Posted on 08/09/2008 1:52:58 AM PDT by Swordmaker
I have.
BS
It's not up to anyone to prove him wrong. In science, the person making the claim has to prove the claim.
And the indpendent evidence to prove his claim is lacking.
Where's his *proof* that the actual image on the Shroud itself results from pigmentation?
Not just his assertion -- it must have been independently tested by disinterested observers.
Or, even better, instrumental analysis (such as light absorption or scattering) which scans across the wavelengths of visible light, (or even IR spectroscopy or UV spectroscopy) which will specifically detect the functional groups present in the dyes McCrone shows are present. And the presence of controls for his assertions would be nice, too.
Not to mention studies to show the miniumum concentration of these pigments which need to be present to show an image -- and control samples to demonstrate this, together with analytical chemistry studies (non-destructive, of course) on the areas of the Shroud where there is an image, to compare those values...
Here's one of McCrone's own papers.
Can you show me in detail where he has done this?
*Snerk*.
Cheers!
The author of the criticism that I posted states the he has personally identified the same substances as McCone.
These facts were conclusively proved beyond even a shadow of doubt by microscopic chemist Walter McCrone, whose microscopic analysis revealed the presence of abundant iron oxide (red ochre) and cinnabar (vermilion) pigments on the Shroud. He published the photographic and chemical evidence in his papers and book. I have microscopically observed these pigments myself on Shroud fibers and can attest to this fact (see below).
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic//shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm
Which paper are you referring to? Have you noticed that other people give the links, or the post number, but you haven't?
If you (for example) are referring to this
, then by his own open, explicit admission he is *very* biased:
As it is, educated, informed, and rational individuals don't believe the Shroud is authentic, tend to look on the controversy with either disgust or boredom (as I certainly do), and wish to get on with their lives. The Shroud of Turin is, after all, a notorious religious relic of the Catholic Church, and thus should be regarded with the same skepticism and contempt as other such relics.
Fail.
And the other challenges in my post 103 remain ignored.
If you *did* mean some other posting of yours, let me know which one, and please, do try to address the other points.
Cheers!
Incidentally, neither
"He published the photographic and chemical evidence in his papers and book"
nor
"I have microscopically observed these pigments myself on Shroud fibers and can attest to this fact (see below)."
counts as peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Can you post the footnotes to his papers, so I can see if they are in peer-reviewed, mainstream journals -- recall that part of the rant in the article "A skeptical reply..." said without corroboration that Rogers had supplied the referees for his own paper, and gone journal shopping.
Since your source brought up such a charge, be prepared to defend against the same charge.
BTW, the instrumental and other evidence I asked for has not yet been covered in your posts.
Cheers!
Cheers!
So he isn't qualified to identify minerals under a polarizing microscope?
So he isn't qualified to identify minerals under a polarizing microscope?
optical examination of crystals != pyrology. non-sequitur. And no controls.
And not peer reviewed.
And no objective (instrumental studies to distinguish other species chemically).
And no studies to find the level of pigment necessary to create an image.
And an inability to create such an image with the actual characteristics of the real Shroud -- which is dismissed because "the issue has already been settled."
And ad hominem accusations of bias accompanied by admissions (if not celebration) of his own bias.
And appeal to authority.
And speculation and venom concerning other scholars in the field, including accusations of academic fraud (referee shopping) and open incompetence on the part of peer-reviewed journals' editors.
And the logical error of guilt by association with different authors about a completely unrelated topic.
.
Cheers!
Thanks for the ping!
It is simply a case of refractive index. It is iron oxide.
McCrone’s analysis was peer reviewed
The report was sent to Pope Clement VII by Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, in 1389. This was some 35 years after the shroud appeared in France - inexplicably and with no account of its earlier whereabouts.
The bishop’s text began: ‘’The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes, the dean of a certain collegiate church . . . falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb.’’
After telling how the shroud had been exhibited as genuine, and how ‘’pretended miracles’’ were staged to promote belief in the shroud’s authenticity, d’Arcis said: ‘’Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination’’ - an earlier bishop of Troyes -’’discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it.’’
Funny thing, Grey, this is also found on the page where our mutual thorn found his McCrone BAR sidebar on "The Shroud Painting Explained".
Deconstructing the "Debunking" of the Shroud
by
Daniel Scavone, Professor of History, University of Southern Indiana, USA
Karlheinz Dietz, Professor of History, University of Würzburg, Germany
John Markwardt, Historian, USA
Mario Latendresse, Physics, University of Montreal, Canada
Albert Dreisbach, Historian, USA
Mark Guscin, Classics Instructor, Spain
Joseph Marino, Librarian, The Ohio State University
Emanuela Marinelli, Classicist, Rome, Italy
Gino Zaninotto, Classicist, Rome, Italy(. . . . Sections omitted. . . .)
The D'Arcis Memorandum
Past Sindonoclasts (Shroud opponents), and now Gary Vikan, think they are revealing a historical coup against the TS when they cite this document. If the d'Arcis Memorandum (the Memo) is to be used as evidence, it should be assessed as all historical documents are: in detail and in its historical context. At least eight other documents clarify and even tend to impugn the Memo.
Doc. A. The Memorandum of Bishop Pierre D'Arcis of Troyes Addressed to Anti-Pope Clement VII in Avignon (1389)
D'Arcis states: "About" 1355 the church at Lirey procured a cloth on which, in a subtle manner, was depicted a twofold image which was falsely declared to be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. This was done to procure money from the multitudes attracted to the church. At that time Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes held an inquest at which an unnamed artist stated it had been manually depicted. This resulted in Henri ordering its removal from the church.The reader should note that this document alone, of those relating to the Lirey Shroud, cites this inquest. D'Arcis, who has never seen the Lirey cloth, goes on (paraphrased): Now I hear it has been replaced in the church to raise money. Its owner, Geoffroy II de Charny, claims it had been removed to safety by order of Henri because of the (Hundred Years) war then raging. Now it is spread about that I want the cloth myself. Geoffroy II has obtained from your Holiness a Brief (Doc. C) confirming permission to display the cloth, while I, as I hear, am ordered to perpetual silence.
The Other Documents
Doc. B. Bishop Henri's only letter addressed to Geoffroy I de Charny, original owner of the TS--dated 28 May 1356--mentions no inquest. In it Henri praises Geoffroy's piety and "... as we have been informed by legal documents, we praise, ratify, and approve a divine cult of this sort." The TS is not mentioned, and Henri has not gone to Lirey, but has "been informed." This letter denies the claims of d'Arcis. D'Arcis, a lawyer, who elsewhere carefully cites documents, cites no dated official documents in his Memorandum, saying only that the inquest had been held "about" 1355.
Doc C. Anti-Pope Clement VII's Brief to Geoffroy II, dated 28 July 1389 (about five months before the Memorandum of Bishop d'Arcis). Clement acknowledges the Charnys' religious motives for showing the cloth and agrees that it had been removed from the church and brought to safety because of war and pestilence. He permits the showing of the cloth publicly, but calling it a "figure or representation," and on Bishop d'Arcis, Clement imposes "perpetual silence." The Brief mentions no inquest, artist, or scandal.
Doc. D. Letter from King of France Charles VI to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 4 August 1389. "The Bishop of Troyes has stated before our Curia that the church in Lirey is displaying a certain handmade and artificially depicted cloth as if it were the true Sudarium Christi." The king commands the Bailly "to get the cloth and bring it to me so that I might relocate it in another church in Troyes."
An observant attorney might ask why, just months before the drafting of his Memo, d'Arcis, a canon lawyer, did not cite the damning evidence of Henri's inquest or the name of the artist? Had he done so, it would surely have been recited in the King's letter. Instead, the King mentions only d'Arcis' charge, not Henri's charge, that the image on the cloth was handmade. Fr. Herbert Thurston, first English translator of the Memorandum and a sindonoclast himself, noted this, adding that d'Arcis feared that the King would be able to verify its truth (Thurston, p. 26).
Doc. E. Report of the Bailly of Troyes, dated 15 August 1389, says, in essence: We went to the church at Lirey but the Dean would not hand it over to us, and we did not proceed further in the matter.
Doc. F. Letter from the First Sergeant of the King to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 5 September 1389: The writer says he officially announced to the Dean and to Geoffroy II that the cloth was verbally made the property of the King. Nothing, in the end, came of this.
Doc. G. Clement's letter to Bishop d'Arcis, dated 6 January 1390: Written after the Memo but not referring to it, as was customary, this letter says that the cloth was replaced in the church with Clement's permission, despite the Bishop's prohibition, and any opposing action would be visited with excommunication.
Doc. H. Papal Bull of Clement VII, dated 6 January 1390, admits he has changed his mind. First he repeats the words of his letter to Geoffroy II of 28 July 1389. He again orders d'Arcis to perpetual silence. Then follow the modifications: To remove every chance of error or idolatry in the display of the cloth, we ordain that whenever said figure or representation is displayed, one should announce loud and clear that it is not the true Sudarium of the Lord, but a picture or copy only.
Doc. I. Papal Bull also dated 1 June 1390. Six months later Clement again changed his mind. He again supports the Lirey shroud, making no mention of idolatry. Here is the gist: Since we have heard that crowds go to Lirey out of devotion to the cloth, we, desiring to encourage this pilgrimage, enlarge the indulgence for the faithful who visit said church annually at Christmas, etc. And we strictly prohibit anyone, of whatever rank, from appropriating or usurping the offerings of the faithful.
In summary, not one of these primary documents from 1356 to 1390, aside from the Memorandum, refers to an inquest or artist in 1355. Rather, Henri's letter praised Geoffroy I (Doc. B). Anti-Pope Clement VII in the end granted more indulgences than ever to visitors to Lirey (Doc. I). The documents also force us to conclude that neither Henri nor d'Arcis nor Clement ever saw the cloth in Lirey.
Most damning to those who would base their case against the TS on the Memorandum of Bishop d'Arcis are the following facts. First, all extant copies of the Memo are unsigned, undated drafts with words marked for deletion with the Latin "vacat" in the margin. All other documents discussed here are duly dated. No properly sealed copy of the Memo has ever been discovered in Avignon or Vatican archives. No document of Clement refers to it, suggesting it was never received. Most significantly, the heading of the copy in the Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris (Champagne 154, fol. 137) describes it as a letter d'Arcis "intends to write."
Clement's Bull (Doc. I) warns against anyone usurping gifts to the Lirey church. In his Memo, Bishop d'Arcis had shrugged off the notion that he coveted the cloth for his own gain, and he alludes often to greed. These money concerns were not for nothing. The construction of Troyes Cathedral (ca. 1200-1400) had suffered from the effects of The Hundred Years War and the plague, both events of d'Arcis' time. Then around Christmas 1389, precisely when the Memo was drafted (!), the nave of the unfinished Cathedral collapsed, and in 1390 a large rose window fell out. The shoddy work that led to these mishaps may be blamed on d'Arcis himself and caused him guilt, since "symptoms of structural distress had already been observed in the 1380s" (Murray, p. 54).
Is this sufficient evidence to cast a shroud of doubt on d'Arcis' words? Let us hope the d'Arcis Memorandum will be seen for what it really was, a claim by a good but needy bishop under pressure to remedy his own poor judgment in the procuring of building materials for his cathedral, one who was ready to scheme to acquire a relic to attract pilgrims' donations and then was found out and warned against pursuing that plan.
Perhaps they should check the kerning on the Memo as well.../Rathergate>
Full Disclosure: The problem is that some people *automatically* assume the Shroud's image is both that of Jesus, and "supernatural", and so must be false, and "needs debunking." I've come up with a new term to describe this phenomenon. "Shroud Derangement Syndrome".
If it were the Shroud of Brian of Nazareth, they'd all be trying to tease out the physical mechanism by which the image was formed -- and trying to use it to prove that Jesus never existed, but was a myth caused by distortions in the "Brian" story via repeated oral retellings...
Cheers! Cheers! Cheers!
Joe Nickell has been around that long?
What is the refractive index of iron oxide? Is it Iron (II) or Iron(III)?
Does the refractive index get modified by the size of the particles, the substrate on which they reside, or mixture with other substances?
Has the presence of iron oxide been confirmed by other means?
Does the presence of the iron oxide on the samples correspond to areas where the image resides on the Shroud?
What concentration of iron oxide is on the Shroud? Is it sufficient to produce the image?
Is there any way the iron oxide could have been introduced to the Shroud other than by the painting of a forgery? Hint: many paintings of Jesus resemble the image on the Shroud. If someone made a painting while near the Shroud (using it as a model), could any cross-contamination have occurred during the mixing of the paint, painting the image, or by storage near paints or paintings? How would one test this hypothesis?
What is the chain of custody of these samples?
Have any other substances been found on the Shroud, and in what concentrations? Do these give any information as to the history of the Shroud?
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.