Inés San Martín, a Vatican correspondent for Crux has written an interesting article: Is the Shroud of Turin real? Some say it doesn’t matter
Therein we find Joe Nickell saying:
Proponents lack any viable hypothesis for the image formation, and have dismissed re-creations that others have found convincing.
and Barrie Schwortz saying:
Despite being the most studied artifact in history … modern science is still unable to explain the image or how it was made.
and also saying:
… no one in the past 40 years has been able to duplicate it or create any image with the same chemical and physical properties.
Well, yeah, duh, to what Nickell is saying. In every case there have been problems with the re-creations. It is all about details. That’s why they have been dismissed.
But then isn’t Barrie’s argument stale. That’s not a criticism of Barrie, it is the situation. Just as we say that no one has figured out how the image was formed – which every student of logic knows is a big fat fallacy – we haven’t figured out anything better to say about the image except what it is not and to keep bringing up those chemical and physical details.
The Rev. Andrew Dalton, a Legionaries of Christ priest who’s a shroud expert, told Crux that although the Church respects the autonomy of the scientific community, there are details that simply couldn’t have been forged centuries ago.
Details like what?
Isn’t Colin Berry trying to figure out how the image was maybe formed by a forger with Thibault Heimburger reminding him about those pesky little details that “that simply couldn’t have been forged centuries ago.” Inés San Martín should be interviewing them. Here, right out of this blog, let’s look at two comments.
Thibault Heimburger (April 29, 2015 at 3:32 pm):
“These aspects of the TS that the new model is supposed to match” are very important.
Your new model, at the end, must match (or at least be compatible with) the fundamental surface distribution properties of the TS: superficiality (at fabric, thread and fiber level), uniformity of the image (no “hot point”, no spot, no “hole”), half tone and fuzzy contours, and bundles of fibers adjacent to uncolored fibers…
Now, if you think that these facts are not proved, despite the many photos you have, I can’t add anything.
If you think that those properties are not important at all, please explain…
The ” ‘scattered colored spots” (also seen in Garlaschelli’s shroud) is only my description of your hand imprint.
I’ll be in Turin until Sunday.
Colin Berry (April 29, 2015 at 10:25 pm):
Yes, it’s vitally important to match every tiny detail of the TS, as it existed when first produced. My new project will attempt to simulate in the kitchen the effect of centuries of subtle degradation on an image of unknown provenance, whether 700 or 2000 years old.
Seriously, TH, one has to recognize the limitations of any attempts at model building. That’s what we scientists, as distinct from physicians, engineers, technologists etc do – we build models. Recognizing the limitations of models, we are concerned primarily with the principles, especially when there are so many who claim for example that a 200nm thick image in unexplainable by conventional science (wrong, it is).
I am not trying to produce a facsimile copy of the TS (forgery Mark 2?) merely to show that its defining characteristics are consistent with medieval forgery. That’s as a counter to those pseudoscientific agenda-pushers who say they are not. (That’s my agenda – anti-pseudoscience). “Defining characteristic” must not turned into a trail (trial?) with no ending.
Hat tip to Joe Marino for sending the Crux article along.