Prediction 63
Duration 10 years (02002-02012)
Predictor
Daniel R. Porter
Challenger
TBA
Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:
Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:
No one yet can explain how the images on Shroud of Turin, with all their unusual physical and chemical properties, came to be on the cloth without violating basic laws of physics.
I remember, many years ago, the claim of some, that according to the laws of aerodynamics it is impossible for a bumblebee to fly. “Forget that you see one flying,” a physics professor of mine had said, “it is impossible for it do so.” What he meant, of course, is that a scientific explanation still eluded scientists. We now know, with the aid of very high-speed photography, of the unusual of motions of the bumblebee’s wings that enable it to fly. And the laws of aerodynamics stand. Are the mysteries of the Shroud’s images, like that of the flight of the bumblebee? Is it that a perfectly good explanation simply eludes scientists, for now? Perhaps. But the properties of the images are astounding to my way of thinking. I cannot imagine an explanation that will meet the criteria. I must bet against the proposition.
It is important, nonetheless, to seek an explanation for how the images came to be on the cloth because untold numbers of people throughout the world believe that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. Current thinking about the Shroud has the potential to significantly effect long term theological and philosophical thinking. For some, this belief is by faith alone, scientific and historical evidence not withstanding. But there are many others who argue for authenticity on the basis of scientific and historical evidence. Among them are archeologists, historians, chemists, physicists, botanists, palynologists, forensic pathologists, image analysts, art historians, textile experts, and technical photographers. Many are from leading academic institutions or from prestigious scientific establishments including the Los Alamos Laboratory, the Israel Antiquities Authority, Sandia Labs, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago. Their work, which is well documented, formidable in detail, and carefully peer reviewed, warrants consideration.
Other are convinced that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake relic. In 1988 scientists at three prominent radiocarbon dating laboratories used carbon 14 dating to show that the fabric of the Shroud was very likely produced between 1260 and 1390. To these scientists who claimed that they were 95% certain about their findings – and to many others as well – it was preposterous to think that anyone would still believe that the Shroud was the real thing.
But controversy rages, and the Shroud’s age and provenance is uncertain. There is significant forensic, scientific, and historical evidence that suggested that the cloth is much older than the carbon 14 date. And serious questions have surfaced about the accuracy of the carbon 14 testing. It was discovered that the fibers of the Shroud have, over many years, developed a plastic-like biofilm of microorganisms significant enough to skew the dating process. Other evidence has come to light suggesting that the samples used for the carbon dating the cloth include newer thread from reweaving and mending of the cloth. With the carbon 14 dating in question, scientists have focused on mysteries about the images; the faint front and back images of a man, apparently in burial repose, who seems to have been scourged and crucified. These images are unique. In works of art, among ancient artifacts, and in descriptions in the annals of history, there is nothing like the Shroud of Turin with its unusual images -- images . . .
1) that are the result of numerous discrete and discontinuous lengths of discolored fibrils of the linen thread, the result of dehydration and oxidation of the cellulose molecules – a chemical change to the linen itself – which produces discoloration. The length of the image fibrils ranges from 200 microns to 1000 microns. The discoloration is uniform over their lengths suggesting that the chemical change was abrupt and complete.
2) in which the discoloration is a single shade of color. What we see with the unaided eye, or in photographs, as darker and lighter shades of color is actually the result of the density of the minuscule lengths of discolored fibrils in any given area – not unlike the half-tone process used for printing pictures in newspapers and magazines and not unlike the technique of etching lines in engravings. With the Shroud, however, this method of shading is implemented at a microscopic level.
3) that are superficial, meaning that the discoloration is limited to only the topmost crown fibrils of the cloth’s thread. There is no image beneath any cross threads, and no patterns of capillarity, ruling out the possibility of any liquid chemicals or paints being used.
4) that are like photographic negatives which when photographed as a negative produce positive images. This was discovered by an amateur photographer, Secondo Pia, in 1898 and was confirmed by numerous photographers over the years. Today, anyone with a home computer can prove this property using simple graphics software.
5) images that contain realistic three-dimensional information relating image density at any particular point to the distance between the cloth and the body at that point. Further, this apparently projective information can be shown to be collimated and anisotropic as demonstrated by the lack of any side images. The data points, being the density of discolored fibrils at places on the images (represented in photographs as grayscale values), can be plotted to produce a realistic isometric image of a human form from different angles. This can be demonstrated on a personal computer with conventional ray tracing graphics software. No known painting or other work of art (nor a photograph of the human form) will produce such results.
Although we do not have any confirmed explanations for these properties, they have been used to test a number of artistic rendering and naturalist hypotheses. All have failed to meet the criteria. Methods include albedo imaging as in conventional photography, engravings and paintings of various types, artistic sketches, chemical or pigment contact prints, thermal images from statues, vaporous chemical stains and bas-relief rubbings. The most popularized hypothesis was that the images were painted. This hypothesis was advanced by the discovery of minute particles of paint pigments that were in common use in medieval Europe. But various tests, including x-ray and spectrographic chemical analysis, show that nowhere on the cloth are there sufficient densities of the paint pigments to produce a visible image. What is there is likely contaminants from the practice of placing paintings onto the Shroud and other relics for sanctification (a common medieval practice) and from miniscule flecks of paint always falling from frescoed ceilings of churches and cathedrals. Most importantly, a painted image cannot meet the image properties cited above.
In recent years, some theoretical physicists (and some highly polemic authors) have advanced the possibility that a dematerializing body formed the images. Such a method, some argue, would meet the image properties. But such a method would defy the laws of physics, as we understand them. Considering Einstein’s law about the conversion of matter into energy – and what else could a bodily dematerialization be – the resulting explosion would leave us without a Shroud to wonder about and a crater in the Middle East the size of ancient Jerusalem.
I am betting that an image formation explanation will not be forthcoming in the years ahead, at least not one that meets the criteria and conforms to the laws of physics. It may be that a perfectly acceptable naturalistic process will be found, one not thought of yet. It may be some yet unknown artistic method will be discovered. But short of an answer, for as long as it may be that there is no answer, people will be able to speculate about the possibility of a miracle – a miracle being the plausible alternative to a naturalistic or artistic method.
The great philosopher of empirical skepticism, David Hume, some two hundred and fifty years ago, challenged very effectively (but never disproved) the possibilities of miracles when he wrote, “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.” It could be that Hume’s skepticism is now being put to the test. The criteria, for now, suggest that it is a miracle by Hume's own standard. But that is so only because an explanation so far eludes scientists. I contend that an explanation will continue to elude scientists.
Sign in to challenge Daniel R. Porter to a bet on this prediction!
By 2012 scientists will develop an explanation for how images on the Shroud of Turin came to be on the cloth, an explanation that satisfies all of the physical and chemical properties of the images and does not violate basic laws of physics.
Go to Bet
Often mutually contradictory. Is it required that one explanation be accepted by the 'scientific community' as the _correct_ one, or is it only required that a _possible_ hypothesis be presented?
If the latter then there are already any number of hypotheses that can be considered for plausibility (e.g. http://www.shroud.it/GOLIKOV1.PDF ).
Finally "all of the physical and chemical properties of the images" does that mean a) "... as presently known." or b) "... as can be determined with further tests."
The difference being significant in view of a) many tests have been suggested, b) some doubts have been raised (e.g. over possible organic contamination affecting carbon dating)
If the bets successful resolution depends on additional tests being carried out then it depends in turn on the willingness of its keepers to allow those tests to go ahead.
Paul, you are right that there are inadequate criteria for resolving the bet. If someone chooses to take the bet – where are all the skeptics? – criteria will need to be defined as we negotiate the final bet. Any hypothesis will not do unless we can measure its acceptability. As for all of the physical properties, I suggest that it would be all of the known properties at the time of either the bet or at the time of the bet resolution.
I do not think that Golikov, cited by you has developed any complete hypothesis. He has proposed that the images are from natural cause. Yes! Fine! But what. For instance he talks about the possible lens quality of cellulose in producing what appears to be collimated imagery and it may be reasonable. But he relies on assumptions that are scientific implausibilities. He writes of “beams . . . influences emanating from human body . . . [that the] source of influence having produced the image on the
fabric was in fact pulsatile.” He rules out chemical and thermal influences for the images and explores the possibility of electromagnetic radiation and highly charged particles. But on what basis? For this to be a viable hypothesis he must at least entertain a possible source or cause for these possibilities, it would seem. Many have wondered why Jesus died so quickly on the cross. Was Jesus, or whoever, radioactive? Golikov has proposed half of a hypothesis for a natural process.
I would be delighted if further testing on the Shroud was to take place. Additional physical properties of the image would be helpful. But even those imagined or speculated on, by Golikov and others, do not yield any complete hypotheses yet.
Miracle is a hard word for many to swallow. I know. I’m a skeptic at heart. I agree that scientists come up with explanations all the time. All we need is one good explanation and a criteria for validating the explanation --- and a taker for the bet who thinks that will happen in the next ten years.
"I do not think that Golikov, cited by you has developed any complete hypothesis."
Well, obviously the first part of 'considering a hypothesis for plausibility' would to check it _is_ a true hypothesis ;-)
This could be an interesting discussion if more non-scientists enter into the fray. I am willing to start off with a few definately non-scientific observations.
It is with great amusement that I have over the years, particularly since the launch of Voyager and the outstanding success of the Hubble telescope, read many articles with the general theme, "With what we are learning, we are going to have to rewrite the laws of physics" or words to that general effect. I wonder, should all of those PhD theses that were based on those laws needing or receiving review/rewrites be sent back to the good Drs. with a notification that their title has been reclassified as "Mr." Of course, they could try again with the newly discovered information and possibly regain the exhalted Dr. status.
The point is, scientific research and the successful meeting of research criteria is, at least to the outsider, much like the colloqial phrase, "Just when I have all the answers, they change the questions." Also, scientists from different disciplines even disagree with each other about whether or not the assimilated research is compatible - does one criteria trump another, or one result negate another? To satisfy scientific researchers' questions, let alone irrational criteria, with what can only ever be a hypothesis in their minds would be a lot like trying to answer the old debate about "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
My proposition, then, is to set the criteria and challenge the scientists to invalidate it with counter-evidence exclusive of theoretical laws of physics. The start of the criteria could be a simple as "Establish that there is in fact a visible image on the cloth."
I probably need to apologize at this point for perhaps offending scientific researchers. I have a great deal of respect for their work and the advances of the human condition that have resulted. That is not to say, however, that this post is in any way tongue-in-cheek. I am a simple, practical litigator who views questions such as this from an evidentiary viewpoint. Perhaps if I were a scientist, or at least more knowledgeable about the laws of physics, I would not be able to suggest this discussion. But, then, no one on this board actually knows at this point how knowledgeable (or ignorant) I am, or how much research/assimilation of information I could do in a short time.
Is anyone interested in a discussion deciding how to establish the criteria, and the acceptable parameters of meeting it, in conjunction with the scientific community so that there is as much credibility as possible confered on the outcome, but not having the criteria dictated by those very people who can "change all the questions?" If not, please feel free to laugh it off, and we can call it a day!
Thanks for your consideration of this proposterous discussion...
"[...] with the general theme, "With what we are learning, we are going to have to rewrite the laws of physics" or words to that general effect."
The two most important reasons those sort of statements are often read are
1. Those doing the discovering want to play up the importance as much as possible.
2. Those selling magazines / news programs / documentaries wnt to play up the importance as much as possible.
Despite what you have heard, the 'laws' that get rewritten are (almost exclusively) those floating half formed around the edge of knowledge.
I happened to hear an interview on the news this evening with someone who argued that he has not seen any real evidence that men walked on the moon. He suspects that the US government faked everything and that the television images were produced in a secret studio. Evidence is pointless to a man who is so distrusting. And of course, he has no evidence for his contention.
Diana D. Johnston suggests that we “set the criteria and challenge the scientists to invalidate it with counter-evidence exclusive of theoretical laws of physics. The start of the criteria could be a simple as ‘Establish that there is in fact a visible image on the cloth.’
Our fellow who doubts that men have walked on the moon might suggest that the some 10,000 photographs of the Shroud have been faked beginning in 1898 and having continued for a century. He would also suspect that the thousands who have viewed the cloth in Turin in recent years and those who have described its visible images for several centuries are also conspirators. Is there a visible image on the cloth?
I like very much like Diana’s point. But what must the scientists invalidate? Consider that the image is dimensionally encoded. What does this mean? It means that the image is not a picture in the traditional sense, one intended to represent what we see with our eyes – with respect to the human form, reflected light. Artists use highlights, shadows and cast-shadows to give a sense of dimensionality to the human form. A camera captures this naturally. The image we see on the Shroud is a topographical dataset. Ray tracing software takes this data and does with it what the artist does when he renders what he sees. Forget that it looks like a picture; it isn’t one. How should a scientist invalidate this? He cannot. He can only present a hypothesis for how this image was impressed on the cloth. Or did I miss your point, Diana?
For argument’s sake – and only for argument’s sake – I contend the image is the byproduct of a miracle or some wholly unknown process (the logic student will argue that the image itself could be a miracle and not the result of such). Can this be challenged?
Diana, if a small jury of people qualified to judge a serious theory or hypothesis were to convinced that a viable explanation is offered I would consider that I have lost the bet. How do we select the jury? They need not be scientists. But they need to be able to comprehend the explanation and articulate their assessment. And of course, we must avoid the fellow who believes that men have not walked on the moon.
First, let me thank you for your responses. I appreciate the clarifications by both writers, and believe we are on our way to an interesting discussion combining scientific findings and cold hard logic. I trust that Paul will be able to stear us away from the 'laws that get rewritten that are those floating half formed around the edge of knowledge' and Daniel can provide a valuable check to our discussion for misinformation derived from not being able to comprehend the scientific explanation or articulate an assessment.
I have not heard of the gentleman who suspects the moon walk (exclusive of Michael Jackson's moonwalking) never occurred except in a secret studio, although I recall a movie with the same theme starring James Brolin, Sam Waterston and the ex-football player Jim Brown. I have also heard of the $1 million reward being offered by I believe the KKK to anyone who can 'prove'that the holocaust actually happened, claiming that no credible evidence exists that it did. Simon Weisenthal and his organization have repeatedly refused openly to give the creditibility to this 'reward' that presenting evidence would confer -- perhaps for the same reasons Daniel posed in his reply post: how does the 'jury' get selected? They need to be able to comprehend the explanation (evidence) and articulate their assessment.
And then there is the flat earth society, and the UFOlogists, abductees, fourth dimensionalists, X-filers, ad infinitum.
No, Daniel, you did not miss my point. Rather, you clarified some of the parameters very , nicely. I would propose a somewhat serious discussion combining scientific knowledge and logic, hopefully successfully combined, and possibly coming to the conclusion that barring evidence to the contrary, the image may be the result of an occurrence inexplicable by either, commonly known by the term "miracle."
I will post again soon once I have had time to review the replies in more depth and compose another initial discussion post. I am very much looking forward to this as I believe it can be fun, informative and challenging. Thanks again for your interest.
Diana, it seems appropriate to quote CS Lewis here:
“In all my life I have met only one person who claims to have seen a ghost. And the interesting thing about the story is that that person disbelieved in the immortal soul before she saw the ghost and still disbelieves after seeing it. She says that what she saw must have been an illusion or a trick of the nerves. And obviously she may be right. Seeing is not believing.”
Is that not the crux of the problem? “Seeing is not believing.” Lewis goes on to say:
“If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been the victims of an illusion. If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say.”
But the dimensionally encoded image seems more than an illusion. And it is very extraordinary. It is there. No other known image of a human form exists that is a dimensionally encoded dataset. There is no trickery. This 3D quality can be proven.
If we say that the image is a miracle or the byproduct of a miracle, how could we find an unbiased jury? But, a theory explaining how the dimensionally encoded image came to be impressed on the cloth is quite another matter. For that must be tested for plausibility by science and logic. On that, reasonable people can, free of their inclinations about the supernatural, decide.
"But the dimensionally encoded image seems more than an illusion. And it is very extraordinary. It is there. No other known image of a human form exists that is a dimensionally encoded dataset. There is no trickery. This 3D quality can be proven."
What the heck is a 'dimensionally encoded dataset'. If you do a search on "dimensionally encoded"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q="dimensionally+encoded"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
you find messages posted by 'Bobbycindi' in alt.turin-shroud and that is practically _all_ you will find. It's pretty hard to prove that something is / isn't the case if you are just making up words to describe it.
As for "3D quality", given that it isn't a) a hologram, b) a magic eye picture, c) Encoded in red / green with accompanying 3D Glasses perhaps you could be more specific in what you mean.
In 1976, research physicists John Jackson and Eric Jumper along with an image specialist Peter Schumacher examined a photograph of the Shroud with the Interpretation Systems VP-8 Image Analyzer at the Sandia Scientific Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. NASA developed the VP-8 analyzer for creating three-dimensional plots of the moon and the earth's surface. The scientists discovered that a picture of the Shroud produced a highly detailed three-dimensional isometric plot.
A normal black and white photograph (or monochrome photograph of any single color) is an image of varying amounts of reflected light. So is a painting and many other forms of art. Light colored surfaces approach white and dark surfaces tend towards black. The Shroud, however, is a "dimensionally encoded dataset" of the proximity of the fabric to the body. Closeness appears darker (a scorched-linen color) and distance is lighter. The tip of the nose is dark because it was close to or touching the linen at the time the image was formed. The recesses of the eyes, being farther away, are lighter.
Peter Schumacher describes the discovery of the Shroud's 3D image this way:
"Jackson placed an image of the Shroud of Turin onto the light table of the system. He focused the video camera of the system on the image. When the pseudo-three-dimensional image display ("isometric display") was activated, a "true-three-dimensional image" appeared on the monitor. At least, there were main traits of real three-dimensional structuring in the image displayed. The nose ramped in relief. The facial features were contoured properly. Body shapes of the arms, legs, and chest, had the basic human form. The result from the VP-8 had never occurred with any of the images I had studied, nor had I heard of it happening during any image studies done by others."
"I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin before that moment. I had no idea what I was looking at. However, the results were unlike anything I have processed through the VP-8 Analyzer, before or since. Only the Shroud of Turin has produced these results from a VP-8 Image Analyzer isometric projection study."
Now, with personal computers and readily available 3D modeling or ray tracing software, anyone can demonstrate the phenomenon. I have personally done so on a fairly typical home computer. Any scanned-in picture of the Shroud will work. So far as is known, this quality is unique to the Shroud image. No photograph, painting, or other work of art has this quality.
I say dataset because each x-y coordinate, point if you will, contains an analog data value (seen by our eyes as darker or lighter). The value represents dimensional data because when it is plotted it renders a realistic 3D image. With three-dimensional modeling this image can be rendered from various viewing angles. Thus it is dimensionally encoded.
A typical photograph, as an example, could be called a reflected-light encoded dataset. It is not dimensionally encoded. The Shroud is not reflected-light encoded.
I can read the Gospel accounts and doubt their veracity. I can have a religious experience and wonder if it is psychological. I can see an apparition (not that I believe in them) and wonder the next day if I did. I can look at a photograph of the Loch Ness monster and easily doubt it is real. The same is true for crop circles, fuzzy images said to be alien spaceships, etc. etc. etc. I cannot doubt - nor can anyone who does the experiment - that the Shroud image is dimensionally encoded. That is unless I agree with CS Lewis that seeing in not always believing.
References:
Photogrammetric Responses From The Shroud of Turin, Peter M. Schumacher
The Turin Shroud: from the photo to the three-dimensional, Aldo Guerreschi
Apologies... There was a repeated paragraph at the end of this comment, so I took the liberty of fixing it.
For those interested, there's a whole collection of technical papers about the Shroud---taking both sides---at
http://www.shroud.com/papers.htm
Your "Dimensionally encoded dataset" is a relief map.
In order that this property of the shroud prevent be significant to the bet resolution it has to be shown that
this property could not have occurred by chance. Or, as a minimum, that there is an insignificant probability of such a property occurring by chance.
One way that could quite easily be checked is to track down as many pictures as possible from the appropriate time period* that are "Symmetrical, with uniform lighting of the features, hence produce a symmetrical, undistorted image after processing." and see how realistic the 3D appearance is of each. If (after comparable processing) a significant percentage are judged** 'as or more' realistic than the Turin Shroud then that property is not a 'show stopper' for rational explanation of the Turin Shroud.
* I.e. that of a) the period suggested by carbon dating or b) the period suggested by whatever theory is being investigated.
** Ideally the image processing would be done automatically and the 'realism' test carried out by people who do not know where the 3D image they are looking at originated.
I should think that this matter has already been settled. The shroud was manufactured by placing a cloth over a bas-relief statue and patting it with a pigment, much as tombstone "rubbings" are done today. Aside from die-hard religious fanatics, does anyone dispute this?
"Aside from die-hard religious fanatics, does anyone dispute this?"
*shrug* It isn't that obvious from web searches, possibly because it is a 'crank-worthy' subject.
Searching using keywords suggested by the method you mention finds pages like this one http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/sphysical.html that is (at least superficially) somewhat balanced and informed. Note, however, that the end result is far from clear cut in that site.
Could you cite the most authorative article on the subject supporting that method - preferably from a peer-reviewed journal?
=========================================================
More to the point, the bet text summary states
"By 2012 scientists will develop an explanation for how images on the Shroud of Turin came to be on the cloth, an explanation that satisfies all of the physical and chemical properties of the images [...]"
Note that it says _an_ explanation not _the_ explanation and does not explicitly require that the explanation be a) undisputed or b) accepted by the majority of scientists.
Unless that language is cleared up a 'YES' result is almost un-avoidable.
In response to David J. Mullenix writing, “Aside from die-hard religious fanatics, does anyone dispute this?”
Yes. I do. So do most people who have studied the Shroud; both those who believe that it is authentic and those who are skeptical as well as those who try to be open-minded, as I try to be.
The problem with the bas-relief technique is that it will not produce an image that meets any of the physical properties of the Shroud’s images, particularly dimensional encoding. While attempts at bas-relief rubbings have been made by magician Joe Nickell, the images produced are not “terrain maps.” Anyone with a home computer can test any bas-relief rubbing produced image with 3D rendering software including JASC Paint Shop, POV-Ray, and Corel’s Bryce to see clearly that bas relief rubbings do not render isometric 3D images. One need not be a die-hard religious fanatic to use this software.
What is interesting about this hypothesis is that there is no image underneath any bloodstains that are in perfect registry with wounds and contusions on the body in the image. This would require that real human blood be applied to the cloth in exact places where the wounds would flow before the rubbing is produced – quite a magical feat.
If you are looking for non-fanatics, I would suggest reading the works of Alan Adler (Jewish), Barrie Schwortz (Jewish), Avinoam Danin (Jewish) who all dispute that it is a bas-relief rubbing. There are dozens of papers that deal with the issue at shroud.com; simply search on “bas relief.”
David, I too would like to see an articulate and authoritative article in defense of bas-relief.
Addendum to David: in fact most “skeptics” reject the bas-relief rubbing. I should have added that. Walter McCrone has long argued that it is a medieval painting. One current theory is that it is a medieval photograph, a hypothesis advanced by Nicholas Allen.
Another important skeptic is John Dominic Crossan, a preeminent historian, biblical scholar, and Jesus Seminar Fellow. He must be considered because of his excellent scholarly reputation. Unfortunately, with the Shroud, his analysis is flawed. He presupposes an understanding that it is a “medieval relic-forgery” but because he is seemingly impressed by the medically accurate forensic detail of the Shroud’s images and bloodstains, he writes: “I wonder whether it was done from a crucified dead body or from a crucified living body. That is the rather horrible question once you accept it as a forgery.” You might remember that is was Crossan who stirred quite a controversy by suggesting that Jesus was not even buried.
Of course, this is sadly uncharacteristic of Crossan, who is generally thorough with detail and logical in his assessments. Does Crossan imagine that his medieval crucifier and faker of relics added pollen and dirt from the environs of Jerusalem? Did the forger add images of flowers, some which are geographically specific to the Holy Land region? Did he use a fine quality linen cloth that was very likely produced several centuries earlier in the Middle East? Did he flog his victim with a Roman flagrum – where did he get it, how did he know about it? Did the relic faker take the trouble to ensure that, when his victim was crucified, his bloodstains would match those of the Sudarium that has been kept in Oviedo, Spain, since the eighth century? Why and how, we must ask, in an age when any sliver of wood could pass for a piece of the cross and a bramble could pass as part of the crown of thorns, did Crossan’s faker go to such elaborate troubles?
David, the bas-relief notion is equally as problematic, is it not?
in the event that someone takes the 'No' position on this bet, that the bet will not be resolved through mutual agreement of the bettors but will have to be decided by LongBets staff and / or independently suggested judges.
I personally believe in the miracle of the Shroud- I don't think I'm beyond being convinced otherwise, but what I've seen seems to defeat all the standardized aging tests so convincingly, that something clearly appears to be up. (Had we "discovered" the Shroud in 1950, say, I would be more open to doubt- but the same piece of cloth has been under close scrutiny for centuries- I think that's key.)
If I am right, of course the contention of the bet will be proven wrong, and the Shroud will continue to defeat science. As a fallback position, I believe that enough scientists will retain enough religious belief to require a higher level of proof than their own experiments will be able to produce.
Final point- the more the Shroud appears to resist analysis (leaving a residue of those who think the test hasn't worked in each case) the more invulnerable it will become to logical analysis. There will be so many exceptions, and such a strength of will among its defenders, with an ever-growing body of evidence to bolster their claims- that the skeptics will simply give up trying to convince them. In fact, the skeptics may become the minority and become the ones ignored. The Shroud is a harmless miracle- without political or ethnocentric content- and I believe the average person will be able to co-exist with its mystery.
that´s how to make your own homemade reliquiary:
put some makeup on your face and while it´s still wet, put a table cloth over your face. just let it lie on your face.
now what do you get? a image in the form of the famous original?
no. it looks more like a horrible smiley. so that´s not how it was done!
what is the secret?
scientist foud particels of silver oxide on the cloth.
they reproduced the effect of a cloth, impregnated with silver oxide emulsion, that was put in a dark room with a little hole (a camera obscura) in front of the hole there was a dead body. the image of the body was reflected throug the hole and banned on the cloth. the solver reacted with the light and "burned" or oxidiesed the cloth and voilá! a holy piece of worshipping which washed cash into the church of turin. until today!
no one refuses to belief that there is not an image of a bearded man on the holy towel of turin. it is there. just as it would bee on a photographic glass!
this artefact is priceless! not because it shows jeses! no! because it is the oldest photograph in the world and it shows us a picture of a medieval man! (the cloth is presumeably from the 14th century as c 14 points out.)
maybe it was made by a man as ingenius as leonardo da vinci which died soon after and took the secret of photographing into his grave.
excuse the bad spelling and grammar, i am not a native speaker.
But I know what it is, if the properties enumerated by the prediction are correct.
In discussing the three-dimensional data stored in the shroud, it is said,
"No known painting or other work of art (nor a photograph of the human form) will produce such results."
This statement is incorrect, or at least incomplete. There is in fact one pictographic technique which shares this particular property, and that is holography.
The shroud is just a holograph, albeit a unique and unconventional one. That needs no further explanation. What does require a great deal of explanation is how someone figured out how to make a holograph in the shroud's era.
Look, the Shroud is a medieval forgery. Carbon 14 dating proves it. It's as simple as that! Anything else is just wrong!
I'd just like to respond to the assertion Daniel Porter made in his original explanation. Daniel writes,
"... short of an answer, for as long as it may be that there is no answer, people will be able to speculate about the possibility of a miracle – a miracle being the plausible alternative to a naturalistic or artistic method."
Of course, people will be free to speculate about whatever they wish; however, believing that a miracle is "the plausible alternative" (THE mind you!) to believing that the stains in question were created by non-divine means seems, at best, misleading.
Why, precisely, would the absence of a scientific explanation lead one to believe that the stain was placed there by a divine power? In the absence of scientific evidence, there is as much reason to believe the stain was caused by a miracle--which, by the way, is definitively implausible because miracles are events that are implicitly unlikely and incredible--as there is to believe that the stains we see were caused by Thor, Satan, Leprachauns, time travelers, Faerie Princesses, or any other being whose existence science cannot disprove (science cannot prove that any given thing does not exist, with a few exceptions).
Call me a cynic, but I'm a wee bit tempted to believe that if the Shroud of Turin bore the likeness of anything OTHER than a religious icon (except perhaps the other King, Elvis), then the first scientific-sounding explanation to have been uttered would have been sufficient to end the argument long ago. The reason the argument persists is, of course, because faithful Christians consider the Shroud to be a vindication of their unprovable beliefs (not being insulting here: faith is belief in that which cannot be proven).
My point is this: the Shroud may not be satisfactorily explained by 2012 (and even if it were explained tomorrow, many, MANY upset, faithful people would challenge the proof for many, many years), but conclusive scientific explanations that satisfy all the physical and chemical properties of the Shroud of Turin (or anything else for that matter) need not be found for one to believe in natural causes--not as an article of faith, but as the only TRULY plausible alternative--to the seemingly impossible.
As Daniel Porter suggests, just consider the bumblebee.
Perhaps someone can tell me what exactly is on the Shroud of Turin that makes people believe it is a Miracle.
Before one says, its the image of Christ, please remember that we have no verifiable image of Christ. No portrait was ever drawn, and the image of Christ as we know it today didn't even exist until the sixth century.
Are we simply talking about the fact the Turin has a portrait of Christ on it, or is there something else about the Shroud that is still unknown?
Not only is it a falsification via Carbon 14 dating, it is also falsified under laser spectrum dating as well as a small sample analyzed for chemical content only to find that it was not blood but an easily replicable painting solution.
I have seen the in depth studies on this already and it's been proven to be a forgery conclusively.
The outcome of this bet will not be determined by whether or not it is possible but whether any scientist will waste their time trying to prove it or any 'believer' will pay for objective impartial research.
I also do not believe that the predictor will accept any evidence.
A challenge is therefore pointless. It will merely reinforce belief.
The key phrase you used in your prediction is "that satisfies all of the physical and chemical properties..." No argument or evidence will ever satisfy ALL the questions for or against. And true believers will never believe it's not real anyway.
Your prediction is an argument of semantics, much like today's politics. Both sides claim to be right, both sides offer 'scientific evidence', and both sides attempt to debunk the other side's arguments. In the end you're left with inconclusive assumptions.
The easiest way to debunk the Shroud of Turin is simply to look at it with an open mind and use common sense. Look closely at the fingers... they are artificially elongated for the sake of modesty (the long fingers cover Jesus' genitalia). The shroud is a work of art. Northing more.
Please sign in to comment.