From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<LEET.92Aug18135310@dove.ims.com>
	<1992Aug24.083500.5479@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:28:27 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 1992 08:35:00 GMT, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) said:

Tim> I haven't read Heller's book, which is why I asked you to give me
Tim> his arguments - I haven't been able to get hold of a copy.

I'm sorry, I must have confused you with someone else.  I'll post some
of the arguments as soon as I can get the book from the library.
 
> Tim> Why shouldn't a medieval relic-faker know that Jesus might have
> Tim> had dirt (microscopic or other- wise) on his feet?
> 
> The dirt, as I recall, was causing a problem with one of the image
> analyzers; it was invisible to the naked eye.  It just seems more
> likely that this would be an unintentional inclusion by a forger; if
> it's a detail added for authenticity, why is it so invisible.

Tim> Perhaps I'm some kind of idiot, but what you appear to be saying
Tim> is that the cloth was dirty.

You are certainly no idiot, which is why I'm willing to continue this
dialog with you (and why I interact with this newsgroup at all - I can
disagree with, and thereby learn from, some highly educated and highly
intelligent people).  What I'm saying is that the dirt appeared only
on the feet, and was only found by one of the scanners (I'll get the
correct story from Heller's book).  This makes Joe Nickell's thesis
(cloth wrapped around a statue/mannekin/corpse) more likely than one
that has an artist painting on the shroud/canvas.  But it also means
that either the faker thought of this detail deliberately for
authenticity, but got other details "wrong", or else the dirt was
accidental.  But, if a corpse was used by the faker, why isn't it
anatomically correct?  If a statue/mannekin was used, why is it so
accurate in small, historical details, but so inaccurate in gross
anatomical details?

I'm willing to accept the idea that the shroud is a forgery, as long
as the story makes sense.  As it is, there are too many loose ends.
To expose a psychic, a UFO hoax, or any other phenomenon in the domain
of skeptics, one demonstrates *exactly* how it was done - why not here
also?  Anything less is unreasonably sloppy, and skeptics shouldn't be
satisified with it.
 
> Tim> I would put the Roman flagellation marks into the same category
> Tim> as the 'coins' which were supposedly over the eyes: ie they're
> Tim> only there if you want to see them there.
> 
> Even the National Geographic article (oops, you're in Oz - hope you
> can find it easily) and any other book publishing closeups of the
> flagellation marks show the characteristic shape.

Tim> They look like blobs to me, but perhaps I should put on my STURP
Tim> issue 'spectacles of extreme faith' before I look at the photos.

Please don't.  I looked again last night, and they look to me like
photos of comets - a dark circle with a tail coming off it.

  [ lots of good anti-authenticity arguments deleted ]
 
Tim> Most 14th century artists worked anonymously, and there is
Tim> nothing in the documentary evidence to indicate who the man was,
Tim> so I have no idea. Does it matter?

No, I just thought you might have someone in mind, so I could go look
at that individual's artwork.

Tim> (Incidently, I should have pointed out that while herringbone
Tim> twill woven linen was common in medieval France, it is *entirely
Tim> unknow* from the first century. All surviving 1st century linen,
Tim> and we have a lot of it, is tabby woven. Another of those
Tim> inconvenient little facts which Heller and Co don't tell you
Tim> perhaps?)

As I recall (and I will go check) "Heller and Co." said it was rare
but not unknown - and then speculated that only the rich (like, guess
who, Joseph of Arimathea) would have used.
 
> Tim> While it is a remarkable image, the figure on the shroud is not
> Tim> perfect: one arm is longer than the other and the fingers of the
> Tim> left hand are too long; the sort of mistakes an artist of any
> Tim> period could make, including the 14th century.
> 
> What - I thought this artist was a remarkably brilliant forger!

Tim> Yes, but not infallible. The fingers seem to be too long so that the 
Tim> genital area is completely covered.

One of the early researchers claimed to see genitalia on the image.

Tim> Similarly the buttocks are *very* lightly defined, almost barely
Tim> hinted at, though the shoulders are quite clear.

Doesn't look that way to me, but I'll look again.  I wonder how
crucifixion would impact subsequent rigor mortis; that could be an
argument either for OR against.

Tim> It is also interesting that some prominent features of the figure
Tim> are very clear indeed (ie the face) but other equally prominent
Tim> though less interesting and inspiring features are not there at
Tim> all. Why doesn't the figure have any TOES Lee?

Again, I thought I saw them in the Geographic photos, but I'll get
some other books out.

Tim> First century jews bound their dead in stripsof linen (a la the
Tim> Egyptian mummies) and left the face exposed. Medieval Europeans
Tim> wrapped their dead in sheets of linen and thus covered the face.

I'd like to get the source for this historical note; I've seen it
argued both ways, but I've not seen data to back up the arguments.

Tim> A religion which threatens eternal and unending torture for
Tim> simply calling someone a fool?! You can keep that!

It's the implication that "those who will not agree with me are utterly
worthless specimens of humanity" that Jesus is warning against.  If I
suddenly agree that the shroud is a fake, does that make me a better
person?  Jesus loved even those that killed him - but I'm preaching.
Sorry. 

Tim> Incidently Lee, my psychic powers tell me that you are a
Tim> Creationist. Am I right?

"C'mere, pigeon ... GIT in that hole!  Where's the plunger ... eeyuck,
blood and feathers, whatta mess ..."  Rather than try to carefully
delineate my position on Scientific Creationism as I've tried (and
failed) to do for the Shroud, I'll just say yes, I'm a Creationist.
Besides, it wasn't your psychic powers (this - on my end - is
sci.skeptic, after all), it was "the grapevine".  And with the help of
some of the clusters, I've learned that the arguments for/against
evolution are not as simple as ICR makes them out to be (although
ICR's books and lectures are targeted for an unsophisticated
audience).  If the Tasmanian-Devil-of-the-net wants more for dinner,
so be it.  (I saw T.D.s on Australia's version of "Wild Kingdom" - the
show with the man who grabs wild animals barehanded, but he stayed
well back in this case - they make me think of a cross between a
wolverine and a pit bull.  Bugs Bunny's version is only a *little*
misleading.)  I'd rather have a respectful disagreement with mutual
edification (as I've had via e-mail with some), but that's a rare
occurrence on Usenet.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow
Integrated Measurement Systems |  not, neither do they reap, nor gather into
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  barns, yet your heavenly Father feedeth
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  them.  Are ye not much better than they?"
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  - Matthew 6:26