From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<LEET.92Aug7081552@dove.ims.com>
	<1992Aug10.031334.3916@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:53:10 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 1992 03:13:34 GMT, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) said:

Tim> In article <LEET.92Aug7081552@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
> 
> >>>>> On Wed, 5 Aug 1992 06:07:18 GMT, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) said:
> 
> > In article <LEET.92Aug3132828@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:

> Tim> I'm also intrigued as to why you think Heller's book makes the idea
> Tim> that it's a medieval fake 'almost insupportable' given these facts.
> 
> I suggest you read (or re-read) Heller's book; he claims that many
> Shroud details were discovered only after modern scientific analysis,
> details that a medieval forger would not have needed to include.

Tim> Are these details really included, or do they exist mainly in the
Tim> eyes and fevered imaginations of the beholders?

This makes me wonder if you've read Heller's book (hey, I haven't
found a copy of Nickell's yet, myself - just his SI articles).  A
major theme of the book is that these anomalies were *unexpected* and
*astonishing* to the researchers.

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> Who says the nose was abraded? And so what if it is; many gothic
Tim> representations of the crucified Jesus show his entire body
Tim> covered with cuts and abrasions.

The abrasion appears in one of the scanning images (says Heller); it
and the supposed swelling of one knee are consistent with a man
falling and being unable to stop his fall (as if his arms were tied
to a crossbeam).

Tim> From the early 14th century onwards these representations became
Tim> more and more lurid in their detailed depiction of Jesus'
Tim> suffering (Grunewald's 'Crucifixion' is a fine example of this
Tim> tendency taken to a gruesome extreme). It is interesting that the
Tim> shroud also goes in for this very 14th century representation.
Tim> Earlier representations of the crucified Jesus did not emphasise
Tim> these elements.

And, as Ian Wilson points out at length, the question is whether the
Shroud borrows from other artworks, or vice versa.

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> The figure on the shroud has been flagellated, but to state
Tim> categorically that the whip used had dumbell-shaped tips, that
Tim> *only* Romans used such whips, and that a medieval painter would
Tim> never have thought of representing such tips is pushing things a
Tim> bit.

Not "would never have thought", but "probably would not have thought".
Before I accept the story that the Shroud is medieval, I would like to
know how the forger had access to 1st-century Roman torture implements.
Were samples preserved for 13 centuries, or was one discovered by a
medieval archaeologist?
 
> A true skeptic does not simply dismiss the details, but rather explains
> them so the "believer" has no room for belief.

Tim> Did I dismiss any legitimate details? The cloth has been reliably
Tim> carbon-dated to the 14th century.

It has been carbon-dated to the 14th century, but the reliability of
the date is under question.  For one thing, apparently the samples
were not blind.  Myself, I wonder why a piece of the Poor Clare nuns'
backing wasn't included as a sample, and whether or not the Shroud
samples were from one of the areas affected by the fire; I haven't
looked into the carbon-dating in detail yet.

Tim> The shroud first appears in the 14th century.

See Ian Wilson's books - maybe it "appears" earlier.  If Wilson's a
crackpot, where's the hole in his theory?

Tim> There is a huge and profitable market for sophisticated relics in
Tim> the 14th century. There are many talented and imaginative artists
Tim> who are prepared to filled this demand in the 14th century.

I completely agree.  Out of curiosity, who are your favorite candidates?

Tim> A leading scanning electron microscopist, Dr Walter McCrone,
Tim> identified that the image was painted in the cloth using an iron
Tim> oxide pigment, a pigment used in the 14th century.

Heller's last several chapters are a scathing critique of McCrone's work.

Tim> The shroud is linen with a herringbone twill weave, a weave used
Tim> in the 14th century. The shroud conforms to all the conventions
Tim> of the international Gothic artistic style which flourished in
Tim> France in the 14th century.

What is your opinion of the "points of congruity" with 6th, 8th and
10th century representations of Jesus?  It seems to me that we can't
have one and dismiss the other out-of-hand.

Tim> While it is a remarkable image, the figure on the shroud is not
Tim> prefect: 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> I'd say all this was pretty good evidence that the shroud is a clever
Tim> medieval fake produced for the De Charney family in the mid-14th century. 

> Others call the faithful "idiots" and
> "morons".  A dreadful choice, to ally oneself with either the
> intellectually deficient (e.g., Heller?)  or the namecallers.

Tim> If the latter is a reference to me, then I was calling people who
Tim> consider the medieval period to have been a primitive dark age of
Tim> unrelieved barbarism until the dawn of all that is wonderful in
Tim> the renaissance 'idiots' and 'morons'(this was how this whole
Tim> thread got started).

I would not claim that the medieval period was so primitive; I would
claim that the details found by the STURP team and others are
more than I would *reasonably* expect from a 14th-century French forger.
I refuse to electronically duplicate Heller's book and others just to
support my position.

Tim> The middle ages did produce artistic marvels (Chartres,
Tim> the Book of Kells etc) and were quite capable of producing the 
Tim> shroud and I was speaking as an irate medievalist.

And I was speaking as a skeptical Protestant (Who needs relics,
anyway?) who fully expected to find an open-and-shut case of "The
Shroud is a forgery", but it is not so.

Tim> If those who continue to believe that the shroud dates to the
Tim> first century also believe that the middle ages were an artistic
Tim> dark age, then my abuse stands for them also. ;-)

The middle ages were not an artistic dark age.
The middle ages were not an artistic dark age.
The middle ages were not an artistic dark age.
The middle ages were not an artistic dark age.
 ... etc.

As a follower of the person depicted (by whatever means) in the
Shroud, I cannot refer to someone as mentally deficient simply because
they disagree with me.  Malicious, perhaps, or misguided, but not
moronic.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "... and whosoever shall say to his brother,
Integrated Measurement Systems |  Raca, shall be in danger of the council;
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  be in danger of hell fire." - Matthew 5:22b
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      | 





Newsgroups: talk.origins