As promised on The Other Site, I shall no longer mince my words . . .
Yawn (heard similar threats from Colin). So here we go:
. . . This retired science bod grows ever more appalled by the pseudo-science being peddled to support the authenticity of the Shroud as the cloth that was used to wrap the crucified Christ.
The latest egregious example is from the same paper that was the subject of my previous posting, the one by Barbara Faccini and Giulio Fanti (“F&F”)at the International Workshop on the Scientific Approach(sic) on the Acheiropoietos Images (May 2010) .
I pretty much agree.
Their paper makes an extraordinary claim in the Introduction, repeated in the Conclusions, namely that one can discern a time sequence of events by examining the bloodstains on the Shroud – the latter including the scourge marks. They claim that there was a caning first with flexible rods (Type 2 implement) followed by scourging with the Roman flagrum (Type 1) followed by some limited beating of the legs (Type 3) followed finally by the major stains from the nail wounds in the wrists, the spear in the side etc,
I pretty much agree with that, too. But now Colin gets nutty.
Since when has it been the role of allegedly scientific congresses to peddle fantasies that are unsupported by data? Those two authors do a disservice to science (but I note that the second is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, so may not be too bothered about the sensibilities of scientists such as myself).
You couldn’t make it up. Well, you could and you probably do – frequently - if you are a Shroudie so-called scientist. Yup, someone was clearly intent on getting a rapturous round of applause at the end of delivering that paper to fellow Shroudies at their so-called ” International Workshop on the Scientific(sic) Approach”.
Has Colin ever been to a shroud congress? In many cases, papers such as he mentions are met with tough questioning. (One of the purposes of this blog is to pose more questions.) Many congresses or conferences have been closed to the public. More recently, they are open: not to peddle fantasies but to expose ideas and allow opinion to flow. As for a rapturous round of applause? Was he there? As Colin does frequently, it is so much easier to belittle than deal with real substantive criticism.
PS: Dan Porter is free as usual to flag up this paper on his shroudofturin site, but I shall no longer be responding to questions there.
Yawn (heard these threats from Colin before, as well).