From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:06:03 GMT

THE SHROUD DEBATE CONTINUES
In article <LEET.92Aug25122827@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
> 
> >>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 1992 08:35:00 GMT, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) said:

> > 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).

Well shucks! I bet you say that to all the net.dudes, you ol'smoothie! 

> 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.  

I'd go for accidental.

> 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.

I think a lot more research has to be done on the artefact to determine
how the image was produced. I am not totally convinced by any of the 
current hypotheses as I understand them, though I am inclined toward the
idea that it is a painting. My point is simply that there is ample
evidence that the shroud is a fourteenth-century artefact. How it was
produced is another question.

> Tim> (Incidently, I should have pointed out that while herringbone
> Tim> twill woven linen was common in medieval France, it is *entirely
> Tim> unknown* 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.

Post your reference by all means, but Heller is in disagreement with Dr
Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology who examined
the shroud fabric in 1973. Herringbone twill is impossible to date with
any precision, since it was so widely used for such a long time, but
according to Raes *all* surviving 1st century examples of linen, from
mummy wrappings to the cloth in which some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were
wrappped, were of tabby weave. If Heller cites an example of herringbone
twill from the 1st century I would be interested to check his source.
Chevalier claimed, back in the 19th century, that it is interesting that
the shroud is exactly the length that a piece of linen was when it was 
taken from the loom of the kind used in the Troyes area in the late 
Middle Ages. I have been unable to check this, but Chevalier was a very
thorough scholar.
  
> > 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.

Where? The hand is in the way. It is also interesting that several wooden
figures of Christ laid out for burial survive from the fourteenth century.
These were used for a bit of Easter liturgical drama, where the figure
was wrapped in a shroud and lain in a 'tomb' at the foot of the cathedrals's
rood screen on Good Friday. On Easter morning however, the tomb would be
empty and only the shroud left behind. At least one of these figures which
I have seen bears an uncanny resemblence to the Turin image, right down to
one hand modestly covering the genitalia and the other gripping the wrist.
Once again, a medieval artistic convention.

> 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.

Apology accepted. The Australian sense of humour is notoriously sardonic
and deadpan, so I try not to overuse smileys. I'm sure you realise I was
typing tongue-firmly-in-cheek there. 
 
> 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".

Well, you got me there, another psychic debunked on sci.skeptic. I find
the fact that some creationists have got up on the shroud bandwagon just
as all the catholics were getting off it very interesting. But you can't
be a real Creationist as you appear to have both a sense of humour and an
open mind.  

> 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).

That's also good to hear. The Creationist question was also an attempt to
justify the fact that this thread has been kicking around talk.origins 
for some time now. Perhaps we should take the follow-ups to sci.skeptic?  


> 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.

This Tassie Devil is actually a placid beast who likes reading medieval
poetry and only eats people if they really annoy him. Lets try for some
respectful disagreement for now, see if we can't make it into agreement
eventually.
Cheers
Tim O'Neill
(Tasmanian Devil of the Net)
Newsgroups: talk.origins