Since you have elected to call me a liar in post 290, my attitude is that I am no longer going to respond to your cut and paste articles from Geologist Steven D. Schafersman who claims to be both the Science Consultant and the Administrator of the The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website... which is merely his own vanity site. How can he be a consultant to himself? None of his rebuttal articles have been submitted to peer review. Are you Schafersman, Jack? I suspect you might be.
His primary method of argument is to declare anyone who happens to disagree with him and McCrone as Psuedoscientists and claim that the real problem is the editors of peer-reviewed journals accepting "pseudoscience" articles.
His rebuttal of the Roger's peer-reviewed determination that the 1988 C14 samples were invalid is merely to throw everything he can think of, without citation of proof, against the wall to see what might stick. Some of his rebuttal facts are made up... on the spur of the moment it seems.
The last refuge of those who have no facts is to attack the opponent's character, competence, or motives... in other words, ad hominem... such as you did when you accused me of being mendacious.
An example of Schafersman's Ad hominem attack style is here:
"Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud)[This is actually false. Many of the 26 scientists recruited to STURP were skeptics, several Jewish, some agnostics, and some even Atheists... like the late Walter C. McCrone] and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s. He accepts all the shoddy work [only his characterization.] that STURP passed off as science two and three decades ago. As is well known, STURP's analyses on image formation, identity of the blood, sticky tape pollen, and history were hopelessly incompetent and unscientific [Ad hominem attack], despite their claims and posturing to be rigorously scientific. There is no real blood of any kind on the Shroud. Both the image and "blood" were applied by an artist. These facts were conclusively proved beyond even a shadow of doubt by microscopic chemist Walter McCrone[Who consistently refused to submit his work to peer-reviewed journals.], whose microscopic analysis revealed the presence of abundant iron oxide["The STURP microscopists couldn't see it because they didn't look at 2500X Maginifiction, like I did... you can't see it at lower magnifications" - Walter C. McCrone. ] (red ochre) and cinnabar (vermilion) pigments on the Shroud. "
Geologist Steven D. Schafersman's so-called papers are rife with assertions without proof... or any proper citations. His science is woefully lacking... and full of speculation that is both mischaracterizing of the research that has been done and insulting to the eminently qualified scientists who have been brought in, often without prior knowledge of the Shroud, to do the research using techniques they are very familiar with as they are IN THEIR FIELD of expertise which they use everyday. According to Schafersman, the ONLY competent scientist involved was Walter C. McCrone.
One good example of Schafersman's ad hominem attacks is this comment, attempting to ridicule STURP scientists competence and show the incompetence of Shroud researchers :
"I pointed out that the Christ figure's body, limbs, and fingers were unnaturally elongated, even deformed (amazingly, I was apparently the first person to describe this![AH, No, Schafersman, you weren't. Which really shows the status of your knowledge, or the lack, of the research into the Shroud.]); STURP members eventually claimed that Jesus had Marfan's syndrome or suffered skeletal deformities (odd for God on Earth, but there you are)."
This accusation, made primarily by Shroud skeptics such as Schafersman as evidence it was a fraud, prompted Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS (who was NOT a member of STURP), to write "Did Christ Have Marfan's Syndrome?" La Sindon", Turin, Italy, Dec. 1983... and the conclusion was NO. This is the ONLY mention of Jesus possibly having Marfan's Syndrome on the scientific shroud sites found by a Google search. The rest of the Google results are all versions of Schafersman's claim or citations of the same claim - mostly quotations from Schafersman or Joe Nickell.
Who is Dr. Zugibe? He is a world renowned Forensic Pathologist:
"He holds a Bachelor of Science, Master of Science (Anatomy/Electron Microscopy), Ph.D. (Anatomy/ Histochemistry), and an M.D. degree. He is a Diplomate of the American Board of Pathology in Anatomic Pathology and Forensic Pathology and a Diplomate of the American Board of Family Practice. Dr. Zugibe is an adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and is a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists, a Fellow of the American Academy of the Forensic Sciences, Forensic Pathology Section, and a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners."
This is the one of the scientists geologist Schafersman calls incompetent.
Another example of your exalted Schafersman's ad hominem approach to science is this paranoid rant against an esteemed pyrology chemist, Raymond N. Rogers. It is truly amazing:
"In the past I have pointed out that the STURP "scientists" never used a polarizing microscope [False claim... it IS one of the tests that has been repeated following McCrone's own claims... and failed to reproduce McCrone's claims!] to examine their Shroud fiber samples, for if they did, they would have been able to easily identify the iron oxide particles. I even used pictures in my talks of them in front of expensive and elaborate biological microscopes, which are not the polarizing microscopes used for mineralogical, petrographical, forensic, and chemical analysis that McCrone, I, and thousands of other scientists use. Therefore imagine my surprise a week ago when I visited Barrie Schwortz's Shroud of Turin website at http://www.shroud.com/ and saw a photo of the smiling visage of Ray Rogers in front of his polarizing "petrographic microscope"! Now, why does a chemist need a petrographic microscope? [Could it be because Roger's hobby was archaeology and he had been donating his chemical expertise to various archaeology digs since 1968 and used a "petrographic microscope" in pursuit of analysis of microscopic chemical evidence??? Or perhaps he got it to examine the extremely small particles that resulted from the explosions relating to the pyrolysis work that he specialized in?] How long has he had it? Did he get it to use with the Shroud samples, or did he get it recently for the purpose of indirectly refuting me once again! Well, to me this is an example of overreaching yet again, for if Ray actually knew how to use his microscope--of which he appears to be quite proud, exactly mimicking the well-known photo of Walter McCrone!--he would be able to place one of his fiber samples from a Shroud image or blood area under it, add the immersion fluid of proper density, cross the polars, focus up to move the Becke line, and determine that the thousands of tiny orange and red particles he sees covering the fibers have a high index of refraction, revealing them to be iron oxide. That he has apparently neglected to do this reveals Ray Rogers to be either incompetent or mendacious, and thus not deserving of the esteemed designation of microscopist.
Jack, why don't you tell your friend that it really ISN'T all about him? He seems to need some serious counseling if he believe that Rogers got the microscope merely to tweak HIS nose. Your source is outed as a raving lunatic.
Your and Schafersman's approach to discussion is merely to shout "Red Ochre" and "Vermilion" louder. Not to provide ANY other scientists who have found what McCrone claims... against dozens of others who have NOT.
Let's finish with Schafersman's final paragraph where he ignores the hundreds of attempts by scientists, artists, and magicians to duplicate the shroud. In fact, in a leap of illogic, Schaferman ignore's own report just prior to his conclusion of one of the latest failed attempts at duplicating the Shroud. Here is his last paragraph... an example of wishful thinking:
"I have always thought that the Shroud of Turin would be very easy to re-create, but no one has attempted it because either (1) it would reveal the ease of reproducing a Shroud of Turin and thus serve to debunk the magic and mystery that the current Shroud possesses, or (2) the evidence that already exists that the Shroud is an artifact is so overwhelming that it isn't worth anyone's time and expense to reproduce it. No. 2 is certainly my reason for not making a Shroud. And so far, no one has indeed taken the time and expense to duplicate it."If it is so easy, WHERE IS SCHAFERSMAN's Shroud, Jack? Where? The man is a coward... hiding behind excuses for something he cannot do.
This is a fascinating topic. Bible is so many things to different people. One person can read a verse and get an entire meaning out of it than someone else. That is why we have different types of denominations and perhaps conflicts also.
Additionally, I feel that we are given certain elements that don’t blare out to everyone the absolute message. This is a shroud and here is the verifiable facts to prove it. That to me is part of the majesty of God. It really takes a superior being to give us just a glimpse of something so that we are driven by faith and not concrete evidence.
I have unanswered questions about the Shroud, however, it is amazing to me that someone if it is a fake, would have the knowledge and foresight to create something that would not be fully revealed until centuries later. Amazing isn’t it?
And that all these scholars have studied it and no one can positively say either way to everyone’s satisfaction is fascinating.
He's a troll, trying to see what kind of reaction he can get.
Check out the pdf version of the link I posted in #160 this thread.
Here are some of the independent tests, with methods and conclusions. Note that the original source is footnoted in the link I gave:
1. Art history
Similarities between the face on the Shroud and the faces of artwork created well before the purported forgery date.
Not a forgery (image known before date of supposed 'forging'.
2. Anatomy
A French zoologist and an artist working together studied the image in 1902 and presented a paper in 1902 concluding that the image was 'medically accurate'.
Not a forgery.
Hint: look at other artwork from the period that a forgery is claimed for. This is before the renaissance and the re-discovery of attention to anatomic detail...
3. X-ray fluorescence
Higher levels of iron in areas of blood than other areas of the portrait.
The team here was from Los Alamos National Labs.
Not a forgery.
3. Microspectrophotometry -- absorption of light by the sample at specific wavelengths of light. Here, at 390 nm correpsonding to an absorption band for the porphyrin.
Old acid methemoglobin -- what you'd find in old dried blood. Confirmed by a double-PhD in the subject of hemeglobin.
Not a forgery.
4. Hydrazine / formic acid test for blood (to identify iron such as found in hemeglobin, then to differentiate from iron oxide such as found in pigments).
Iron found, the sample dissolved in the hydrazine, indicating blood, not inorganic pigments.
It was compared to a control of known blood on other linen which acted the same way.
[By the way, McCrone flatly said that "NONE of the red image-area particles are soluble in hydrazine".
Whereas other debunkers who support McCrone claim that tempura paint made of the pigments and the medium identified by McCrone *do* dissolve in hydrazine to give a false positive for this test. So is McCrone lying and his followers telling the truth? Or was McCrone careless? And a positive for this test alone, does not prove, or give evidence that the Shroud is a forgery: it only indicates that there is a need for more specific testing in order to tell the difference. Other tests were done, as below. Also, McCrone did not use controls when declaring the particles to be iron oxide; and years later he said that the red pigment was red ochre and not iron oxide after all.]
Not a forgery.
5. "Wet-bench" tests for protein and other blood components. These included tests for albumin, bilurubin, and cyanomethemoglobin.
The tests were positive for blood.
Not a forgery.
6. Tests of protein-cleaving enzymes to see if they dissolved the blood stains on samples.
Consistent with blood.
Not a forgery.
That's just the start folks -- and this paper includes counerclaims by skeptics who claim that the stains "could have been" this or that; the difference being that those who did the tests on the Shroud submitted their work to, and had it accepted by, mainstream peer-review journals. Those who engage (again and again) in special pleading, have not submitted to journals.
SpringheelJack merely said, (post 161):
Thanks, but once you cut through the narrative it looks like a mass of special pleading, speculation, circular reasoning and innuendo.
Apparently he ignored all the specific tests consistent with real blood and with the genuineness of the Shroud, and was referring to the evisceration of the skeptics which he himself quoted.
Jack, here's a clue.
Merely stating "I'm a scientist, and I ran a test of something else without controls, and I claim it gave a similar result to the real test" is not proof.
You need controls -- in this case, known fresh blood on linen, known aged blood on linen, and specific paints (both organic-based and mineral based, and both fresh and aged) should have been compared. For each one of the tests -- say (photomicroscopy, birefringence, X-ray specrophotometry, fluorescence, wet-bench chemistry, including tests for methemoglobin, bilirubin, cynanomethemeglobin, and any others desired).
Also, strips of linen from the same batch used to prepare the samples, but without any external coloring applied, should have been tested.
Make a matrix of results these tests as controls, and compare the matrix to that of known Shroud material.
The ones who came closest to this were Heller and Adler -- they used known blood on linen and compared the results to the Shroud, and all the tests came up positive. None of the tests came up negative.
Their work was done by independent researchers using widely divergent methods. And it was indpendently peer-reviewed. And their conclusions and statements did not change over time.
McCrone used non-peer-reviewed work (his work was rejected by reviewers; he did not use controls, either known blood or known minerals; some of his tests involved matrix material which was known to be capable of affecting the tests performed; he changed his conclusions over time. His defenders did not use controls, did not use the same tests on known Shroud material to compare, and did not devise any differential testing to distinguish false positives from true positives. They only said "Well our tes t looks like something else could have given a false positive, so there."
Not only that, but there are known, standard, garden-variety physical (not miraculous) chemical mechanisms which are known to create some of the chemical species and physical characteristics of the Shroud. And these chemical reactions are consistent with some chemicals expected in immediate proximity to a dead body.
What on Earth do you lose by admitting the Shroud might really have been used to wrap a dead body?
Cheers!