MUST READ: `I heard the Shroud image was made by a bas-relief metal sculpture heated’
This is my `fleshed out’ response to an anonymous comment on my post "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (3)." I have improved the poor English of the comment.
>I’m confused, I heard it was made by a bas-relief metal sculpture heated but I’m not sure could some one elaborate because I’m on the verge of accepting authenticity but the bas-relief theory seems somewhat credible.
Picture shamelessly copied from Stephen’s blog: A bas-relief `duplicate’ of the Shroud, by Paul-Eric Blanrue and Patrick Shepherd, "A false Shroud of Turin carried out in five minutes," Science et Vie, June 2005. Its gross inferiority to the Shroud face is obvious.
I agree, this is a great read and a great summary of why the “hot statue” theory is untenable. Funny how all the proponents of such a theory never bother to actually recreate the Shroud thereby proving their hypothesis. Rather their meager attempts have thus far have falsified it according to the basic rules of the scientific method.
Does one have to reproduce the Piltdown Man in every detail, indeed at all, to be certain beyond any shadow of doubt that it’s a fraud? Has any palaeontologist ever felt obliged to do that? I think not. What’s more, scientists, this retired one included, get rather bored at being given lectures on internet sites as to what others,usually non-scientists, deem to be correct “scientific method”…
What an outlandish analogy Colin, really is that the best you can do? YES, the Shroud image must be reproduced in it’s entirety, including all it’s attributes before one may claim it is a hoax. To claim otherwise is just rediculous. Principles alone are not sufficient here Colin, precise indepth study, procedures, examples etc; are firmly warranted. Remember also, one does not have to be a scientist to understand what proper scientific procedure should entail. Maybe it’s time you got off that bas-relief horse of yours ;-)
Hello Ron, Your seismic shock of indignation has caused only minor tremors in my neck of the woods. You see, I have checked my thesaurus, and nowhere do I see “appropriate” listed as a simile for “outlandish”.
Post carbon-dating, the default position re the science bit is that the Shroud is a medieval fake. Theories about invisible reweaving, spliced threads, cunning dyeing with alizarin etc etc which are just that – theories – no disrespect to the late Ray Rogers – cannot alter the fact that the Shroud fabric is medieval era in origin – until proven otherwise.
The Shroud is just a re-run (or should that be pre-run?) of the Piltdown Man, but having a supernatural dimension it has attracted a far greater following from those of a particular religious persuasion (there, I’ve said it) and one moreover with an immensely greater stake in the outcome of the debate.
My interest, at least initially, was not in proving the Shroud was a fake, but in rejecting the claim that it defied scientific explanation (yup, the two are subtly different). But you know how it is – bit between the teeth, mission creep etc etc…
Colin, your comparison to Piltdown man is exceedingly weak. How does part of a skull and a jawbone fraudulently hyped as the missing link in any way compare with the Shroud? All the detractors of the Shroud allege that it was the work of an artist in some way shape or form. If that is the case, then certainly the process or technique used by the alleged artist should be able to be replicated. Its that simple. So far McCrone, Nickell, Allen and others have all been proven wrong. None of them to date, including you have made a credible copy using some alleged medieval technique. It is a reasonable request. If it is the work of an artist, it shouldn’t be that hard to prove.
Colin, your comparison to Piltdown man is exceedingly weak.
He knows. It’s so nonsensical that it’s not even an analogy, let alone a bad one. I think we’re well past the point where arguing with Colin risks “answering a fool according to his folly”.
The Piltdown Man was designed to fool fellow scientists – and with one or two notable exceptions – it succeeded in doing just that, for the best part of 30 years or more.
If it’s that easy to fool trusting scientists, with a touching faith in their fellow man, indeed fellow “professionals”, think how much easier it is to fool those who desperately seek some tangible proof that might underpin their religious faith. Some might say that faith should require no tangible underpinning, not if it damages science through the fostering of pseudo-science…
The Shroud controversy is essentially about a collision between the fragile scientific temperament – cold, icily detached – and the default human condition – warm, trusting, impressionable, hopelessly romantic at times…
Colin is no doubt a brilliant chemist, but it’s all too evident he’d make a lousy detective, as he’s too narrowly focused and fails to take on board all the evidence. No use in pleading mission creep as a defence!
This comment will no doubt provoke another recycling of his XYX mantra theory. If he’d spent a semester or two in the Philosophy dept while at Uni, he might have picked up a few useful lessons in Logic and Critical Thinking.
The various pieces of corroborative evidence act in parallel, not in series. If they operated in series it would indeed be sufficient to rebut only one piece of evidence for the case to fall over. But they act independently in parallel, so that it’s necessary to rebut each piece of evidence in order to prove a hoax.
If the image is a scorch, as he maintains, then the heat emanated from the virtue of the Shroud Man, not from any notional Wizard of Oz Tin Man that never existed.
He’ll probably accuse me of more Ad hom argument, that I’m denigrating him; but that’s not my intention; it’s just that his whole approach is inadequate to the case. Unfortunately there’s a few vulnerable souls out there who take his word as gospel. But the truth of the gospel lies elsewhere.
I read Stephen Jones response on his site, and even though he has his own persepective on the matter, it adequately covers the case. I could still buy into the proposition that there may have been some natural cause, as yet unkown, for the formation of the image.
So now Colin is claiming any scientist involved, including all STURP scientist’s “shroud-science” has been pseudo-science developed to sooth the vulnerable souls out there. Yet we are to except that the radiocarbon scientists and thier findings are indisputable; Three tests done off the same piece of material…yeah okay Colin lol. You kill me. You call yourself a scientist and you can make such a statement? You have just proved to me how narrow minded and illogical you really are.
Concerning the picture above, what do you think of those false shrouds forged with so-called medieval techniques ? Does it really prove anything ?
Edit: I mean that it does not look so gross actually… (but im not an expert)
Any scientist worth his or her salt would have refused to run tests on non-random samples taken from the same corner of the Shroud, or at any rate, specimens that were non-representative of the entire expanse of fabric, with or without inclusion of image-bearing regions.
One can only speculate as to why the three labs agreed to go ahead and test contiguous specimens…
Maybe they had been drawn in on a false prospectus, and felt that to back out at the last minute under a media spotlight would have exposed them to charges of insensitivity to “understandable” concern about maintaining the integrity of a holy icon.
I don’t have to speculate; The reason; Money and Prestige, simple. If one is to read much more on the infamous carbon dating, one would find that one of the labs received a large injection of funds immediately after the announcement…The labs choice to except the ‘One’ piece of material, obviously not representative of the whole) was only the start. If they had any worries about hurting anyone’s sensabilities they would/should have put an end to it right then and there, but they didn’t and they went on to make further errors (much less publicised), in their protocols, procedures, calculations etc; …The whole carbon dating thing smells very fishy to me, but who am I to question these ‘respectable’ scholars ;-)
I agree with Colin on this point. Ian Wilson in his 2010 book gives some interesting insights into the background of the pre-sampling haggling among the stake-holders. The Papal scientific representative had lain out a well-designed formal protocol, both for sampling and testing, and this had included labs using more traditional and proven methods. (Sorry I don’t presently have Wilson’s book at hand to set out the specifics.) The Papal representative was no match for the street-wise Turin rep, a lecturer at some Turin Polytech, nor for the three lab reps, anxious to get in on the action and enhance the reputation of their relatively unknown new methods. The formal protocol was ditched, and the selection of the sample was virtually done on a spur of the moment decision, no formal representative sampling process being involved at all. The result was that the tradtional proven labs eventually went out of business, and the three new labs, all clones of one another enhanced their reputation, and continue to thrive – such are the ways of the world! But we couldn’t call it science!
Well ditching the ‘traditional’ methods of RCD atleast made some sense, since much more material would have been removed from the Shroud, which was unacceptable. But in saying that, the whole sample choice was a joke, not scientific whatsoever and “maybe” even a deliberate attempt to deceive? Seeing as just about everyone involved knew quite well that that specific corner of the Shroud showed signs of being different from the rest of the cloth (this fact has been brought up by several people, including the late Ray Rogers). But what is almost never mentioned is that the STURP team was involved early in the process and were completely excluded at the end, including many exploratory tests which had been designed by the team…this exclusion has never been explained either. So it goes on and on here; all the ‘funny’ stuff that occured, which I’d say again adds to that ‘fishy smell’
Ron: As the notorious English Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament, Sir Leslie Titmuss was often given to saying: “Your words not mine! You must draw your own conclusions. But I couldn’t possibly comment!” But then Sir Leslie was only a fictional character! (“Sound of Trumpets”, Paradise Regained” etc by John Mortimer)
Not just my words, Dave, but I get your drift ;-) There is alot of literature out there covering much of the ‘actual’ events leading too and post radiocarbon dating and reviews of the actual carbon dating papers/procedures. From these readings is where I get my conclusions. I will attempt to procure these writings/links and forward them to Dan, then if he wishes he can post the links.
here is the response to this hypothesis (french) :
by the way, Paul Eric Blanrue is an historian, not a scientist.
Comments are closed.