Knights Templar hid the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican

Times Online ^ | 04/05/2009 | Richard Owen

[csense]

bkmk

[annalex]

With the history of partizan bias displayed by the testrers so far, I would hope that the Church does not allow every nick dick and harry to “test” the Shroud. I have much greater trust in the Church than in the habitual liars in the scientific community. Just look at the climatologists. I would not buy a used car from these shysters.

The chain of custody is obviously not clear, but the fact that the techological process that had produced the shroud has not been identified, and every indication is that it is from pre-medieval Palestine and displays the pathologies of the death by flogging and crucifixion, and burial according to the Jewish custom of the time convince me.

That another carbon dating will show some spectrum outside of 1 c would not prove anything, on the other hand, precisely because the chain of custody is not known. The first time they were looking at soot from a fire that occurred in the Middle Ages. Next time it will be something else like that. It is not terribly relevant what carbon dating will find.

[Wpin]

“Here’s my question, pal: do you understand the difference between insults and logical arguments? Do you see any of the latter here?”

Well the answer is...your entire argument is a big insult to Christians...you present illogical crap and try to carry an air of scientific reasoning when all it is...is baloney. I really do not know what else to say to you. You obviously were trying to be hurtful to the Christians here, indeed quite arrogantly. Perhaps look at your posts and look at the ridiculous manner in which you have behaved. Then, come back apologize to those you hurt and we will all be friends again... :)

[Swordmaker]

But I did NOT misrepresent your arguments. I said -- correctly, accurately and truthfully -- that you have carefully selected your data, and that most studies of the Shroud image's height show a wider range -- up to 6'2".

Yes, I have "carefully selected" my arguments. I selected them to only include those based on science.

Science works by building on and improving what has done before, or by falsifying and superseding the work that went before it. It does not work by finding a consensus and averaging previous erroneous opinions.

In this instance accurate data was collected and falsified the previous hypotheses and superseded their conclusions. The conclusions of previous researchers should therefore be discarded and no longer be considered as having any value in the discussion, unless you can show a legitimate reason to do so.

You seem to think that all arguments should be given equal weight and keep including such conclusions as those of Picknett and Prince (1994) for example along with truly qualified conclusions... and then average their conclusions with the others. Science does not work that way... by consensus. Even Isobel's work was not "science."

Professor Lorenzo Ferri is a professor of ART, a sculptor... not a scientist. He was engaged by the Vatican to created a three dimensional lifesize representation of the image on the Shroud based on his impressions from observations and photographs. His c.1960s conclusion of the height of the figure is subjective and not definitive and is based on measurement estimates from previous work done by Gedda, which I have already addressed. Art is interpretive, and is not based on exact measurements.

I have attended conferences where the late Dr. Robert Bucklin, M.D. (1916-2001), presented papers on the forensic examinations of the Shroud... and the amusing thing is that when he spoke about the height of the man on the Shroud he quoted Isobel Piczek's figures of 5' 10" to 5' 11 1/2" for the height... making her quotation of his estimate quite circular!

Bucklin was a stickler for accuracy in his work and reporting. At the time he made those comments, that was the best data available. If Bucklin had actually done a "study" of the subject, he would have said so and spoken AS an expert in his field of Forensic Pathology on which he usually was speaking when he was talking about the Shroud, giving data on how he came to that conclusion. That the height was not part of the forensics which he addressed, as she mentions in her citation, speaks volumes that it was not part of an actual study he did. Needless to say, Dr. Bucklin's comments predated the work of Fanti, Marinelli, et al, and do not represent the current knowledge on the subject, which I am sure he would have acknowledged in his talks had he lived to be aware of them or been well enough to speak at conferences in the two years after Fanti did their research and published their definitive findings in 1999.

Finally, since Gedda, only Fanti, Marinelli, et al, have published a scientific paper that is capable of replication and testing, that is objective, with a clear explanation of their methods and demonstrations of their approach, and their work can be duplicated by other scientists to see if their conclusions are reasonable. It has been tested by peer-review and undergone scrutiny... something the others have not. So far, it has not been falsified, as have Piczek's, Gedda's, Picknett's and Prince's idiotic 6'8", and many others who have really not done much more than look and estimate from eyeball.

As to the "marginal" Jew's skeletons... are you maintaining that they were NOT buried? What happened to them? Did they just melt away, dissolve to dust, leaving only the tallest, best fed examples? I doubt it. Were their separate cemeteries for poor Jews throughout Israel for poor Jews that have somehow gone undiscovered while only the well fed Jews cemeteries have been discovered? With the Talmud being quoted as saying that the ideal height for a male Jew is 4 ells (176 cm — 5' 9.3"), even 6 feet is just within one sigma of normal height distribution with that as the mean.

Of course, I am no artist, but it seems to me that any artist worth his or her salt could easily take that "clownish picture" and convert it into one which looks as heroic or saintly as you might like. The important point would be to retain its "Semetic appearance." The question then remains: does the Shroud image look more Semitic or is it as "Curto ...describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic." ".

Are you willing to argue that an Iranian - Persian - Indo-European - "Aryan" Jesus is even possible? I'm not.

Whow, you certainly do like to latch onto outlying data points to use to argue your points, don't you?

. Curto is such an outlying datum... one commented that the image looks more Iranian that Semitic... and you impute to me the willing to argue that Jesus is "Aryan?" Good Grief. Are you assuming a purity of breed to the Jews of Israel of the First Century, or do you admit the possibility that the blood lines might, just might, have been mixed down through the ages through sojourns in Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, and a few wanderings in the Wildernesses... and the visits of the milkman while Moishe was out tending the flocks?

[Thumper1960]

Constantinople?

There was no Constantinople until 330 AD.

[Swordmaker]

So, the real problem is not technology, it's the Church not allowing more tests. This naturally raises suspicions that the Church might be afraid of results.

Not afraid, per se... but they do not want to destroy any more of the Shroud at this time. I think they are waiting for more maturity in the C-14 science before allowing it again. They were very dismayed at the sheer glee displayed by the so-called dispassionate scientists that announced the results from the 1988 tests... and the cavalier attitude they took to the sampling, discarding the agreed sampling protocols at the last minute (although I have to admit that the local See was complicit in that cluster f**k, as well).

Unfortunately, the 2002 "restoration" saturated the Shroud's reliquary with an pesticidal chemical that exudes a carbon pollutant that may contaminate the Shroud itself. There may be a saving grace to that "restoration:" the only source of uncontaminated test material are those carbonized linen fibers that were clipped away by that idiot Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, the so called textile expert, who thought the Shroud was still burning(!) from the 1532 fire, that were subsequently sealed in glass vials for safekeeping. Those are available and C-14 testing of them can do no further damage to the Shroud if they are destroyed in testing. All we can do is keep petitioning the Vatican for permission to test those clippings.

[BroJoeK]

"I would hope that the Church does not allow every nick dick and harry to “test” the Shroud."

Of course, there are relatively simple solutions to the problems you raise. So let me suggest just a few.

1. The Church has any number of ancient articles for which the dates are well known. And there are many labs around the world capable of doing state-of-the-art carbon 14 testing. So let the Church submit known articles to various labs, and see which ones produce the most accurate results.

2. Your charge that ALL scientists are just a bunch of lying athiests is not 100% true. Many scientists are devout Christians, indeed devout Catholics. So it would be a simple matter for the Church to insist that recognized Catholic scientists are allowed to review every single step in the process of carbon 14 dating.

3. Finally, we have to recognize that various tests are going to produce different results. The prime example of this so far is the Shroud repair work selected and dated to the middle ages. Other sections of the Shroud could well yield other dates, and possibly no part may yield a 1st century date, all for reasons we may not yet understand. Nevertheless, these dates would still tell us a great deal about what has happened to the Shroud over millenia. And no doubt lead to other interesting questions.

[BroJoeK]

"you present illogical crap and try to carry an air of scientific reasoning when all it is...is baloney.... You obviously were trying to be hurtful to the Christians here, indeed quite arrogantly. "

I'll ask again: can you quote even ONE example of this?

We should also note, this article is NOT in a "religion" forum, but rather "Culture/Society" and "News/Current Events."
That means we do NOT have to check our reasoning at the door and just accept on FAITH whatever you guys insist is necessarily true.

So if that is truly what you want to see, then let me suggest you stick to the "religion" forum, pal.
Why go to a place where you are just going to get your feelings hurt? ;-)

[annalex]

See the factual reply by Swordmaker just above.

In principle, of course, there is no objection to non-destructive testing with mature technology by honest people, and at such time that these three conditions obtain, I am sure the Church will agree to testing.

Till such time, to portray the Church as putting obstacles in the way of useful research is slanderous.

[BroJoeK]

Swordmaker: "Yes, I have "carefully selected" my arguments. I selected them to only include those based on science."

I'm glad we agree that I did not "misrepresent" you.

Swordmaker: "You seem to think that all arguments should be given equal weight and keep including such conclusions as those of Picknett and Prince (1994) for example along with truly qualified conclusions... and then average their conclusions with the others. Science does not work that way... by consensus. Even Isobel's work was not "science." "

Another false charge. I am simply quoting data from the Shroud of Turin and Shroud of Turin for Journalists websites.

As near as I can tell, both of these sites (if they are even two different sites) are 100% Shroud-friendly. So I have no reason to think they might "spin the truth" AGAINST the Shroud.

These sites list as credible a total of six different "studies" (however that term is defined), including the one you say is valid, but they actually seem to give preference to the judgement of Isabel Piczek. Why, I don't know of course, but it sort of suggests to me that some people who have studied the Shroud in great depth do not necessarily agree that the published work of Fanti et al is NECESSARILY the final word on the subject.

Going on to the question of "marginal Jews." Your referring to the original Popular Mechanics article from 2002 spurred me to read the article & related. They make a number of interesting claims, including:

1 Corinthians 11:14: "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..."

"FILLON: In First Corinthians, Paul writes that any man that wears long hair would be disgraceful. Paul would not have written that if he knew that Jesus had long hair."

"The historic record also resolved the issue of Jesus's height. From an analysis of skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds. Since Jesus worked outdoors as a carpenter until he was about 30 years old, it is reasonable to assume he was more muscular and physically fit than westernized portraits suggest. His face was probably weather-beaten, which would have made him appear older, as well"

"Neave emphasizes that his re-creation is simply that of an adult man who lived in the same place and at the same time as Jesus. As might well be expected, not everyone agrees. Forensic depictions are not an exact science, cautions Alison Galloway, professor of anthropology at the University of California in Santa Cruz. The details in a face follow the soft tissue above the muscle, and it is here where forensic artists differ widely in technique...

"Long hair and narrow features mark the Shroud of Turin as a fraud."

swordmaker: "As to the "marginal" Jew's skeletons... are you maintaining that they were NOT buried?"

Of course not, but there were large and very expensive tombs deep-cut into the bedrock, where bones were interred in hand-carved osuaries, which remained hidden and undesturbed for thousands of years. More common burials were much less expensive, shallower-cut and subject to the ravages of time, tomb-robbers, etc.

But we must also note the Popular Mechanics article comment saying precisely what you deny: that skeletal studies reveal an average height of not 5'10" but 5'1".

What this tells me is there must have been more than ONE study, and their results did not necessarily agree. It means there must be room for disagreement, not only about scientific methodology, but also about just what defines the "average" height.

Swordmaker: "Curto is such an outlying datum... one commented that the image looks more Iranian that Semitic."

To ME the image looks more Indo-European than Semitic. So I would not consider Curto "such an outlying datum." But it's curious you would mention Curto at all, since he does not support your opinions. And do so without offering solid scientific evidence that Curto is necessarily wrong.

Swordmaker: "Are you assuming a purity of breed to the Jews of Israel of the First Century, or do you admit the possibility that the blood lines might, just might, have been mixed down through the ages through sojourns in Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, and a few wanderings in the Wildernesses... and the visits of the milkman while Moishe was out tending the flocks?"

Ha! What a question! ;-)

Well, let's be serious here. The New Testament is very very emphatic on the point of Jesus' ancestry. This is not something you can joke about, for obvious theological reason. Jesus was descended from Adam, the original sinner, through a line of leaders and kings of Israel. As such, he could rightfully claim to be "the King of the Jews." As far as I know, none of those enumerated ancestors was a non-Hebrew-Israelite-Jew.

For what it's worth, imho, the bottom line comes down to this: was Jesus a typically short "marginal Jew," or was he, as the Shroud image portrays, relatively tall and kingly, hardly even Semitic looking? And I assert that if the latter is true, then our current understandings of Jesus boyhood economic circumstances needs to be rethought.

[BroJoeK]

"there is no objection to non-destructive testing with mature technology by honest people"

Carbon 14 testing is, by it's very nature, destructive. So the issue is, how much destruction is truly necessary?

My understanding is that over the years the amount of material needed has been greatly reduced. Is it today small enough so the Church could allow carefully carefully selected samples to be tested? I don't know, but would be most curious to learn the results.

Yes, I suspect the results would not be conclusive. But they might just rule out some possibilities, and that would be progress.

"Till such time, to portray the Church as putting obstacles in the way of useful research is slanderous."

Of course the Church puts "obstacles" in the way -- you have just listed some.
The question is whether those "obstacles" are reasonable and appropriate?
Naturally, you insist they are, and after the fiasco created by the previous carbon 14 tests, anyone can understand the Church's reluctance to rush into another one.

On the other hand, there comes a time when reason must overcome fear.
Imagine the operators of a carbon-14 testing lab -- would it not be the ultimate achievement to have met the Church's strict requirements and proposed a testing regime acceptable to all?

[BroJoeK]

"Not afraid, per se... but they do not want to destroy any more of the Shroud at this time. I think they are waiting for more maturity in the C-14 science before allowing it again..."

Sorry, I had not read this post before responding to annalex.

It has long seemed incredible to me how poorly the previous effort was done, with the resulting almost inexcusable fiasco. No one would ask for a repeat performance.

And in the Church's long perspective, a century is a mere moment in time. Still, it would be nice to learn in this life what will be immediately obvious in the next... ;-)

[aruanan]

There was no Constantinople until 330 AD.

Okay, the City-Formerly-Known-as-Byzantium that antedated the City-Renamed-as-Constantinople that later became the City-Conquered-by-Muslims-and-Known-as-Istanbul.

[Wpin]

“I’ll ask again: can you quote even ONE example of this?”

I have repeatedly mentioned your ridiculous posts, like the average height of medieval knights...the look of a jew from 1 AD, etc. etc.

Irregardless of what forum you present such nonsense in, you are insulting and trying to hurt good Christians with you distortions and nonsense. Now you are showing everyone following this thread how true that is.

BTW, I am not your pal...I laugh at you and your stupidity. I am playing you along so others get to see how utterly foolish you are.

Now chump, let me ask you something...What DNA genetic traits would God have? Do you think God’s “DNA” or Mary’s would be dominant? Do you think there is proof that God looks like the average Jew with the average height of Jews during that time period?

Do you realize that not all ancient peoples were shorter than modern versions of the same ethnic group? Greeks for example were taller during the bronze age than present...

[Thumper1960]

Okay, the City-Formerly-Known-as-Byzantium that antedated the City-Renamed-as-Constantinople that later became the City-Conquered-by-Muslims-and-Known-as-Istanbul.

LOLOL

[csense]

bkmk

[annalex]

I don’t think any destructive testing is necessary. It may create a sensation and advance science, but as far as the Church is concerned, this is frivolous. On one hand, should the carbon dating point to 1c, the sceptics would just move the goalpost and argue that it is a 1c man indeed, but what makes him Jesus? Should it not, you got another contaminated sample, and quite possible they are all contaminated, with soot particles at the very least.

The real issue is the physical process that produced the Shroud.

[csense]

To ME the image looks more Indo-European than Semitic.

Take a good look at the picture. The face isn't as long and slender as it may first appear, especially since the outline of the face is not defined at all. The elements of the face that are defined though, are not inconsistent with Semitic lineage as far as I'm concerned...especially the nose. Now, whether there was any damage to the face during the execution process, I don't know, but it's certainly something you might have to factor in.

[BroJoeK]

wpin from #183 "you present illogical crap and try to carry an air of scientific reasoning when all it is...is baloney.... "

BJK from #188: "I’ll ask again: can you quote even ONE example of this?"

wpin from #194: "I have repeatedly mentioned your ridiculous posts, like the average height of medieval knights...the look of a jew from 1 AD, etc. etc."

Here's how it works, "pal": you find a quote from me, copy and paste it into your comment, clearly identifying it as my words.
Then you tell us exactly what you think is wrong with my argument.
Leave out all the "silly man" nonsense, since that adds nothing to your IQ.
Just tell us what you disagree with, and why.

Then I will respond as politely and factually as I know how to. You naturally don't have to agree with my arguments, but I'll say it again, insulting me does not increase your stature.

Understood? :-)

[BroJoeK]

"On one hand, should the carbon dating point to 1c, the sceptics would just move the goalpost and argue that it is a 1c man indeed, but what makes him Jesus? "

Of course, there's no way the Shroud's authenticity can be "proved," since even if carbon-14 tests showed it to be 1st century, how does that make the figure Jesus?

On the other hand, it could be "disproved," if reliable tests showed some other time period. Are such tests even possible, given all the circumstances? I don't know, perhaps not today.

But I'd suppose that the challenge of finding a reliable method for testing the Shroud would work on the imaginations of various lab operators. And in due time, one or more will come up with a set of answers that could succeed.

Until that day, the Church has every right to insist on "no more nonsense." After that day, it will need to ask itself does it really want to risk seeing the Shroud disproved?