From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:34:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Sorry to take so long to reply, but it's been a nice, extra-long Labor Day 
weekend.  Now Paul Kominsky accuses me of setting up a straw man:

>} 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.

Actually Paul, you yourself have stated an explicit doubt that any forger
would include a detail which would only be of observable hundreds of years
after the forger was dead.  Your exact statement was:

> However, I think it is suggestive (the word I originally
> used when I first mentioned the coins) because it seems to be a level of
> detail unlikely for a supposed 14th century artist.  There is no record that
> anyone saw this before the computer enhancement, so it would be useless work
> for a medieval artist.

Admittedly my statement was a sarcastic manner of phrasing that argument.  On
the other hand it was the same sarcastic manner as is publically used by
pro-authenticity defenders of the shroud to frame this specific defense of the
shroud, eg: the 10/7/89 "Washington Post" in the article "THE MYSTERY OF THE
SHROUD", where a shroud defender marveled at:

   the "forger's" cleverness in placing coins on the deceased eyes, realizing
   that they would remain invisible until the advent of the NASA program's VP8
   Image Analyzer. There is evidence that one of the coins is a lepton, a 
   "mite" coined by Pontius Pilate... 

So you can rightfully condemn me for being inflammatory/sarcastic, but not for
using straw man. 

By the way Paul, if you are going to criticize me for using bad or
inflammatory arguments, then you should not include bad and inflammatory
arguments in the same article.  For example, it would behoove you to omit the
inflammatory "False Dichotomy" argument you presented, which states that
either I don't have any concern for scientific rigor and proper procedure, or
I *must* give definite doubt to the C14 tests and their being done in a
rigorous and proper manner:

> 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.

What makes this an especially interesting fallacy is that, when I had a
search made through Catholic Index of Periodicals for any recent comment on
the shroud in the Catholic literature, I found the church to be quite mute on
any suggestion of wrongdoing or fraud, or even on the shroud in general.  In fact
there were definitely no articles in any Catholic periodical about the shroud
in 1991, and the reference Librarian at our local Catholic University couldn't
find any for 1992 either.  The only statements I could find from the Catholic
Church on the issue, were from the time of the tests, and were statements
recognizing the validity of the tests (eg: from the Bishop of Turin).  Thus
by using your false dichotomy reasoning, we can conclude since the Church has
voiced no such doubts, it would seem that your Pope and his advisers on
matters of Science and Physics, do not care about "scientific rigor" and
"proper procedure" any more than I.  In any case it seems a bit hypocritical
for you to complain that you have been a target of an insulting fallacy and
then use one yourself.  By the way, on a side issue, the first mention of the
Shroud was in the middle of the 14th century (ie: 1353).  Why would the Arizona
Lab's dating of 14th to 15th century be considered "too recent?" Is there
actual some basis for your charge of "too recent," or is this editorializing
on your part?

Now as to your dismissal of some of my statements:

> 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.        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I obviously feel that this is a truly silly statement to make about the my
issues of "rubbings", craven images, and shroud strips.  Now since you have
twice recently complained that I have not shown courtesy or respect in my
arguments, I assume that you are trying say that this should be a courteous
discussion.  Thus I would conclude that if you really are trying to avoid
rhetoric jabs, then it would perhaps be better to avoid making such dismissive
and pedantic proclamations (just as it would be better for me to avoid
labeling them "pedantic proclamations," in my response). 

As to speculation you say:

> 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?

Very true Paul, I find it to be speculation.  For instance, as there is no
evidence that the Gospels, which are the only "record" of the crucifixion were
written before 70-90 CE, thus I would consider them speculation as well.  And
since I am sure that you are basing your assertion of partial burial, on the
"testimony" of the Gospels, I would consider your conclusions to be doubly
speculation (for that matter, you have presented no evidence that it was the
custom to wrap pre-burial bodies in such a cloth).  But don't feel bad Paul,
as almost all history is speculatory to some degree.  For instance, I
referenced a paper which gave evidence showing that it was not customary to
put coins on the eyes.  That though in itself does not prove though that no
such coins were ever put on eyes.  To me though, it does makes any cloth of
unknown origin, which exhibits such evidence to be a little more suspect. 
That is why I have never said that coins on the eyes would prove the shroud a
fake.  In fact what I did say was:

> Thus I still don't accept your assertion that the coins are "suggestive, 
> indirect evidence."  On the contrary I still see them as being indicative of
> a forger who thought that it was the custom to put coins on the eyes.

Now I agree that the coins don`t actually prove the verity or falseness of the
shroud.  Their presence is at best a strong indicator one way the other, and
the evidence I've seen would suggest that the coins weigh against the shroud. 
Now does that mean that there were no Jews who followed the Greek/Roman custom
of coins? No, I would assume that some Jews, like any other group, inevitable
got absorbed into the surrounding conquering culture.  But to me it sounds
rather questionable that faithful Jews would break one of the ten God given
commandments and put graven images on the eyes of the person they thought to
be the Messiah and "God incarnate" (especially as the custom is recorded to
have only pagan significance); I see that act as explicitly going against the
prohibition of graven images.  That would be seem to be little different from
having faithful Jews entomb Jesus in a burial cavern with a graven image on
the door (if such an claim were ever made, I would find it to be quite
questionable as well). 

As to your complaints on the C14 dating, I am now ordering your reference on
the matter through inter-library loan, so I can judge those complaints for
myself.  You were also correct that your French reference is pretty much
useless to me, so instead I shall write to the C14 dating labs and asking them
to address your concerns of scatter and weight differences.  I do find it odd
though, that the Church has not complained at all about the verity of the
tests.  If the results in dating scatter are that questionable, and the
difference in weights for the samples are that dubious, then it is odd that
you are the only Catholic who has the cannyness to see through such shoddy
methods.  It would seem that at least the Bishop of Turin or the many Catholic
physicists who are familiar with the process, would have expressed some doubt. 
Thus, since you brought it up and I cannot presently verify from your French
source, could you please present these differences in weight, so that we see
if they are significant or trivial.  In other words, are the differences
obviously due to fraud, or are they easily and trivially explained by
differences in humidity and scale calibration.  Further, are the "differences"
in weight below the level of accuracy of either scale (eg: I have experience
scales that presented 5 digits of accuracy but were accurate to only 3
digits). 

As to your argument that the "strip" of cloth tested was on the edge of the
shroud, and is possibly of a more recent manufacture than the rest of the
shroud, I will have to wait until I read the article in Nature.  Of course if
you have complaints about the actual fabric tested , you will have to blame
the Catholic Church which actually chose which threads were to be tested.  By
the way, are you stating that the strip is a sewn on piece of fabric? I
personally know nothing as of yet about this "strip", and I I ask this because
I have known some "strips" to be merely a change of weave at the edge of
cloth.  if it is merely a change in weave, then your complaint is impotent (I
will be sure to ask this question of the C14 labs as well, when I get their
address from the Nature article). 

Finally Paul, I will have to point that you have not not actually presented
any evidence which would cause me to have any significant doubts about the C14
dating labs.  You mention "scatter" in dating, but neither mention the scope
of that scatter, or present the the acceptable limits for such scatter (I'll
get that information from the Nature article myself).  You also mention
differences in weight, but do not actually present those differences, or the
tolerances for such differences.  This is not sufficient evidence to support
suggestions of fraud or malfeasance.  Thus, in the spirit of "innocent until
proven guilty," I cannot give any real credibility at all to your suggestions
of fraud. 
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Knowledge consists in understanding the evidence that establishes 
    fact, not in the belief that it is a fact.
				Charles T. Sprading
				American Writer


    PS. sci.sceptic is also having a discussion about the shroud, and yes
    they are using references.