From: paulk@engin.umich.edu (Paul J. Kominsky)
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 23:45:25 EDT
Organization: Rarely
Distribution: na

daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
} This lack of any documentation makes it very hard
} to judge the veracity of your "references". 

Let's see, what did I say?  The samples were taken from a single
location, and this was from the side with the strip?  That's from
the report in Nature (16 Feb 1989), the only official report by the
C14 testers.  This is not a big deal since most conclude that the
side strip was part of the original material, and the proximity
of the samples would only be a small sampling problem.

About my suggestion of foul play--if you read the Nature report,
the dating of the 3 Shroud samples has much more scatter than
the control samples.  That piqued my curiosity.  The Nature 
report also lists the size/weight of the samples, presumably as
received by the 3 dating sites.  However, the two people who
actually cut the samples from the Shroud talked at a conference
in France a few months later (Paris Symposium of 7 Sept 1989),
and reported different sizes/weights.  I've not been able to get
a copy of the printed symposium proceedings, but this is 
reprinted in a book published by the Abbe de Nantes' group,
_Le Saint Suaire_, Vol I & II, Editions de la Renaissance 
Catholique, 1990.  The book is in French, though.

Now, if you're not concerned about scientific rigor, and generally
trust the 3 labs, then the question of the Shroud's status was
answered with the first dating run at the Arizona lab; even
though it gave a too recent 14th-15th century result, that would be
enough to rule out a 1st century cloth.  On the other hand, if you
hold that the tests should be done rigorously and with proper 
procedures before the results must be accepted, and because of
improper procedures do not grant absolute trust to the labs,
then there are questions to be dealt with.

Regarding the coins on the eyes--I gave references that were 
sufficient, if not ideal.  I think you're saying more than your
reference says anyway, and if YOUR reference doesn't even go
as far as you do, what more do I need to say:  Roman coins have
been found in 1st century Jewish graves.  How can you maintain a
monolithic 1st century Jewish hatred of such coins?

Frankly, I think I've done plenty on references.  I'm not trying to
make an argument from authority, after all; just trying to look at 
the evidence objectively and see what's strongest.

} Thus
} since you are the one who is trying to either discredit or dismiss as
} inappropriate, well documented tests and papers, it does behoove you to present
} more than speculation. 

Hmmm.  When I point out deficiencies in an argument, I'm 
"speculating."  I'll have to remember that.

} > There is no record that
} > anyone saw this before the computer enhancement, so it would be useless work
} > for a medieval artist.
} You are assuming that a forger would actually know that the coin would only
} show up under computer enhancement. 

Come on Dave, why do you do this sort of thing?  I had assumed that
I wasn't being clear and you were misunderstanding, but I know 
you're smart enough to catch what I was saying here.  I was not
making the assumption you have attributed to me.

If you're not going to think about what I've said, then there's
no point continuing.  You can knock down strawmen on your own.

Regarding your lengthy paragraph of statements that you didn't make
because of lack of documentation, I've heard most of them, and I would
probably have agreed with most.  But they again would say little or
nothing about the Shroud.  Eg., that the Shroud is one piece while
burial was probably in strips is inconclusive, because there wasn't
time for a full burial where the Shroud is concerned.

But I guess if I said that, it would just be "speculation" on my part?

} 			Facts are stubborn things.
} 				Alain Rene' Le Sage

Yes, they certainly are.

pjk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc