tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post50447219494776295..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: "How Valid are the Vignon Markings?": My response to Dan PorterStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-84259428042987308442014-05-02T22:27:24.525+08:002014-05-02T22:27:24.525+08:00>>That there is NO such comprehensive and in...>>That there is NO such comprehensive and internally consistent forgery theory, is itself evidence that the Shroud is NOT a forgery.<br /><br />>Indeed. In fact, it's logically impossible for there to EVER be a theory on how the most prominent features, like the photo negativity and 200nm depth of the image, were formed, since those things were completely unknown at the time of the supposed forgery, and couldn't be detected or known until hundreds of years later.<br /><br />That's why if an anti-authenticist ever started a comprehensive and internally consistent forgery theory, he/she would have quietly given up.<br /><br />>So there can never be a Shroud forgery theory. At best there can be a "How some guy forged an elaborate image on a cloth, and ended up producing all these amazing puzzling features he couldn't see or know about completely by accident."<br /><br />That is actually the position of one of the commenters on Porter's blog, Hugh Farey, the new Editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud:<br /><br />"Unlike my predecessors, whom I think are more or less committed to a pro-authenticity point of view, I myself currently incline more towards<i> an accidental 14th century origin</i> for the cloth now preserved in Turin." (<a href="http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n78part2.pdf" rel="nofollow">Editorial - by Hugh Farey</a>, <i>BSTS Newsletter</i>, No. 78, December 2013).<br /><br />And Porter thinks MY hacking proposal is "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/psymgqc" rel="nofollow">ridiculous</a>"!<br /><br />That must have been SOME accident! Did some mad 14th century scientist experimenting with light-sensitive chemicals accidentally tip over his test tubes onto his workbench. And then he used his ~4.4 x 1.1 metre linen bench covering sheet to mop it up, lying on it naked front and back to apply maximum pressure, and hey-presto! There was the photo of his naked body, front and back, on the sheet??? <br /><br />Far-fetched? And what about the <i>mountain</i> of historical and artistic evidence that the Shroud existed all the way back to the first century? It doesn't matter. Modern science (i.e, Applied Naturalism) proceeds by starting with the least-worst naturalistic theory and waiting until a better naturalistic theory, irrespective of whether it fits the facts, is proposed.<br /><br />>Of course, the anti-authenticists aren't even at the point of being able to produce on purpose what was supposedly produced by blind luck.<br /><br />Great irony! But if you are a philosophical naturalist (including that contradiction in terms "`Christian' naturalist" rescued from self-contradiction by calling it "<i><a href="http://tinyurl.com/6mphn63" rel="nofollow">Methodological</a></i> Naturalism"-i.e. Naturalism is false but the best way to proceed in science is by pretending that Naturalism is true!) then a naturalistic theory which doesn't explain the most facts always beats a supernaturalistic theory which does explain the most facts!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-8896060632381953292014-05-02T20:24:02.087+08:002014-05-02T20:24:02.087+08:00That there is NO such comprehensive and internally...<i>That there is NO such comprehensive and internally consistent forgery theory, is itself evidence that the Shroud is NOT a forgery.</i><br /><br />Indeed. In fact, it's logically impossible for there to EVER be a theory on how the most prominent features, like the photo negativity and 200nm depth of the image, were formed, since those things were completely unknown at the time of the supposed forgery, and couldn't be detected or known until hundreds of years later.<br /><br />So there can never be a Shroud forgery theory. At best there can be a "How some guy forged an elaborate image on a cloth, and ended up producing all these amazing puzzling features he couldn't see or know about completely by accident."<br /><br />Of course, the anti-authenticists aren't even at the point of being able to produce on purpose what was supposedly produced by blind luck.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-53263658451401154212014-05-02T17:43:54.167+08:002014-05-02T17:43:54.167+08:00bippy123
>Hello stephen I k is this is off to...bippy123<br /> <br />>Hello stephen I k is this is off topic here <br /><br />A while ago I made an exception for off-topic comments that are under the current post.<br /><br />>but I have been having a debate with a another Christianon a forum who won't accept anything on the side of authenticity with for the Shroud because he is afraid it can be used later against believers.<br /><br />If he "won't accept <i>anything</i> on the side of authenticity [of] the Shroud" then ignore him.<br /><br />Or you could first ask him, "what evidence could I give you over the Internet that would persuade you that the Shroud is authentic?"<br /><br />Then if he says "none" you can then say, "in that case I am going to ignore your requests for me to give you evidence of the Shroud's authenticity."<br /><br />But if he states what evidence you could give him over the Internet that would persuade him that the Shroud is authentic, then give it to him.<br /><br />If he ignores your request and keeps bothering you, then say, "First answer my question. What evidence ...?" <br /><br />>We are on ray rogers thermodynamics a cat paper. Is there anything documenting that the 2 pieces rogers received were from the corner area tested in 1988.<br /><br />Rogers stated:<br /><br />"I had archived samples from the sampling tapes, the Raes sample, and the Holland cloth and patches after STURP disbanded. These samples were available for testing the validity of the radiocarbon sample. Fortunately, the Holland cloth provides an authentic, documented sample of medieval linen. It should provide an example of the type, of linen available at the time suggested by the radiocarbon date. These samples could provide a rather convincing argument for the properties of the radiocarbon sample; however, a definitive statement could not be made until I received yarn segments from the authentic radiocarbon sample on 12 December 2003. Now we could talk dating with ample proof." (Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh NC, pp.63-64).<br /><br />and<br /><br />"On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp and weft threads that had been taken from the radiocarbon sample by Professor Luigi Gonella before it was distributed for dating. He reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample. A "chain of evidence" has been maintained on those threads, and it is certain that they were truly removed from the radiocarbon sample. These samples finally made it possible to confirm my conclusion that the radiocarbon sample was not valid." (Rogers, 2008, p.65).<br /><br />>This guy irritatesme even more then most of atheistic skeptics of the shroud.<br /><br />See above. Since the Shroud IS authentic, then it is His problem if he doesn't accept it. <br /><br />>Again sorry for the off topic stephen<br /><br />It wasn't off-topic. See above.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-32346219474932388092014-05-02T11:32:18.034+08:002014-05-02T11:32:18.034+08:00[continued]
AND the bas relief/statue theory:
&q...[continued]<br /><br />AND the bas relief/statue theory:<br /><br />"As an alternative to the painting hypothesis, some two years before McCrone published his findings, I reported the results of my own successful experiments in creating shroudlike `negative' images. The technique involved wet-molding cloth to a bas-relief (used instead of a fully [28] three-dimensional statue to minimize distortion), allowing it to dry, then rubbing on powdered pigment using a dauber-much as one would make a rubbing from a gravestone. This technique automatically yields 'negative' images (or rather, just like the shroud, <i>quasi</i>-negative images, since the hair and beard are the opposite of what would be expected). It also produces numerous other shroudlike features, including minimal depth of penetration into the threads, encoded `3-D' information, and other similarities, some of which specifically pointed to some form of imprinting technique. "<br />(Nickell, 1993, pp.27-28).<br /> <br />when they are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. The evidence FOR one is evidence AGAINST the other.<br /><br />>Obviously the point of the Vignon markings argument is that lots of odd little coincidences, which wouldn't be all that significant in the absence of the others, add up together and reinforce each other, in combination with all the other evidence for the Shroud's authenticity.<br /><br />That is <i>precisely </i>the point! Porter (who from memory) is just an ex-businessman with no relevant qualifications, and doesn't seem to have read many Shroud books, can't understand (or doesn't<i> want</i> to) this and other elementary points.<br /><br />>Particularly for someone who already believes the Shroud's authenticity on other grounds, or even strongly suspects it, the neatest explanation for these coincidences would be that they're based on the Shroud itself.<br /><br />Agreed. But Porter claims that he still believes in the Shroud's authenticity. But if he did, then he would presumably (unless he thinks the Shroud was hidden from the 1st century and next turned up in mid-14th century France) accept that Byzantine artists would have been able to see and copy the face on the Shroud for nearly <i>seven centuries</i>, in Edessa from the 6th-10th century and then in Constantinople from the 10th to early 13th century. <br /><br />If so, then why does Porter reject the <i>simplest explanation</i> (as per Ockham's Razor) that the 15 oddities which are on the face of the Shroud, some of which are physical flaws and creases in the cloth - not part of the image itself, and are ALL 15 are found on various Byzantine depictions of Jesus' face (up to 13 on some of them) from the 6th to the 13th centuries?<br /><br />The answer can only be, absent Porter stating what evidence DOES persuade him that the Shroud is authentic, is that Porter is NOT TELLING THE TRUTH (at least to himself), that he actually has become a Shroud ANTI-authenticist. <br /><br />That is OK. Porter can be an anti-authenticist if that's how he sees (or <i>wants</i> to see) the evidence. But Porter should come clean and not hide behind <a href="http://shroudstory.com/" rel="nofollow">his weasel words</a>: <br /><br />"Is the Shroud real? <i>Probably</i>. The Shroud of Turin <i>may</i> be the real burial cloth of Jesus" (my emphasis). <br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />---------------------------------<br />"MY POLICIES ... After over a decade (1994-2005) debating creation/evolution/design on Internet discussion groups, I concluded that Internet debates were largely a waste of time, so I ceased debating and started blogging. So I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-51521686562239075462014-05-02T11:15:18.393+08:002014-05-02T11:15:18.393+08:00The Deuce
>I don't get Porter's point....The Deuce<br /><br />>I don't get Porter's point. *Obviously* the square isn't strong evidence for the Shroud's authenticity all by itself, and could be discounted as a strange but not too extraordinary coincidence in isolation, but nobody has ever suggested taking it in isolation in the first place. <br /><br /><i>Exactly</i>. Anti-authenticists make the fundamental mistake of thinking that if they can find an apparent problem with ONE part of the Shroud then they have disproved ALL of it. But as <a href="http://tinyurl.com/oej6ozp" rel="nofollow">I pointed out in a recent comment</a>:<br /><br />---------------------------------<br />It is a fallacy to think that the authenticity of the Shroud stands or falls on ONE feature alone. Shroud sceptics (i.e. true believers in the Shroud's NON-authenticity) typically take pot-shots at individual features of the Shroud, and if they THINK that they have won on ONE individual point, they can declare victory for the forgery theory.<br /><br />But what the Shroud sceptics need to do is propose a COMPREHENSIVE AND INTERNALLY CONSISTENT forgery theory, which:<br /><br />1) POSITIVELY explains plausibly how the image on the Shroud was formed in a way that is inconsistent with the Shroud's authenticity, including not only HOW the image was formed, but WHEN it was formed, and WHO formed it;<br /><br />and<br /><br />2) NEGATIVELY plausibly explains away ALL the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity.<br /><br />That there is NO such comprehensive and internally consistent forgery theory, is itself evidence that the Shroud is NOT a forgery. In my "The Shroud of Turin" series, I am collecting problems of the forgery theory which I will eventually post as "Problems of the forgery theory." Then it will be seen that the problems of the Shroud authenticity theory are NOTHING compared to the problems of the forgery theory.<br />---------------------------------<br /><br />What the anti-authenticists need to do is compare the TOTAL pro-authenticist general theory/model against a TOTAL anti-authenticist general theory/model. Then they would see that the pro-authenticist general theory/model has FAR less problems than the anti-authenticist general theory/model. <br /><br />A comprehensive and internally consistent pro-authenticists general theory/model could be collated from Ian Wilson's writings. But its counterpart could not be collated from any anti-authentists writings.<br /><br />There is NO anti- authenticist general theory/model and and anti-authenticist sub-theories contradict each other and no one sub-theory has won the majority support of most anti- authenticists. <br /><br />Unscrupulous anti-authenticists like Joe Nickell argue for BOTH the painting theory: <br /><br />"In fact, there is no mention of this particular `shroud' for some thirteen centuries; then a respected bishop reportedly uncovered an artist who confessed to having created it. In a letter of 1389 to Pope Clement VII, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis reported on an earlier investigation ... D'Arcis continued, speaking of the earlier bishop who conducted the investigation: Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, <i>the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it</i>, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed" (Nickell, J., 1993, "Looking for a Miracle," pp.25-26. Emphasis original).<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-69484693402873819262014-05-02T00:35:49.040+08:002014-05-02T00:35:49.040+08:00I don't get Porter's point. *Obviously* th...I don't get Porter's point. *Obviously* the square isn't strong evidence for the Shroud's authenticity all by itself, and could be discounted as a strange but not too extraordinary coincidence in isolation, but nobody has ever suggested taking it in isolation in the first place. Obviously the point of the Vignon markings argument is that lots of odd little coincidences, which wouldn't be all that significant in the absence of the others, add up together and reinforce each other, in combination with all the other evidence for the Shroud's authenticity.<br /><br />Particularly for someone who already believes the Shroud's authenticity on other grounds, or even strongly suspects it, the neatest explanation for these coincidences would be that they're based on the Shroud itself.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-25419959324874117382014-05-02T00:26:48.173+08:002014-05-02T00:26:48.173+08:00Hello stephen I k is this is off topic here but I ...Hello stephen I k is this is off topic here but I have been having a debate with a another Christianon a forum who won't accept anything on the side of authenticity with for the<br />Shroud because he is afraid it can be used later against believers.<br /><br />We are on ray rogers thermodynamics a cat paper. Is there anything documenting that the 2 pieces rogers received were from the corner area tested in 1988.<br /><br />This guy irritatesme even more then most of atheistic skeptics of the shroud.<br />Again sorry for the off topic stephen<br />Good bless<br />Bobbippy123noreply@blogger.com