from the Shroud), but aside from the scientists who did the Carbon dating, only one hands-on scientist has argued against authenticity… And closer scrutiny appears to invalidate that scientist’s methodology.
- 1.5. And then, of the numerous “peer-reviewed” articles on the Shroud, only two have argued against authenticity.

2. Whereas, the evidence for authenticity of the Shroud is … ‘incredible.’ I.E,
- 2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
- 2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.
- 2.3. All relevant details of the Shroud fit with Biblical narrative. And where details depart from “tradition” (tradition not always reflecting, or being faithful to, Biblical narrative) they do fit precisely with recent scientific, archaeological and historical discoveries…
- 2.4. The documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century. However, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.

3. Summary of Summaries.
- 3.1. In my estimation, the evidence against authenticity is quite meagre, and the public is quite misled in that regard.
- 3.2. Clearly, the most likely explanation of the image and apparent bloodstains on the Shroud is that they constitute some kind of ancient “imprint” of the body of a human male who happens to have been tortured and crucified precisely as was the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
- 3.3. And, in that regard, the probability that this man could be someone other than the historical Jesus of Nazareth would appear to be extremely low…
- 3.4. Though, we still don’t know how the image was formed…
This post wasn't "copy + pasted" from elsewhere, the magical facsimile occurred when one IE session was wrapped around the original body of text.

Praise jesus

http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43
__________________
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." - Richard Dawkins
Filippo Lippi is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 11:44 PM   #91
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
This post wasn't "copy + pasted" from elsewhere, the magical facsimile occurred when one IE session was wrapped around the original body of text.

Praise jesus

http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43


All of the Jesus Myth is a plagiarism..... that is how Jesus was contrived..... so why not use the same mischief to also prop up the facade.

Christians have been using all sorts of shenanigans since the first scene of the farcical tragedy called Christian history why stop at plagiarism and dissemblance.
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 12:10 AM   #92
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 11,146
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
This post wasn't "copy + pasted" from elsewhere, the magical facsimile occurred when one IE session was wrapped around the original body of text.

Praise jesus

http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43
As a poster to the shrouddebates thread commented: "It’s posts like this that make srufnig so much pleasure". Oh Jabba, you naughty person. No srufnig for you.

And using my post as an "opening" to enable you to dump your cut 'n paste job on us innocents. Shame!
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 12:20 AM   #93
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,299
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
No srufnig for you.
Hahahaha! That's so sigworthy!
__________________
"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 01:01 AM   #94
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 11,146
Jabba

Spot the difference: from your site shrouddebates.com:

From your "Opening Statement" evidently intended for general circulation (as we have learned)
Quote:
By “authentic,” I mean only that the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus. “Authenticity,” here, does not require that anything “supernatural” be involved
Your wording in the "Our Purpose" is subtly different:
Quote:
“Authentic” meaning simply that the Shroud was, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus — at this point, we are not claiming that there is anything supernatural about the Shroud…)
Can you explain this discrepancy? Is it indeed "dissimulation"? Why should your purpose be served by circulating statements which don't correspond to the terms in which that purpose is declared? It reminds me of the Intelligent Design people who adopt "sciency" wording when addressing secular audiences like school boards, but are openly religious about their motivation when trying to screw money from Church congregations.

Two discrepancies, I should have said: I have just noted another, in your definition of "authenticity". Your "the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus" in the "for public consumption" Opening Statement, becomes "the Shroud was, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus" in the Our Purpose. These two utterances have different meanings. Which is the honest one? A person, particularly a non-religious person, might possibly accept the first, but balk at the second, of these definitions of "authenticity". More dissimulation?

But some religious thinkers appear to have believed that dissimulation is justified, if it's in the cause of propagating the Faith. The names of Eusebius and Luther often turn up in this context, so you're in exalted company - if dissimulation is indeed your tactic, which I fervently hope it's not!
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 07:53 AM   #95
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
- Obviously, you guys have posed too many questions and objections in order for me to answer them all in any kind of timely manner – especially when you consider that for each answer I offer, there will most likely be a bunch of new questions and objections…

- Here's what I propose.
- If someone has a suggestion as to which of your previous responses to respond to first, I'll try to comply.
- Otherwise, I’ll pick one for myself…
- Whichever – following your responses to what I say in my first response, someone will have to choose which of your new responses I should respond to next…
- Clearly, one step at a time like that would be quite tedious. But then, slow and forward is still a lot better than fast and circular – the latter being what generally happens when those in a debate try to follow more than one (or perhaps, two) branches at a time.

- So anyway, if someone has a quick suggestion as to which response I should respond to first, I'll try to follow his or her suggestion. Otherwise, I'll choose for myself.

– I really do believe in the possibility of having friendly, and actually effective, debate. I also suspect that developing a method for such debate is ultimately necessary for human survival...

Last edited by Jabba; 9th March 2012 at 07:54 AM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 08:28 AM   #96
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 11,146
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
... So anyway, if someone has a quick suggestion as to which response I should respond to first, I'll try to follow his or her suggestion. Otherwise, I'll choose for myself.

– I really do believe in the possibility of having friendly, and actually effective, debate. I also suspect that developing a method for such debate is ultimately necessary for human survival...
I'm surprised that you didn't just go ahead and answer something. Particularly with human survival potentially at risk.

However, I think debate is not going to be effective in determining anything about the Shroud. Whether it is authentic or not is a matter of fact, not of parliamentary decision-making. Nor is it a question of faith - purely of fact.

This being so, may I make a suggestion? Although there is no reason to dispute the findings of the carbon 14 test, many Shroudies still do so. Now, in the years since the test there have been many improvements in technology, and the test would use only a tiny sample of the Shroud, and would be certain to an even more precise result.

The original sample was taken under the eyes of representatives of the Church, so there is no reason for you to challenge it (except you don't like the result) but since you do, why not start a campaign of persuasion of the Church to give permission to take another one, and perform a more up to date test?

We could debate that if you want.

You could also explain (not debate) the discrepancies in wording I noted above.

But other contributors may have other priorities.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 08:57 AM   #97
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I'm surprised that you didn't just go ahead and answer something. Particularly with human survival potentially at risk.

However, I think debate is not going to be effective in determining anything about the Shroud. Whether it is authentic or not is a matter of fact, not of parliamentary decision-making. Nor is it a question of faith - purely of fact.

This being so, may I make a suggestion? Although there is no reason to dispute the findings of the carbon 14 test, many Shroudies still do so. Now, in the years since the test there have been many improvements in technology, and the test would use only a tiny sample of the Shroud, and would be certain to an even more precise result.

1) The original sample was taken under the eyes of representatives of the Church, so there is no reason for you to challenge it (except you don't like the result) but 2) since you do, why not start a campaign of persuasion of the Church to give permission to take another one, and perform a more up to date test?

We could debate that if you want.

You could also 3) explain (not debate) the discrepancies in wording I noted above.

But other contributors may have other priorities.
Craig,
- Let's try this. You're really giving me three suggestions as to what to debate – as numbered above. You, or someone else, could decide which one of those I should address first.
- This is hard to explain but I'll try anyway. I push so hard for you guys to tell me exactly what to address next because, somehow, that helps me to feel comfortable about spending so much time on one issue. Something like that...
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 09:09 AM   #98
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,357
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This is hard to explain but I'll try anyway. I push so hard for you guys to tell me exactly what to address next because, somehow, that helps me to feel comfortable about spending so much time on one issue. Something like that...
Why don't you tell us what you believe is your one strongest argument, and present the evidence you believe supports it?
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 09:11 AM   #99
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 11,146
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Craig,
- Let's try this. You're really giving me three suggestions as to what to debate – as numbered above. You, or someone else, could decide which one of those I should address first.
- This is hard to explain but I'll try anyway. I push so hard for you guys to tell me exactly what to address next because, somehow, that helps me to feel comfortable about spending so much time on one issue. Something like that...
You may be required to follow such a schema on your own website, with its elaborate and complex procedures. But that has nothing to do with me. Say whatever you want, or remain silent, as you please.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 09:23 AM   #100
Ladewig
Hipster alien
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 20,046
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.
This is more of an assertion of evidence than actual evidence. Could you include a 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 etc explaining exactly what this evidence is? Ideally with citations and references?

Also, you seem to have excluded the 1390 letter to the Vatican. Shouldn't that claim get a number in your list or are you asserting that there is no genuine letter? Lastly, when the bishop says he has evidence for forgery, is he simply mistaken? Is he actually lying? Is he part of a conspiracy? Is he referring to a shroud other than the one currently known as the Shroud of Turin? Something else?


..............................
ETA:
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3. Summary of Summaries.
As Xzibit might say, "Dude, I heard you like summaries so I made summary of your summaries."

Last edited by Ladewig; 9th March 2012 at 09:28 AM.
Ladewig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 09:32 AM   #101
Ladewig
Hipster alien
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 20,046
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
Why don't you tell us what you believe is your one strongest argument, and present the evidence you believe supports it?
seconded.
Ladewig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 09:35 AM   #102
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
Why don't you tell us what you believe is your one strongest argument, and present the evidence you believe supports it?
Pope,
- Actually, in my scheme for effective debate, I allow for two branches to be developed at the same time: each side would have one branch to control.
– Here, you introduce the branch that I would like to control.
– I'm not sure which specific claim houses my strongest argument, but for now– as expressed under number eight on http://shrouddebates.com/.

- We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud.)
– While proof that the blood is real on the shroud would not prove that the shroud is authentic, it would be a significant step in the right direction.
- You can see my more specific claims about blood on that same page.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 09:37 AM   #103
realpaladin
Master Poster
 
realpaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,522
Jabba... I am using the people's wisdom to call it a fake by uttering this unkillable internet meme:

Pics or it didn't happen!


Jabba, all this carbon dating etc. does not mean a thing until we have a chain of transfers that we can verify all the way back to just after the salesman at Golgotha handed it over to one in the company of people that were to cover him in it.

Anything less makes that hole shroud thingy conjecture with sentences like 'may have been...' and 'could possibly be...'.

If you want to prove it has anything to do with Jesus, then follow the 'papertrail'.

We can do all that without any spiritual stuff at all.
__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi
"But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin
---
Doron Shadmi's errors (9feb14): http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=3584

Last edited by realpaladin; 9th March 2012 at 09:38 AM. Reason: added bolding because I meant to bolden it for comic effect
realpaladin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 10:35 AM   #104
IanS
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,728
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- We know that the shroud ... etc. ... – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud.)

Unless the above is published in a genuine science research Journal, and verified there by reputable scientists who are not members of some religious shroud group, then the above claims are worthless ...

... where are these results published?

There is no remaining argument about the shroud. The arguments ended in 1988 when radiocarbon dating conclusively showed that that shroud almost certainly dates from circa.1260AD to 1390AD.

That result stands until anyone can produce significantly different dates using genuine objective accurate and independent modern scientific methods, such as improved radiocarbon dating.

Until then the arguments are at an end. And they cannot be brought back from the dead by an endless stream of unsubstantiated self-interested religious objections.
IanS is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 11:18 AM   #105
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,788
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Craig,
- Let's try this. You're really giving me three suggestions as to what to debate – as numbered above. You, or someone else, could decide which one of those I should address first.
- This is hard to explain but I'll try anyway. I push so hard for you guys to tell me exactly what to address next because, somehow, that helps me to feel comfortable about spending so much time on one issue. Something like that...
Why not stop wasting time with silly and unnecessary procedural details and state why you believe that the evidence for the medieval origin of the shroud isn't correct. If you really want to debate this matter, rather than just state your opinions as if they were facts, you could try addressing:
  • the 14C dating
  • the textile analysis
  • the confession of the alleged forger
  • the contemporary denunciation of the shroud as a fake, e.g. Henry of Poitiers
  • the lack of any evidence of the shroud's existence before the mid fourteenth century
  • the stylistic similarity to other religious artworks from that period
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 11:26 AM   #106
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,788
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
<some snipage of nonsense>
- We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud.)
We await you showing some evidence of these assertions; specifically what are these supposed "details".
Frankly, given the ease of reproduction of the shroud in various tests, using fourteenth century materials and methods, I consider this assertion to be nonsense.
I await your evidence.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
– While proof that the blood is real on the shroud would not prove that the shroud is authentic, it would be a significant step in the right direction.
There is no blood on the shroud, just paint.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
You can see my more specific claims about blood on that same page.
You have yet to show that there is any evidence whatever of blood on the shroud; repeated testing shows no sign of blood, just pigment.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 11:29 AM   #107
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,788
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Unless the above is published in a genuine science research Journal, and verified there by reputable scientists who are not members of some religious shroud group, then the above claims are worthless ...

... where are these results published?

There is no remaining argument about the shroud. The arguments ended in 1988 when radiocarbon dating conclusively showed that that shroud almost certainly dates from circa.1260AD to 1390AD.

That result stands until anyone can produce significantly different dates using genuine objective accurate and independent modern scientific methods, such as improved radiocarbon dating.

Until then the arguments are at an end. And they cannot be brought back from the dead by an endless stream of unsubstantiated self-interested religious objections.
McCrone's analysis more than thirty years ago showed there was no sign of blood, just various pigments. Naturally this annoys the shroudies.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 11:50 AM   #108
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 11,146
In December 2009 it was reported that archaeologists had discovered in a Jerusalem tomb the remains of a real shroud from the early 1st century CE. Guess what? It in no way resembles the Turin confection. As reported in National Geographic:
Quote:
The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...salem-leprosy/
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 01:23 PM   #109
Ladewig
Hipster alien
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 20,046
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Unless the above is published in a genuine science research Journal, and verified there by reputable scientists who are not members of some religious shroud group, then the above claims are worthless ...

... where are these results published?
Right there.

That's it, Jabba.

The only format or procedural process that anyone here is interested in is valid citations pointing to objective studies published in established, peer-reviewed journals. If you don't have that then you cannot step onto the playing field.

If I may be allowed to mix metaphors, you've already told us what great cards you have in your hand. Now we are at the part of the game when the cards are actually laid on the table. We have laid our cards on the table - you need to lay your cards on the table.

I would like to close with two pieces of friendly advice.
1) Please take IanS's post seriously. If you do not address it, then you will find more and more posters in this thread making five word posts: Put up or shut up.
2) If you believe you are not being treated with the same respect that other posters are treated, then I suggest you immediately report all Forum Membership Rule violations.
Ladewig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 02:49 PM   #110
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,900
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Re #3: I'm not really a Christian, though I would like to be. I'm clearly biased in that direction. The more I think that the Shroud really was Jesus' burial cloth, the more encouraged I am. If science can eventually explain how it came about, and there was nothing supernatural about it, I would still be greatly impressed, and thankful, so long as it appears to be real.

I don't understand what you mean by the Shroud being both real (not a forgery), and not supernatural. Do you mean something like, Jesus had weird mutant perspiration that stained cloth? Or that Jesus deliberately created the image by physical means, like a chemist?

Quote:
-Re #4: Seeing that this is essentially the only example of such an item, and that it appears to be an imprint of Jesus, it suggests that there was something very special about Jesus even if Science can explain it... Something like that...

Well, Christians already believe that there was something very special about Jesus. But the idea that the something special was some characteristic of his physical body is specifically contrary to the beliefs of every denomination I'm familiar with. A rather important aspect of the whole narrative is that Jesus was incarnated as a man. And that His miracles were supernatural acts of God, not alchemy or Mr. Wizard science tricks.

I just don't see what the Shroud of Turin would add to the story or to anyone's understanding of it, even if it were real.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
Actually, most of my friends are pretty smart. So if they all jumped off a bridge I'd at least try to find out if they had a good reason.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 09:36 PM   #111
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,753
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Thanks Craig -- just the opening I've been waiting for! The following would be my "opening statement." I'll get to some of the specifics in my next post if so desired.

I believe that — Contrary to current popular opinion — the preponderance of evidence clearly supports the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin… (By “authentic,” I mean only that the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus. “Authenticity,” here, does not require that anything “supernatural” be involved.)
Here’s a very brief summary of why I believe that the Shroud is authentic.

1. Despite what appears to be the current popular opinion, real evidence against Shroud of Turin authenticity is actually quite meagre. I.E.,
- 1.1. Enthusiastic skeptics do not realize how much their enthusiasm depends upon “authenticity” (in regard to the Shroud) requiring supernatural intervention — and consequently, do not realize just how meagre their real evidence is.
- 1.2. The only significant evidence against authenticity has been the 1988 carbon-dating which concluded that the 13th century marks the earliest possible origin of the Shroud. However, closer scrutiny since 1988 has indicated that the carbon dating, itself, was invalid…
- 1.3. The few other specific tests that would seem to indicate that the Shroud was not authentic can also be explained and discounted.
- 1.4. Numerous scientists have done “hands on” research on the Shroud itself (or, on “takings” from the Shroud), but aside from the scientists who did the Carbon dating, only one hands-on scientist has argued against authenticity… And closer scrutiny appears to invalidate that scientist’s methodology.
- 1.5. And then, of the numerous “peer-reviewed” articles on the Shroud, only two have argued against authenticity.

2. Whereas, the evidence for authenticity of the Shroud is … ‘incredible.’ I.E,
- 2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
- 2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.
- 2.3. All relevant details of the Shroud fit with Biblical narrative. And where details depart from “tradition” (tradition not always reflecting, or being faithful to, Biblical narrative) they do fit precisely with recent scientific, archaeological and historical discoveries…
- 2.4. The documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century. However, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.

3. Summary of Summaries.
- 3.1. In my estimation, the evidence against authenticity is quite meagre, and the public is quite misled in that regard.
- 3.2. Clearly, the most likely explanation of the image and apparent bloodstains on the Shroud is that they constitute some kind of ancient “imprint” of the body of a human male who happens to have been tortured and crucified precisely as was the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
- 3.3. And, in that regard, the probability that this man could be someone other than the historical Jesus of Nazareth would appear to be extremely low…
- 3.4. Though, we still don’t know how the image was formed…
Heard the same argument on the bigfoot thread.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 09:40 PM   #112
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,753
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Jabba, I'd like to ask a different sort of question, if it's okay with you. I am a Christian. As such, as I hope you can understand, I am every bit as concerned over the prospect of people being fooled by a forgery as the average skeptical atheist.

Do you agree that if it should turn out that the Shroud of Turin is a forgery, that the act of forgery was blasphemous? And that in that case, do you agree that venerating the Shroud, however well-intentioned, would be mere idolatry? Or do you think some good comes, or could come, from treating a forgery as if it were a genuine miraculous relic?

No, those aren't the important questions yet, but they're explaining where I'm coming from, why I'm asking questions in the first place. I understand that you personally believe the Shroud of Turin is not a forgery.

The important questions I want to ask are about what if you are correct, and the Shroud genuinely bears an image of the incarnated Christ.

In that case, what does it mean? What does the Shroud tell us? What is it for? Why is it important?

Respectfully,
Myriad
It proves the resurrection.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 09:46 PM   #113
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,753
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
OK, but was he more than 5 feet 1 inch tall? That's what people really want to know. Well, some people anyway.
He was exactly as tall as he needed to be at all times.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 10:13 PM   #114
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 11,146
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
It proves the resurrection.
An image of a person proves that the person was dead and then became alive again? How does that follow from the data?
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2012, 12:14 AM   #115
Wolrab
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,520
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
An image of a person proves that the person was dead and then became alive again.? How does that follow from the data?
It's really as simple as that.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2012, 12:50 AM   #116
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,679
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Why not stop wasting time with silly and unnecessary procedural details and state why you believe that the evidence for the medieval origin of the shroud isn't correct. If you really want to debate this matter, rather than just state your opinions as if they were facts, you could try addressing:
  • the 14C dating
  • the textile analysis
  • the confession of the alleged forger
  • the contemporary denunciation of the shroud as a fake, e.g. Henry of Poitiers
  • the lack of any evidence of the shroud's existence before the mid fourteenth century
  • the stylistic similarity to other religious artworks from that period
Jabba why don't you address this ? That seems a relative simple bullet point list. Also keep in mind as pointed below that a shroud found from 1th century CE does not look at all in fabrication like the Turin Shroud, and the technic of woving in the shroud were not available at the 1th Century CE.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2012, 02:53 AM   #117
IanS
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,728
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Unless the above is published in a genuine science research Journal, and verified there by reputable scientists who are not members of some religious shroud group, then the above claims are worthless ...

... where are these results published?

There is no remaining argument about the shroud. The arguments ended in 1988 when radiocarbon dating conclusively showed that that shroud almost certainly dates from circa.1260AD to 1390AD.

That result stands until anyone can produce significantly different dates using genuine objective accurate and independent modern scientific methods, such as improved radiocarbon dating.

Until then the arguments are at an end. And they cannot be brought back from the dead by an endless stream of unsubstantiated self-interested religious objections.
McCrone's analysis more than thirty years ago showed there was no sign of blood, just various pigments. Naturally this annoys the shroudies.

Well also, it would not matter if there was real blood on the shroud.

Since the shroud has been in existence for around 700 years, during which time it's been handled by countless people, it would hardly be a surprise if there are traces of all sorts of human debris on it.

So claims like that, i.e. claims about blood spots or about the image not being reproducible, or whether the image is anatomically correct, or whether certain types of pollen grain are on the cloth etc., are all far too subjective, unscientific, and just no longer valid in light of the radiocarbon dates.

If the Vatican and the various Shroud Groups want to overturn the 1988 radiocarbon results, then the only scientifically credible way to do that is to perform either more radiocarbon tests, or else to perform even more advanced more powerful scientifically independent tests.
IanS is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2012, 05:20 AM   #118
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
- Good morning!

- Just to address a somewhat general objection -- I didn't mean my claims to be evidence. I don't know the right terminology, but I was trying to provide a sort of “hierarchy of claims,” in the attempt to better convey my overall argument… Something like a lawyer's “brief.”
- I started out with my broadest claim -- something to the effect that the great preponderance of evidence supports Shroud authenticity. Then, I gave a summary of more specific claims supportive of that broadest claim. Then, I selected one of those more specific claims, and provided a set of the underlying, and "even more specific," claims supportive of that “more specific” claim… I'm sure that is now clear…

- Anyway, I will now try to provide evidence for one of the “even more specific” claims. I choose to start with the evidence for real blood.
– So, this will be the side of this conversation that I will steer. Here, you guys will provide whatever questions and comments you wish, but I will decide which of those is answered first.

– Ideally, you guys will decide which question or comment to answer first in the conversation that you steer. But, since there are several of you, I will probably have to choose the specific topic among those suggested.
– Here, I suspect that if you guys could vote, carbon dating would win. So, in this side of the conversation, I will try to provide the evidence for invalidity of the carbon dating.

- Talk to you soon.

Last edited by Jabba; 10th March 2012 at 05:22 AM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2012, 07:21 AM   #119
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 11,146
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Good morning!

- Just to address a somewhat general objection -- I didn't mean my claims to be evidence. I don't know the right terminology, but I was trying to provide a sort of “hierarchy of claims,” in the attempt to better convey my overall argument… Something like a lawyer's “brief.”
- I started out with my broadest claim -- something to the effect that the great preponderance of evidence supports Shroud authenticity. Then, I gave a summary of more specific claims supportive of that broadest claim. Then, I selected one of those more specific claims, and provided a set of the underlying, and "even more specific," claims supportive of that “more specific” claim… I'm sure that is now clear…

- Anyway, I will now try to provide evidence for one of the “even more specific” claims. I choose to start with the evidence for real blood.
– So, this will be the side of this conversation that I will steer. Here, you guys will provide whatever questions and comments you wish, but I will decide which of those is answered first.

– Ideally, you guys will decide which question or comment to answer first in the conversation that you steer. But, since there are several of you, I will probably have to choose the specific topic among those suggested.
– Here, I suspect that if you guys could vote, carbon dating would win. So, in this side of the conversation, I will try to provide the evidence for invalidity of the carbon dating.

- Talk to you soon.
I don't think I've ever engaged in a discourse of this kind before. It's like discussing things with a momomaniac, rigidly-programmed computer. This hierarchical specificity of claims is of no interest to me whatsoever. What I think you should provide is the evidence, or sources of information which we can consult, to justify your belief in the authenticity of the shroud in the face of the contrary evidence listed above, and ignore the bizarre procedures set down in your shrouddebate forum.

As to your forum: I have asked why the wording of your "Our Purpose" page is different from the Opening Statement, the latter being more "ecumenical". You may answer that, if you can do so without passing the answer through your weird construction of claims and specificities. Rather than be subjected to any more of that, I will forgo any response from you at all.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2012, 08:33 AM   #120
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
Carbon Dating

The following list of articles re the carbon dating is long, but could be much longer. While waiting for your responses, I’ll try to track down all “peer-reviewed” articles re the carbon dating. I know that there isn’t very many.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-the-Shr...ory&id=3110899, Breault
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, Marino and Prior
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/in...-Vanililin.htm, Vanillin
http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf, Ray Rogers
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...m_whole_cloth/, Joe Nickell
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index0.html, Porter
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/vanhaelst8.pdf, Statistics
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.